When Your Team Gets It Wrong
The accountability conversations that no one prepares you for
If you find this week’s post helpful hit the ❤️ button at the top of this email so that more leaders can find it.
In a recent session, a client described the moment her phone rang and she saw it was her CEO.
Her team had been running a client project. Something had gone wrong in the execution - not catastrophically, but enough to be noticed. The client had gone directly to the CEO. And now it had landed with her.
“In that moment, I felt like I was between a rock and a hard place,” she said. “Should I go straight to my team? Tell the CEO what happened before I even knew? And when I did speak to my team - do I protect them, or hold them to account? I felt completely torn.”
She had signed off on the plan, and the error happened in the execution - the part she wasn’t in the room for, nor should she have been. And yet there she was, fielding the fallout.
This is a moment most senior leaders will encounter and it rarely comes with a playbook.
What strikes me about this kind of moment is how quickly it gets framed as a binary: protect the team, or hold them to account.
But that framing is too simple, and it leads leaders to reach for one extreme or the other when the more useful response usually sits somewhere else entirely.
In practice, I see four distinct ways leaders respond when a team error surfaces upward. Each has a legitimate intent but each carries real risks. And understanding the difference matters - because the choice you make in the moment shapes both the culture you’re building and what your team learns about ownership.
The first is to absorb the responsibility entirely. The leader goes to the CEO and says: I signed off the plan, it’s on me. I’ll fix it. Then they go back to the team to sort it. The intent is to protect - to shield the team from external pressure, to preserve psychological safety. And it can work. It builds loyalty, and it signals that the leader genuinely owns the outcome. But if this becomes the default, the team can begin to feel insulated from the real consequences of their work. Errors that should inform how they operate simply don’t reach them.
The second is what I’d describe as shared accountability. The leader says to the CEO: I approved the plan, so the responsibility sits with me. There was an execution issue in the team, which we’re already addressing - here’s what we’re doing to correct it. This is a harder message to land well, because it can sound like deflection if it isn’t handled carefully. But when it is, it’s often the most mature response available. It maintains accountability upward without removing it from the team. It’s transparent about what happened without creating political exposure. And it reinforces, quietly, that execution standards matter.
The third frames the issue at a system level. The leader focuses not on who, but on what: there was a gap in how the plan was executed, and we’ve identified the process breakdown. This is genuinely useful when the failure reflects complexity or unclear coordination rather than individual negligence. It encourages learning and makes it harder for blame to take root. The risk is that it can become a way to sidestep individual accountability when that accountability is real and warranted.
The fourth is direct: the error happened in execution, I’m addressing it with the person responsible. Clear, unambiguous, performance-focused. In high-consequence environments, this is sometimes exactly right. But without care, it can read upwards as blame-shifting - and land internally as exposure rather than accountability.
What these four responses reveal is that the real challenge isn’t protection versus accountability. It’s managing three responsibilities at once: owning the outcome upward, developing ownership downward, and creating the conditions for genuine learning. The leaders I see handle this well tend to blend the first two - taking clear personal accountability to the CEO for the outcome, whilst ensuring accountability reaches the execution level internally.
That distinction matters because accountability is not blame. Blame is about attribution, finding who caused it. Accountability is about ownership, standards, and what comes next. When leaders conflate the two, teams learn to hide mistakes rather than surface them. The response to an error shapes whether people become more capable or more cautious.
These moments are also rarely just about the error. How you show up when something goes wrong - what you say upward, how you lead the internal conversation, whether you’re measured or reactive - tells your team a great deal about the kind of culture you’re building. Often more than the wins do.
Notice: Before you respond, it’s worth understanding your own instinct - and what’s driving it.
When an recent error landed with you, which direction did you move first - towards protecting the team, or towards making accountability visible?
Of the four responses above, which feels most instinctive to you, and which feels most uncomfortable?
Where does your own accountability genuinely sit here - in the plan, the environment, or the oversight?
Respond: How you frame errors upward will shape both how they are received and what it signals about your leadership.
What does your CEO actually need from you when an issue occurs - and can you give them that without getting ahead of what you know?
How do you hold clear personal accountability upward without exposing individuals in your team?
What needs to be said at the moment of impact, and what should wait until you’ve spoken to your team first?
Lead: The conversation with your team is where accountability either takes root or quietly disappears.
How do you open the conversation in a way that invites ownership rather than defensiveness?
What do you want genuine accountability to look like in your team, as distinct from blame - and how do you make that distinction clear?
What do you want your team to take from how you led in critical moments, beyond what was resolved?
If you’ve found this week’s issue thought provoking please hit the ❤️ button at the top of this email so that more leaders can find it.
Meantime if you haven’t already, you can subscribe to receive the next issue straight to your inbox.
