Locus of Control and Accountability: The flowprofiler® Perspective

Accountability is often confused with accepting responsibility after something goes wrong. In practice, it shows up much earlier, in the decisions people make, the conversations they choose to have and the way they respond when things don’t go to plan.

Two leaders facing the same setback can respond very differently. One may become focused on circumstances they cannot change. Another may recognise those same constraints but remain willing to examine what they can influence.

Neither response tells us everything we need to know about the leader.

At flowprofiler®, we recognise that accountability is closely connected to behaviour. A leader may have every intention of taking responsibility, yet still avoid difficult conversations, become defensive under pressure or persist with an approach that is no longer working.

Understanding these behavioural patterns matters because accountability isn’t simply something leaders believe in. It is something other people experience through their actions.

Our assessments provide insight into workplace behaviours associated with emotional intelligence, resilience and motivation, including how behaviour can change under pressure. While flowprofiler® does not measure locus of control as a standalone dimension, these behavioural insights can inform leadership development.

The challenge for organisations is turning that understanding into meaningful behavioural change, where accountability is demonstrated through actions and reflected in performance.

Internal and External Locus of Control in Leadership

The difference between an internal and external locus of control becomes easier to understand when we look at how leaders respond to everyday workplace situations.

When performance falls short

A leader with a stronger internal locus of control may ask:

“What did I communicate, reinforce or fail to address that contributed to this result?”

A leader with a stronger external locus of control may be more likely to begin with:

“My team did not deliver what I asked.”

Both perspectives may contain part of the truth. The leadership task is to identify the external factors accurately while also examining the leader’s own contribution and available choices.

When organisational change is imposed

An internally oriented leader may recognise that they cannot control the decision itself, but can influence how clearly the change is communicated, how concerns are handled and how effectively the team adapts.

An externally oriented leader may focus primarily on the fact that the decision was made elsewhere and conclude that there is little they can do.

When an employee is struggling

A leader with a stronger internal orientation may consider whether expectations are clear, whether the person has the required capability, whether feedback has been provided and what support or intervention is needed.

A stronger external orientation may lead the leader to conclude that the employee simply lacks motivation or is the wrong person for the role.

When a project fails

An internally oriented leader is more likely to examine their own decisions, assumptions, communication and oversight alongside the external causes of failure.

An externally oriented leader may place greater emphasis on changing priorities, difficult stakeholders, limited resources or other circumstances.

The distinction is not about blaming the leader for every outcome. It is about maintaining enough personal agency to ask:

What part of this can I influence, and what responsibility do I have for what happens next?

Leaders who can answer that question accurately are better placed to learn from outcomes, make adjustments and maintain accountability without ignoring genuine external constraints.

Locus of Control, Accountability and Responsibility

Locus of control and responsibility are closely related, but they are not the same thing.

Locus of control is concerned with where people believe influence over outcomes sits. Responsibility is concerned with what a person accepts as theirs to own, decide or act upon.

A leader can recognise that many factors sit outside their control and still take responsibility for the choices that remain available to them.

For example, a leader may not control:

  • a change in regulation
  • an economic downturn
  • a decision made by the executive team
  • the behaviour of another person
  • an unexpected operational disruption

They can still take responsibility for how they respond, what they communicate, what decisions they make and what support they provide to others.

This distinction is important because accountability does not require leaders to assume control over everything. It requires them to identify where their responsibility begins and ends, and then act appropriately within that boundary.

Problems can arise at either extreme.

A leader who externalises too much responsibility may blame circumstances, systems or other people for outcomes they could have influenced.

A leader who internalises too much responsibility may take ownership for outcomes that genuinely sit beyond their authority or control, creating unnecessary pressure and potentially poor decision making.

Effective accountability sits between these two positions.

It asks leaders to assess the situation accurately, accept responsibility for their contribution and remain focused on the choices available to them.

A useful distinction is:

Control asks: What can I directly determine?

Influence asks: What can I affect, even if I cannot control it?

Responsibility asks: What is mine to own or act upon?

That gives leaders a more practical way to think about locus of control without turning it into a simplistic choice between internal being “good” and external being “bad”.

How to Develop a Healthier Locus of Control at Work

Developing a healthier locus of control begins with becoming more accurate about where influence actually sits.

The aim is not to believe that everything is within your control. It is to reduce unnecessary helplessness while avoiding the opposite mistake of taking responsibility for things you cannot reasonably influence.

Leaders can strengthen this by asking a few simple questions when faced with a challenge:

  • What is genuinely outside my control?
  • What can I influence?
  • What choices are still available to me?
  • What part of the outcome am I responsible for?
  • What can I learn or do differently next time?

Over time, this kind of reflection can help leaders shift attention away from blame and towards agency, learning and purposeful action.

For a more detailed practical guide, see How to Develop an Internal Locus of Control at Work.

From Insight to Accountable Action

Understanding locus of control can help leaders recognise where they have agency, where they can influence an outcome and where circumstances genuinely sit outside their control.

But insight alone does not change behaviour.

Effective leadership development helps people translate that awareness into clearer decisions, more constructive responses and greater accountability in the situations they face at work.

flowprofiler® provides behavioural insight across emotional intelligence, resilience and motivation, including how those capabilities may change under pressure. Combined with practical leadership development, this can help leaders identify the behaviours they want to strengthen and apply them in the workplace.

Are your leaders ready to activate their locus of control?
Reach out to us at hello@flowprofiler.com.

 

References

  • Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self evaluations traits, self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability, with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
  • Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.416
  • Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice Hall.
  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
  • Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.489
  • Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482
  • Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(4), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00470.x