Designing what accountability looks like
Building the mechanisms to respond to harm: Part Three
In the first two parts of this series, we talked about what it means to name harm and build mechanisms for people to report it. Both are necessary steps, but they don’t work without the next one: designing what accountability looks like.
This is where most organizations stall. They collect reports, host listening sessions, or commission audits and then stop short of real consequence. Accountability is where acknowledgment becomes action. It is the bridge between intention and integrity.
Accountability as design
Accountability is a design challenge. It requires the same level of intention and iteration that any system of workflow, reporting, or communication does. When designed well, it creates predictability, transparency, and repair. When left undefined, it becomes ad hoc: reactive, inconsistent, and often retraumatizing.
Designing for accountability requires identifying the core functions it must serve:
Restoration – Supporting those who experienced harm with clarity, care, and agency.
Repair – Addressing the harm in a way that rebuilds trust and integrity within the organization.
Reform – Ensuring that what happened once does not happen again through structural change.
To meet these functions, accountability must move through several phases:
1. Understanding impact
Every incident of harm must begin with a clear accounting of impact: what happened, to whom, and what the consequences have been. This may include emotional, professional, and systemic impact. This step should not rely on subjective interpretation by leadership but instead use structured questions and evidence collection methods that prioritize the voice of those harmed.
2. Determining responsibility
Responsibility is collective, not just individual. While individuals may have enacted harm, systems often allowed it. This phase examines both: the person’s actions, and the organization’s role in enabling those actions through policy gaps, silence, or culture.
3. Designing repair
Repair is a process co-created with the person or people who experienced harm. It may include formal apology, behavioral commitments, mediated dialogue, or restorative processes modeled on transformative justice. Importantly, repair also addresses the work environment ensuring that structures, relationships, and expectations are changed to support healing and prevent recurrence.
4. Institutional learning
Finally, accountability design must capture learning. Each instance of harm should inform system improvements; policy revisions, leadership training, procedural updates, and data tracking. This creates a feedback loop that strengthens prevention and responsiveness over time.
In other words, accountability is an ecosystem more than an event.
Applying lenses and frameworks
Transformative justice offers a foundational framework. Its principles, centering the harmed, involving the community, and addressing root causes, translate well into organizational design when adapted thoughtfully. In practice, that means creating processes where:
The person harmed defines what resolution means for them;
The person who caused harm participates in a process of reflection and restitution;
The organization itself identifies and corrects the conditions that allowed the harm.
Other useful lenses include restorative practices (focused on rebuilding relationships), procedural fairness (ensuring transparent and consistent processes), and systems design (mapping interactions, data, and decision points to reveal where inequity persists).
Using multiple lenses ensures that accountability is both humane and functional.
Building your accountability architecture
An accountability architecture gives structure to this work. It outlines how accountability lives inside your organization from the first moment harm is reported to the last moment lessons are implemented.
1. Define your pillars
Every accountability system needs clear anchors. These might include:
Transparency – Everyone understands the process, timelines, and roles.
Autonomy – The person harmed retains agency throughout.
Proportionality – Responses match the nature and impact of harm.
Learning – Each case contributes to organizational knowledge and prevention.
These principles guide every decision that follows.
2. Map your flow
Visualize how accountability moves through the organization. This includes:
Who receives reports and how information is shared;
What decision points exist and who holds authority at each;
How communication is managed at every stage.
Flow maps reveal where power is concentrated and where bottlenecks might occur. They also show whether the process supports or suppresses trust.
3. Assign roles and responsibilities
Accountability requires distributed ownership. Define roles such as:
Accountability lead: Oversees the full process and ensures adherence to timelines.
Facilitators or mediators: Neutral parties trained in restorative or transformative processes.
Support person or advocate: Chosen by the person harmed to provide emotional and procedural support.
Data steward: Tracks and anonymizes outcomes for organizational learning.
Without defined roles, accountability collapses under confusion or bias.
4. Build feedback and reflection loops
After each case, gather feedback from participants, confidentially and respectfully, to identify what worked and what didn’t. Schedule regular reviews of your accountability process (biannually or annually) to integrate new learnings and refine the system.
5. Resource the work
Accountability can’t rely on goodwill. It requires time, budget, and expertise. This might mean contracting external facilitators, training internal staff in restorative practices, or investing in technology for secure documentation. Resource allocation is itself a reflection of how seriously an organization takes accountability.
6. Communicate and close the loop
When possible, communicate the outcomes of accountability processes to staff, without breaching confidentiality. Share aggregate data: how many reports were made, what types of harm were addressed, what systemic changes resulted. This transparency reinforces trust and signals progress.
The long view
Accountability is a culture built and maintained through repetition, openness, and action. A strong accountability architecture makes an organization both safer and more honest, it shows that harm can be addressed without denial or deflection.
Designing what accountability looks like is ultimately about building the conditions for integrity. The process should not only respond to harm but also reshape the systems that make harm possible.
