by Eva Vega | More Connected Humans™
Accountability has become a loaded word. In many workplaces, it’s shorthand for punishment or performance management—something that happens to someone rather than with them. But for me, and for the work we do through More Connected Humans™, accountability isn’t about consequences. It’s about connection. It’s about using conflict as a conduit for learning, growth, and repair.
Accountability, in its healthiest form, is an opportunity. It allows us to examine the gap between our intentions and our impact. It asks us to learn from dissonance rather than defend against it. And it invites us to stay in relationship—long enough to move from harm toward healing. That’s where transformation begins.
In the environments I work with—schools, nonprofits, and workplaces alike—people want accountability that restores, not accountability that punishes. They want to be part of cultures where mistakes aren’t treated as moral failures, where learning is honored, and where growth is expected of everyone.
The challenge is that the workplace often feels like one of the most high-stakes environments to get things wrong. Our livelihood, our belonging, and even our sense of self-worth are often tied to how we’re perceived at work. The fear of being wrong carries enormous stigma, and it keeps people silent. True accountability breaks that silence—it creates a pathway for reflection, repair, and reconnection.
Here’s what that looks like in practice for More Connected Humans™:
1. Accountability is relational, not punitive.
We don’t repair relationships by assigning blame. We repair them by asking questions that open understanding. Accountability requires curiosity about harm—what happened, why it mattered, and how we can make it right together. When we treat accountability as relationship work, we create belonging, not fear.
2. Repair goes beyond apology.
Apology matters—but most apologies stop short of true repair. Saying I’m sorry without understanding what went wrong or how to make things right keeps us at the surface. Real accountability means demonstrating comprehension of the harm, taking steps to address the impact, and rebuilding the relationship for the future. Repair lives in action and learning, not just remorse.
3. High accountability requires high support.
No one grows when they’re under threat. We can’t expect people to own their impact if doing so leads to humiliation or loss of safety. Accountability must be paired with compassion and structure—conditions where truth-telling and learning can coexist. Support doesn’t erase the harm; it allows repair to take root.
4. Mistakes are portals for learning.
Healthy teams normalize feedback and reflection. When someone misses the mark, we slow down and ask what can be learned. In organizations, this means moving away from punitive discipline and toward coaching cultures that prize learning over perfection.
5. Accountability is shared, not siloed.
It’s not the responsibility of HR or one brave leader to hold everyone accountable. We all participate in maintaining integrity and care. That might look like checking in after a hard meeting, revisiting a decision that landed wrong, or co-creating rituals for reflection and repair.
6. Repair is slow, embodied work.
We live in a culture that rushes through conflict. But repair doesn’t happen on a timeline. It requires nervous-system safety, patience, and a willingness to stay uncomfortable. In my work, I’ve seen how slowing down—breathing, pausing, and listening—creates more honest repair than any formal policy ever could.
Bringing Restorative Accountability into the Workplace
Shifting from punitive to restorative accountability is a cultural transformation, not a policy update. It begins with curiosity: What do we believe about accountability—and how do those beliefs shape the way people experience harm and repair here?
Across different organizations, the move toward restorative practice often starts small and grows through modeling.
At Gloucestershire County Council in the UK, staff were trained in restorative facilitation as an alternative to traditional grievance processes. Instead of launching investigations, teams began with facilitated conversations that focused on what happened, who was impacted, and what was needed for repair. Over time, the council saw fewer grievances and a stronger sense of collective responsibility.
At Pollack Peacebuilding Systems in the U.S., corporate clients use restorative circles to address workplace conflict. Circles invite all affected parties to name impact, express needs, and co-create next steps for repair. This approach helps prevent small tensions from escalating into formal complaints—saving both relationships and resources.
These examples illustrate what’s possible when organizations understand accountability as connection work. Here are a few early steps leaders can take to begin that shift:
- Examine your current culture of accountability.
Ask: How do people describe the experience of being corrected or held accountable here? Is it characterized by fear, avoidance, or learning? Conduct listening sessions or surveys to surface honest feedback. - Reflect on intent versus impact.
Many punitive systems were created with good intentions—clarity, fairness, consistency—but are experienced as harsh or dehumanizing. Reflection helps distinguish between what was intended and what is actually felt. - Invest in restorative practice training.
Equip HR, managers, and team leads with skills in restorative dialogue, facilitation, and emotional literacy. Training helps them navigate conflict as an opportunity for learning rather than liability. - Create spaces for repair.
Build in structures—reflection circles, facilitated dialogues, or “impact and learning” sessions—where harm can be named and addressed collectively. - Model accountability from the top.
When leaders can admit mistakes and engage in repair publicly, they set the tone for the entire culture. Accountability becomes less about exposure and more about growth. - Pair policy with practice.
Update policies to reflect relational values, but also ensure they’re lived out in day-to-day behavior: how people speak to one another, how meetings are run, how feedback is delivered.
Accountability isn’t about being right—it’s about being willing.
Willing to look again. Willing to stay in relationship. Willing to grow through discomfort instead of hiding from it.
When we approach conflict with curiosity instead of fear, we begin to transform not just our teams but ourselves. Accountability, then, becomes the connective tissue of community—a living practice of learning, repair, and renewal.