The point of CBC (and bi-directional accountability) isn’t to "arrest the King." It’s to remove the cover of ambiguity that power relies on. In most orgs, leaders escape accountability not because they’re inherently unassailable, but because commitments are vague, undocumented, or endlessly reframed. CBC closes that escape hatch.
> "without checks"
Nobody in a position of power can be forced or even meaningfully incentivised to put checks on themselves so that their less powerful underlings can put their feet to the fire. This just doesn't happen. Saying that "CBC closes that escape hatch" is wishful thinking.
The hard part isn't specifying or documenting management's commitments. That already happens with, for example, politicians.
The effectively impossible part is enforcement and incentives. As in: there isn't any of either, and leadership holds all of the power, essentially by definition.
This CBC concept reads like one of those Web 3.0 fantasies where some kids whipping up Ethereum logic think that this somehow will force the real world into alignment with their code.
This. Just. Doesn't. Happen.
It never has and never will, because the status quo is fundamental human nature and a game-theoretically local optimum.
Feel free to propose how you intend to simultaneously fix our biological heritage and imbalanced power. But do please show your work instead of just waving your hands in the direction of some unenforceable paperwork that will certainly be ignored as soon as it is inconvenient for those in charge.
That's the incentive: CBC makes actual objective performance evaluation possible (i.e., performance evaluation for people and projects). And if a leader resists that? That's telling. It signals something about their leadership and the actual culture they're fostering. CBC is for leaders who claim to want meritocracy and are willing to prove it.
History gives us examples. Andy Grove at Intel famously institutionalized "constructive confrontation" and rigorous OKRs, explicitly binding executives, including himself, to objective measures of performance. It wasn't a loss of power; it was the foundation of Intel's execution culture and competitive edge.
CBC is cut from the same cloth. It doesn't magically enforce itself; it makes accountability legible, so leaders either live their stated values or reveal that they don't.
True, it doesn't, then what enforces it?
> Andy Grove & Intel's execution culture
Great example, and what happened next with his culture, him personally and why?
> it makes accountability legible, so leaders either live their stated values or reveal that they don't.
It could make a lot of good things happen... if it was somehow enforced, if it was implemented properly and supplied with adequate resources. None of these issues have been resolved, the rest is a pie in the sky.
Think about how societies enforce contracts in general. Governments could, in theory, just stop enforcing citizen/property rights or contracts. But they don't, because if they did, trust collapses, citizens revolt, and the system breaks down. Enforcement isn't about perfection; it's about enough stability that the system holds together.
CBC operates similarly. It doesn't create a new enforcement mechanism out of thin air, but it gives existing ones (boards, investors, regulators, peers, employees) something concrete to hold leaders to. Without CBC, there's no "thing" to point to when accountability is challenged. With it, there is.
And just like with governments, the possibility of negative consequences (talent attrition, investor pressure, loss of credibility) is what incentivizes leaders to treat the agreement seriously. CBC isn't pie in the sky; it's infrastructure for accountability. Enforcement comes from the same place it always has: the need for trust and legitimacy to keep the system functioning.