What it means in practice
It requires clarity about what was expected, what authority was available and what evidence demonstrates completion. Several people may contribute to work while one person remains accountable for coordinating it. Fair review examines the information, dependencies and decisions involved rather than judging only by the final outcome. Accountability becomes weaker when every task belongs vaguely to a team or every obstacle is excused without a decision. Review completion and effectiveness separately. A person may complete the agreed action while the expected business result fails to appear. That requires investigation of the decision and its assumptions, alongside any execution issue. Clear accountability makes the conversation more precise: what was promised, what happened, what evidence supports the explanation and what decision is now required.
A fictional worked example
An action has one named owner, an agreed date and a clear completion record, even where several colleagues contribute.
A useful question
Who is responsible for bringing the pieces together and raising an unresolved obstacle?
Read the practical guide