> What doesn't fit with my operational definition of "ability to
> promise" is the phrase you use "if you make someone responsible".
> Whoa! How can you *make* someone have the ability to promise?
> Has hierarchical authority has raised its head unnoticed here?
Yes it has! I should say that in my comment of "making someone
responsible" I was implicilty highlighting a 'disfunctional' situation
where someone does not have the ability or authority to make a promise,
but is forced to make the promise anyway. Hierarchical situations so
often seem to have 'asymetrical accountability'.
I agree with you that (true) accountability includes "courage,
independence of being, authenticity", should be a "language of mutual
commitment to action and results", and is "the specific promises that were
made and accepted". I find it interesting (and somewhat heartening) that
'trust' and 'accountability' seem to be up-and-coming topics of late. I
have seen many articles and books recently with these words in the title.
It will be interesting to see how these terms become 'operationalized' in
the business context. I liked your earlier comment: "The weakness of
management is revealed in the lack of distinction and operational
definitions in its language."
-- Grant B. Harris Workframe, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts email@example.com