Innovation CentralIn most organisations, it’s common to hear the phrase: “Can you just do this for me?” It feels minor—an informal request, a small favour. But when these offhand asks accumulate and become regular expectations, they can cross a boundary. So when does “can you just” turn into a real accountability? And what are the risks if leaders don’t acknowledge this shift?
In this blog, we’ll explore the point at which helpfulness becomes hidden responsibility, the importance of defining accountabilities clearly, and how to prevent burnout and confusion before they take root.
Why Defined Accountabilities Matter
Accountability in an organisational context refers to the specific outcomes, responsibilities, or decisions an individual is answerable for within their role. Unlike tasks, which are often transient, accountabilities are enduring—they define what success looks like in a role (Bach & Edwards, 2013).
When accountability is unclear, the result is role ambiguity, which research consistently links to lower job satisfaction, increased stress, and diminished performance (Eatough et al., 2011; Schreurs et al., 2014). Without clarity, people don’t just feel overwhelmed—they also become unsure about how they’re being evaluated or supported.
When Does a “Can You Just” Become an Accountability?
Here’s the simple truth: if it’s recurring, it’s no longer “just” a favour—it’s an accountability. And if it’s an accountability, it needs to be recognised, structured, and aligned to role expectations. That means:
- Defining the responsibility clearly
- Integrating it into a role profile or service framework
- Ensuring it’s visible in development plans, workload assessments, and performance conversations
It’s important to say: we’re not suggesting teams shouldn’t help one another out. Flexibility, collaboration, and generosity are vital to healthy organisational culture. But when these informal asks become frequent, expected, or unbalanced, they stop being collaborative—they start becoming hidden responsibilities. And relying on goodwill as a long-term operating model is neither fair nor sustainable.
This also opens the door to recognising someone’s contribution—through progression, training, or reward. Otherwise, you risk normalising overwork and undervaluing contribution.
Risks of Failing to Formalise
Failing to recognise recurring informal asks comes with real organisational consequences:
- Burnout and Overload Without visibility or recognition, people may take on more than they should, leading to stress, fatigue, and eventually burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Over time, this undermines well-being, morale, and retention.
- Poor Performance Clarity. It becomes difficult to measure or improve performance if no one knows who’s responsible for what. Feedback conversations lose focus, and development pathways become less clear (Grant, 2008).
- Gaps, Duplications, and Delays. When roles aren’t clearly defined, work can either fall through the cracks or be duplicated. This leads to inefficiency and often directly affects the customer experience.
- Frustration and Conflict Overlapping or ambiguous responsibilities often result in misaligned expectations and resentment. These tensions can quickly erode team cohesion and trust (Atkins & Parker, 2012).
What Good Looks Like: Embedding Clarity
Embedding clear accountabilities doesn’t mean removing flexibility—it means providing structure. Effective organisations:
- Use service frameworks and accountability matrices to clarify who does what, at what level, and to what standard
- Review role profiles regularly to ensure they reflect reality, not just legacy expectations
- Hold honest conversations when responsibilities shift
- Reward or recognise those taking on more—rather than letting it slide unnoticed
Final Thought
A culture of goodwill is something to protect—but not exploit. When recurring informal tasks go unacknowledged, they quietly become part of someone’s role—without clarity, recognition, or reward. That’s not sustainable. The line between “can you just” and accountability is easily crossed. Leaders must stay vigilant.
At Innovation Central, we help organisations map, define, and embed effective accountabilities that enable people to thrive. If you’re ready to bring more clarity and fairness to your operating model, we’d love to talk.
References
Atkins, P. W. B., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in organisations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 245–263.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organisational citizenship behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 619–632.
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout: A Multidimensional Perspective. CRC Press.
Schreurs, B. H. J., Hetty van Emmerik, I. J., Günter, H., & Germeys, F. (2014). A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance. Human Resource Management, 53(5), 789–805.