Being Accountable for Accountability...Continued

Source: Public Practice

In his previous column, Bill Reeb commented that accountability is one of the top issues for CPA firms today, but few firms do it well. In this column, Reeb examines “what accountability might look like.”

For partners, Reeb explains, accountability means “having a system in place that rewards partners for following processes and procedures, living up to their roles and responsibilities, and implementing the firm's strategy.” Ideally, positive reinforcement is the primary motivator, but there should also be penalties for poor performance.

Partners should know precisely what they are accountable for, there should be an objective component to help measure performance, and the firm's expectations should be consistent over time (rather than changing to match a partner's performance). Partners should be empowered to control how much they earn by deciding whether they wish to meet the firm's minimum standards or exceed them.

The article lists common examples of objective criteria (both financial and nonfinancial) used to define partner performance expectations. It also discusses subjective criteria and the need for “objective support tools” to gauge success in these areas.

For the complete article, read “Accountability for Performance Management (Column 2).”

From Public Practice, Texas Society of CPAs, February 2012, www.tscpa.org.