Accountability Is Not an Attack: Why Line Managers Must Raise Their Professional Standards

“Disliking me is valid. I probably said out loud what everyone else tiptoes around. Accountability feels like an attack when you’re used to getting a free pass.”

I have literally said this statement 3 or 4 times in my career. And let's face it, it's because I've looked at the evidence or lack thereof, and have called out the inefficiencies of a manager!

This statement captures a growing tension in modern workplaces: the discomfort that arises when long-standing power dynamics are challenged. Nowhere is this more evident than in the role of the line manager—a position that should represent leadership, responsibility, and professional conduct, yet too often defaults to control, defensiveness, and misplaced authority.

The Line Manager’s Role: Leadership, Not Ownership

Line managers occupy a critical position between strategy and execution. Their responsibility is not to claim credit for outcomes, but to enable performance, remove barriers, and support their teams in delivering results. Leadership is not demonstrated by occupying a chair—leaning back while the team carries the weight of delivery—but by active engagement, fairness, and accountability.

Yet many employees experience a different reality: managers who are comfortable accepting praise for success while distancing themselves from the effort behind it, and who respond to disagreement not with dialogue, but with punishment.

This is not leadership. It is entitlement.

When Accountability Is Misinterpreted as Disrespect

A professional environment should allow space for constructive challenge. Teams improve when assumptions are tested, decisions are questioned respectfully, and alternative perspectives are welcomed. However, in poorly managed structures, accountability is often reframed as insubordination.

When a team member raises concerns, highlights risks, or disagrees with a manager’s direction, the response should be curiosity—not retaliation. Unfortunately, many line managers equate disagreement with defiance. The result is a culture where silence is safer than honesty, and compliance is valued over competence.

In such environments, accountability feels like an attack only because authority has gone unchecked for too long.

The Cost of Punitive Management

One of the most damaging trends in workplace culture is the ease with which individuals are removed from projects—or pushed out of organisations entirely—simply for “not getting along” with a line manager. This vague justification often masks deeper issues: an unwillingness to manage conflict, a lack of emotional intelligence, or an absence of professional maturity.

When talented employees are shown the door for challenging decisions or expressing dissent, organisations lose far more than a single contributor. They lose institutional knowledge, innovation, and trust. Worse still, they send a clear message to remaining staff: conformity matters more than integrity.

High-performing teams do not thrive under fear. They disengage, underperform, or leave.

Professionalism Is Not Optional

Being a line manager is not a reward—it is a responsibility. Professionalism at this level requires:

• Emotional regulation: Responding thoughtfully rather than defensively.

• Fair attribution: Acknowledging team contributions rather than absorbing credit.

• Conflict competence: Addressing disagreement through conversation, not consequence.

• Accountability: Accepting feedback and owning decisions, especially when outcomes fall short.

Managers who lack these skills should not be shielded by hierarchy. Leadership roles demand higher standards, not lower scrutiny.

From Authority to Stewardship

The modern workplace requires a shift from authority-based management to stewardship-based leadership. Line managers are custodians of people’s time, energy, and careers. That responsibility should be exercised with humility and professionalism, not ego.

If an organisation finds itself repeatedly losing capable employees “due to personality clashes,” it is worth asking a harder question: is the issue really incompatibility—or is it an unwillingness to hold managers accountable for how they lead?

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

There is nothing unprofessional about naming dysfunction. What is unprofessional is allowing it to persist unchecked. Employees who speak openly about accountability are not the problem; they are often the first indicator that something needs to change.

Disliking the message may feel justified. Ignoring it is not.

If accountability feels like an attack, it may be time to examine who has been getting a free pass—and why.