The Humility–Accountability Paradox: Why Leaders Must Master Both
- PG Geldenhuys
- 12 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Taking my boys to a little golf mashie tournament up the road sounded harmless enough. Over the last few years, we’ve spent many afternoons meandering around a twilight back nine when the other adult players were out of sight. The kids run amok, I write it off to childlike enthusiasm. And for sure, nobody is keeping score, nobody is in a hurry, nobody melts down.
Then, without warning, the moment we turned “fun walkabout” into “actual competition with rules and required finishes”, the wheels came off. They wouldn’t wait their turn, they had no situational awareness, and when we tried to teach them a modicum of etiquette, what happened? Tantrums, frustration, and an early reminder that accountability can’t simply be imposed like a sudden weather pattern. It has to be grown, eased in, metabolised. By the end, they settled, recovered, and, thanks to a heroic, fully-stroked-by-the-golfing-gods long putt on the 7th, AJ walked away with his first trophy for biggest putt. He would tell you he had a great time. My friend Al reckons he is sold on golf for life.
The moment stuck with me. The gap between “mucking about” and “being held to a standard” is bigger than adults like to admit… and even the most talented melt a little when structure and accountability arrive too suddenly.
A few days earlier, we hosted finance legend Bernard Kantor in the EO boardroom. He is the guy who built Investec’s UK business and helped shape the culture that ultimately took Investec global. His central thesis was disarmingly simple: the business scaled because the leaders practised we-language, not I-language. A leadership culture marinated in humility.
This challenged me. I’ve preached for years that accountability begins with I-language: “I own it”, “I dropped the ball”, “I’ll fix it.” Yet Bernard made a compelling argument that success widens when accountability meets humility. The magic is not in choosing I or We. It’s knowing when to use which.
Rassie Erasmus remains the modern master of the humility–accountability paradox. When the Boks lose because of a missed Manie kick, the language becomes sharply individual: “I shouldn’t have placed him in that position.” When they win, the camera lens widens: “The players did a great job, building pressure.” It’s not accidental: it is elite-level framing that removes ego from success and centres responsibility in failure. Accountability without humility becomes tyranny. Humility without accountability becomes drift.
Or consider Luke Donald in the Ryder Cup. His leadership is widely hailed and back-to-back wins speak for themselves… but when asked, he deflects the praise towards his team. And he insisted his superstars earn their roles, which is why general beloved Rory McIlroy stepped courageously into the “most hated” role for the week. The Americans claimed broadly that they had a great culture, but they didn’t impose the individual accountability. This is why Europe came better prepared and ready to go, each player committing to showing up two weeks early to get match-ready.
Back to Investec. Their culture didn’t scale because individuals puffed their chests. It scaled because people took individual responsibility for the unseen work, while making sure visible victories belonged to the group. It echoes Jim Collins’ Level 5 Leadership: fierce resolve wrapped in humility.
Tie this back to a popular framework like Patrick Lencioni’s “Ideal Team Player” - humble, hungry, smart. Humble: it’s not about me. Hungry: I own my contribution. Smart: I know when to step forward and when to blend into the team. The interplay is the magic.
Accountability is not a switch; it’s a gradient. Drop kids (or teams) cold into full-tilt accountability without teaching them how to metabolise pressure, and you’ll get tantrums, disengagement or sabotage. Teach accountability slowly, wrap it in humility, and people begin to see structure as empowerment, not a threat. EOS and Scaling Up have great tools that ramp up accountability structures, while minding the culture fit of your best team players. We like the Quarterly Planning Days as a rhythm for implementing these structures.
My boys got there by the 7th hole. Most teams get there too, with time, coaching and the right language. The sweet spot?
Use I-language when things go wrong.
Use We-language when things go right.
And never mind who gets the credit. George Bernard Shaw was right about that.
PG’s Pro Tip:
If you want accountability without casualties, don’t start at full throttle. Build micro-moments of responsibility and micro-moments of shared success.
Introduce structure progressively. Move from informal to formal expectations slowly; don’t ambush your team with a scorecard and then moan when they wobble. Co-create values first, then eventually settle into KPIs.
Model the language shift. When you miss, say “I”. When the team wins, say “we”. This is culture-setting in its simplest form.
Design visible shared victories. Celebrate progress in groups, not individuals. Let people feel that humility isn’t self-erasure - it’s cultural glue.
AI Prompt for Execution:
“Help me craft a monthly accountability rhythm for my team that blends individual responsibility with collective credit. Include language cues (I/We), micro-behaviours to reinforce humility, and a 90-day timeline for embedding this into team culture.”
Comments