Examples Of Resistance To Accountability

Resistance to accountability is inevitable as many parties stand to lose from it. Apart from unavoidability, there exist unswerving insecurities, why people oppose accountability. The primary reason people resist accountability is that if it appears as reducing remunerations, entitlements, or privileges, individuals will perhaps resist it. On the other hand, it’s most likely that people impartially want to maintain the status quo in order to keep their fraudulent activities undetected.
An experience of resistance to change occurred during my volunteer work as the executive director of a certain foundation (name withheld) in Nairobi. The foundation was an indigenous organization supporting the education of poor children in the Nairobi slum.
The initial agenda was to partner with several stakeholders to transform the organization’s goals. Having worked as a volunteer in Nigeria, I knew precisely what was my job description. However, on resumption it became obvious that, the foundation’s problem was particularly accountability than transformational.
Historically, the foundation’s executive director was the primary fundraiser. In other words, the director alone had direct access to funds and personal relationships with donors. The first weakness we noticed as a red flag was the fact that the director alone was responsible for signing cheques and reconciling the account of the organization. Had management been checking the reconciliations and signing of cheques each month as required, the red flag would have been obvious. Nevertheless, we discovered that monthly reconciliations were inaccessible for at least the last six months, and the management was unaware these reconciliations were never being undertaken. Conversely, had management followed their own procedure of inspecting the monthly reconciliation on a timely basis, they would have been aware of the missing reconciliations. The second red flag detected was that a series of reprinted cheque numbers ran significantly out of sequence. Ordinarily, what had happened here was that we noticed series of cheques inappropriately signed out by the director, but never countersigned by the receiving agency. Notwithstanding, the director was able to keep about 100 reprinted cheques for himself. An additional red flag detected was the change in lifestyle of the director. Accordingly, this occurred in procurements
that weren’t supported by his income, such as a lavish home, an expensive cruiser, luxurious jewelries and an expensive bullet proof car. In this circumstance, the director had recently acquired a new BMW which, given management’s knowledge of his is income, and the fact that his partners’ business was under financial pressure, should have led them to wonder how he could afford this vehicle. As it turned out, one of the fraudulent cheques issued was payable to a motor vehicle dealership.
The internal evaluation reports revealed that, the foundation never realize when it spent $600, 000 on projects.
The question surfaced whether this foundation was serving the purpose merit for a tax-exempt organization. Moreover, joint investigation efforts found rampant mismanagement and accused the former director of consistent misappropriation of funds as well as misrepresentation of the success of its missions. As a result, his leadership style led to more common ethical problems involving gray areas in activities that are on the peripheries of fraud, misallocation of resources, or inadequate accountability and transparency. One surprising attitude I noticed within the staff was their inability to criticize the mismanagement and the malfeasance behaviors of the executive director. There exist two reasons why members of the staff were resilient to raise questions. First, there emanates a conflict of interest that model this attitude. For example, the executive director sat on the board as a competitor and a tyrant. For this reason, staff members were afraid to lose the financial benefits through this autocrat. Secondly, his authoritarian style of leadership became antagonistic, intimidating, aggressive, and unswervingly inhumane to the staff. For instance, there happened to be staff members who expressed fear of retribution. Specifically, the greatest bewilderment and recalcitrant problems I noticed was the staffs’ resistance to report. The obvious reason for this
resistance, perhaps ranges from fear of the unknown or the enthusiastic support of the status quo. As a result, they resisted every that will put their job on the line.
The question how did we deal with this situation requires an indispensable analysis. The first process used in dealing with the situation was communication method. By communication, we began by providing external information to the staff. First, we applied the bottom-top approach. The bottom-top-approach was an open and free channel of communication that disseminated information to the staff for their constructive feedback. By the end of the exercise, individual staff shared their concerns, frustrations, and needs without fear of retribution. After the exercise, one of the staff reading the assessment asked, “Do I still have a job?” Apparently, the director presents his resignation, however, every other person had the opportunity to prove his or herself. In the end, the foundation effected measures for checks and balances.
In conclusion, an insignificant amount of foundations, and organizations today encounter the problem of accountability. However, what I have demonstrated in this challenge is the need for meticulous management teams, who are able to identify the red flags that indicate the existence of fraudulent activity within their organization.