Reflections and Findings from the MU Executive Barometer 2025 – Consumer & Retail
In today’s consumer and retail landscape — marked by compressed planning cycles, decentralised teams, and relentless performance pressure — leadership is under intensifying strain. Strategies are defined, targets are ambitious, and responsibilities are seemingly clear. Yet despite this structured intent, many organisations experience a perplexing reality: accountability does not take root.
What emerges instead is a pattern of responsibility dilution — where tasks circulate, initiatives stall, and leadership teams find themselves asking, “Why does progress always seem to depend on the same few people?”
This pattern is not due to a lack of effort or a failure in organisational design. On the contrary, companies have invested heavily in frameworks designed to enhance clarity: RACI charts, agile operating models, matrixed accountability systems. But our findings from the MU Executive Barometer 2025 – Consumer & Retail, suggest that formal clarity alone is insufficient. It tells people what they are responsible for — but rarely why it matters or to whom they matter.
The real erosion of accountability begins not in structure, but in relationship. When ownership is not anchored in mutual expectations and interpersonal commitment, even the best-defined roles remain functionally hollow.
When teams lose traction or decisions stall, a common organisational reflex is to double down on structure. Leaders reach for the tools that have long promised order amidst complexity: RACI matrices, global process maps, or detailed decision-making frameworks. These instruments are designed to clarify who is responsible, who must be consulted, and who needs to be informed — particularly useful in large, matrixed, or geographically distributed organisations.
However, while such frameworks undoubtedly provide orientation, they are frequently deployed with an implicit assumption: that structural clarity will automatically translate into ownership. That by simply assigning a role, the necessary commitment will follow.
In reality, this assumption often fails to hold. In qualitative interviews in the context of the MU Executive Barometer 2025 – Consumer & Retail, several leaders noted that even when role allocations were clear and well-documented, follow-through remained inconsistent. In follow-up discussions, one senior executive remarked: “We’ve built the clearest operating model I’ve ever seen — but we still have to beg for decisions.”
This statement, echoed in various forms across multiple organisations, highlights a deeper issue: formal clarity may reduce ambiguity, but it does not generate momentum. The presence of a responsibility box on a matrix does not, in itself, create the felt accountability required to drive action. Instead, without interpersonal reinforcement — mutual expectations, trust, and engagement — structure alone offers only the illusion of control. Execution continues to depend not on frameworks, but on human factors: clarity of intent, presence of leadership, and shared commitment.
In this light, the tendency to respond to every accountability issue with another layer of formal process may not resolve the problem — but may in fact obscure it further.
To assume that well-structured roles and clear documentation will ensure execution is to misread the human dimension of work. Role-based responsibility may inform the formal assignment of tasks, but it is not a reliable proxy for ownership. Without an emotional or interpersonal stake in outcomes, many employees simply fulfill the minimal requirements of their position — often without challenge, but also without initiative.
In consumer and retail organisations, where both speed and scale are critical, this gap can be particularly detrimental. Executional responsibility may be assigned, but if the recipient feels disconnected from the broader context, or unclear about what success looks like in practice, action stalls. The result is a gradual but persistent disengagement, especially among mid-level performers whose potential impact is often underestimated.
This is further complicated by informal team dynamics. In the absence of relational commitment, a familiar pattern emerges:
The problem is not that people do not understand their role. The problem is that they do not feel genuinely responsible — not just in a technical sense, but in a relational one. When leadership relies exclusively on formal mechanisms to define responsibility, it risks hollowing out the very motivation that drives action.
What, then, creates real ownership? Our work suggests that the answer lies in reframing responsibility not merely as a function of structure, but as a function of relationship.
The most powerful form of accountability does not emerge from being assigned a task, but from being invested in the expectations of others. When individuals perceive that their contributions matter to someone specific — a colleague, a manager, a team — the likelihood of action increases.
This shift begins with a deeper exploration of context. Instead of asking “What am I responsible for?” leaders and employees alike must consider: “Who relies on me to act?”
When responsibility is experienced as a commitment between people, not just a contract with the organisation, it becomes personal. It becomes visible. And most importantly, it becomes durable.
The stakeholder feedback in the course of the MU Executive Barometer confirms this dynamic: leaders who intentionally build relational accountability — through regular dialogue, clear mutual expectations, and interpersonal trust — report higher resilience, stronger engagement, and more consistent execution across teams. Especially under pressure, it is not governance models but relationships that hold organisations together.
Beyond structure and role design, three underappreciated barriers influence whether responsibility truly takes hold: consistency, cognitive load, and organisational culture.
Leadership consistency is foundational. Responsibility does not form in a single moment; it accumulates over time. People learn what is important not by what is said once, but by what is followed up on consistently. Inconsistent leadership erodes clarity, while sustained follow-up signals relevance and dependability.
At the same time, cognitive load presents a real obstacle. In fast-paced consumer and retail environments, employees juggle competing demands across functions, tools, and reporting lines. Even when formal clarity is present, fragmented attention often prevents individuals from focusing on what matters most. Without relational anchoring, responsibilities can easily get lost in the noise.
Finally, organisational culture reinforces or weakens accountability every day. People observe how responsibility is rewarded, ignored, or redirected. They adapt accordingly. Over time, a culture that silently tolerates non-delivery or avoids tension sends a clear message: responsibility is negotiable. Conversely, cultures that visibly reinforce follow-through, address gaps promptly, and honour commitments create a powerful feedback loop of accountability.
In sum, responsibility is not merely a product of design — it is a pattern. And patterns are shaped by consistency, mental capacity, and cultural reinforcement.
Relational accountability does not arise spontaneously. It must be modelled, cultivated, and reinforced through specific leadership behaviours. Three practices stand out:
Set Expectations Through Conversation, Not Documentation While formal role descriptions provide necessary guidance, they do not replace direct communication. Leaders must articulate expectations in person, ensuring they are understood, internalised, and aligned. Ownership begins with a simple but powerful act: looking someone in the eye and saying, “I trust you with this — and I will follow up.”
Reframe Follow-Up as Leadership Presence Many leaders hesitate to follow up, fearing it signals mistrust. In relational contexts, however, systematic follow-up is interpreted as care. It shows that the work matters — and that the person matters, too.
Create Conditions for Peer Accountability When trust and mutual respect are present, accountability can extend beyond vertical relationships. Teams that talk openly about expectations and performance are more resilient, more adaptive, and more engaged.
The most advanced frameworks, the clearest models, and the most detailed matrices cannot create what leadership alone must provide: a sense of shared ownership rooted in human connection.
Our data and client experience suggest a simple but powerful truth: when responsibility is grounded in relationship, not just in role, people step up. They follow through. They stay engaged.
Relational leadership is not about stepping back from structure. It is about stepping into a more human-centered form of accountability — one that creates clarity, energy, and commitment where they are needed most. In complex systems, responsibility does not travel down the org chart. It travels across relationships. It is time to lead accordingly.