ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Accountability is increasingly critical for individual managers, company directors and board members, as well as for organizational operations. Despite growing attention in the literature, ac-countability processes are generally poorly understood and under-researched. This paper seeks to clarify the concepts of responsibility and accountability, and show how they relate to each other. The Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model proposed here integrates respon-sibility and accountability processes from the viewpoint of both accountor and accountee. It is in-tended to be applicable at both individual and group levels in organizational settings.
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
31
Responsibility And Accountability:
Towards An Integrative Process Model
Harald Bergsteiner, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Australia
Gayle C. Avery, (E-mail: Gayle.Avery@gsm.mq.edu.au), Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Australia
Abstract
Accountability is increasingly critical for individual managers, company directors and board
members, as well as for organizational operations. Despite growing attention in the literature, ac-
countability processes are generally poorly understood and under-researched. This paper seeks to
clarify the concepts of responsibility and accountability, and show how they relate to each other.
The Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model proposed here integrates respon-
sibility and accountability processes from the viewpoint of both accountor and accountee. It is in-
tended to be applicable at both individual and group levels in organizational settings.
1. Introduction
ccountability is widely considered to be a highly important organizational issue, increasingly criti-
cal for company directors and boards (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996), managers, auditors, health-
care and financial services providers, and organizations that impact the environment and society
generally (Akula, 2000). The distinction between accountability and responsibility is frequently unclear, and not
surprisingly, responsibility and accountability processes are poorly understood, under investigated and under con-
ceptualized (Cummings & Anton, 1990; Frink & Klimoski, 1998).
The growing importance of accountability in organizations and society generally, is paralleled in the litera-
ture. A 1998 literature review yielded fewer than 50 references, approximately half of which originated from five
investigators and their colleagues (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). One year later, Lerner & Tetlock (1999) had identified
116 scholarly publications bearing accountability in the title.
Notwithstanding the surge of academic interest, substantial conceptual disagreement remains in the respon-
sibility and accountability literature. This derives to some extent from the different focuses that people adopt with
respect to the parties involved, and the objectives to be achieved. For example, different writers propose a unitary
concept of responsibility (Cummings & Anton, 1990), two key dimensions (Faust, Lyles & Phillips, 1998), or up to
six kinds of responsibility (Schlenker, 1997). Opinions diverge on the meaning and nature of responsibility and ac-
countability (eg Cummings & Anton, 1990; Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, & Hopper, 1995; Lerner & Tetlock,
1999; Schlenker, 1997).
Accountability research tends to focus either at a general organizational level or on specific accountability
issues where one party is accountable to another. Each of these foci can be examined in terms of the purpose of ac-
countability; operations, processes and systems relating to accountability; and the effects of accountability. While
recognising the importance of broader organizational accountability objectives and of unplanned accountability ef-
fects, the emphasis of this paper is on accountability exchanges between any two parties finding themselves in an
accountability relationship. That is, the focus is on accountability exchanges between specific parties, rather than
the broader organizational view of accountability.
In this paper, we introduce a graphical model that depicts the accountability and responsibility processes at
______________________
Readers with comments or questions are encouraged to contact the authors via email.
A
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
32
both individual and group levels: the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model. In the following
sections, we examine the responsibility and accountability processes using this model. Each part of the model is de-
scribed using the existing literature, after introducing some basic terms.
2. Basic terms
We introduce two fundamental terms accountor and accountee. The accountee is the person who is ac-
countable to the accountor. These terms are intended to be hierarchically neutral, and non-value laden after all a
CEO is accountable to her staff just as they may be to her.
Many authors focus primarily on the accountee, but we argue that to properly understand and explain ac-
countability processes one needs to include both the accountor and the accountee.
Several other terms require definition:
Accountability exchange, the specific situation where an accountee is being held accountable by an accountor, or
holds himself/herself accountable vis-à-vis an accountor.
Accountability process, the generic process that typically occurs in any accountability exchange, concepts that at-
tach to different parts of this process, and how they interact with one another.
Accountability system, the specific accountability processes and procedures that particular organizations may have
in place.
Accountability relationship, the condition where one party may, at some point, need to account to another party, or
where one party may, at some point, hold itself accountable vis-à-vis another party.
Accountability response, the generic term for rewards, feedback, counselling, sanctions and punishments applied as
a result of an accountability exchange.
Further, we argue that accountability exchanges are triggered by:
Actions (this includes behaviors, and implemented decisions and choices);
Consequences (this includes outcomes and results, whether actual or anticipated); and
Intentions (an unethical action that produces a positive consequence may trigger an accountability ex-
change by virtue of the fact that it was unethical).
3. Integrative Responsibility And Accountability Process Model
The Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model (see Figure 1) reflects our view that re-
sponsibility and accountability are separate processes, with responsibility preceding accountability. Various kinds of
responsibility and accountability can be identified at different points in the model, from the perspective of both ac-
countor and accountee. To establish a context for the remainder of this paper, the model is described first in broad
terms, followed by more detailed discussion of its individual components.
The model reflects two domains. Above the dotted horizontal line is the external domain, which refers to
processes affecting or emanating from the accountor. Below the dotted line are processes relating to the accountee,
said to be in the internal domain. Along the dotted line, a series of boxes labelled 1 through to 6 and the arrows link-
ing them show the interactive nature of the typical accountor/accountee exchange in action. The boxes numbered 1
to 4, and the arrows linking them, show the interactive nature of the typical accountor/accountee exchange as they
relate to responsibility. Below the boxes are internal responsibilities that impact on the accountee, and internal re-
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
33
sponsibilities that arise out of the process. Above the boxes are external responsibilities that impact on the accoun-
tee, and external responsibilities that arise out of the process.
Figure 1 shows that accountability continues from where the responsibility process ends, the accountability
episode terminating at 6. Again, below the boxes are internal accountabilities that arise out of the process for the ac-
countee, and above the boxes are external accountabilities that arise out of the process for the accountee.
At Stage 1, the accountee will have a role assigned by an external party, say that of marketing manager, or
will volunteer for a role. Since the role has an impact upon the accountee, the vertical arrows are pointing towards
the accountee. This accountee is required to perform some task, make a decision, or perhaps solve a problem. Nor-
mally, an accountee considers various options, but eventually makes a choice (Stage 2) about what to do, when and
how. The choice is influenced by legal and ethical constraints from the external world (laws, rules, company poli-
cies, social norms etc.), and by internal moral constraints (vertical arrows point towards the accountee). Having
made a choice, the accountee implements the decision or engages in the preferred behavior to produce a conse-
quence (Stage 3).
When a consequence can be attributed to an accountee, s/he is said to carry causal responsibility for it. We
argue below that the consequence gives rise to the notion of causal responsibility, so the vertical arrows are now re-
versed, ie causal responsibility does not impact on the consequence, but flows from it. The consequence is then
evaluated by an external party and/or reflected upon by the accountee, to produce an evaluation result and/or reflec-
tion result (Stage 4). An assessment of the relative importance of the accountee‟s role/task, legal/ethical/moral and
EXTERNAL RESPONSIBILITIES IMPACTING ON & ARISING OUT OF PROCESS
INTERNAL RESPONSIBILITIES IMPACTING ON & ARISING OUT OF PROCESS
EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY
ARISING OUT OF PROCESS
Figure 1: Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model
judged
accountability
judged
responsibility
legal/ethical
responsibility
role/task
responsibility
E
C
D
B
A
self-
accountability
causal
responsibility
felt
responsibility
moral
responsibility
role/task
responsibility
J
H
I
G
F
BEGINNING OF NEW ACCOUNTABILITY CYCLE
new
accountee
behavior
choose
accountab
response
reflection
result
evaluation
result
justify
reflection
result
to self
reflect on
consequence
& accountee’s
contribution
conse-
quence
of
choice
consider
options
implement
decision
imple-
ment
ask
accountee
to explain,
defend
evaluation
result
evaluate con-
sequence
& accountee’s
contribution
may
give ad-
vice,
endorse
choice
monitor
accountee
imple-
ment
choice
accountee
2
3
4
5
6
guide, etc.
accountee
accountor
choose ac-
countab.
response
1
INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY
ARISING OUT OF PROCESS
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
34
causal responsibilities leads to judged responsibility. Here too, the vertical arrows point away from the result.
Similarly, in the internal domain, the accountee‟s reflection process gives rise to felt responsibility. The
vertical dotted line marks the boundary between the responsibility and the accountability episodes.
The accountability episode begins immediately following the evaluation result at Stage 4, the last stage of
the responsibility episode. Here, in the external domain, the accountee may be called upon to explain, justify or de-
fend poor results to the accountor usually there is little need to explain, justify or defend desired results. Second,
the accountee may attempt to justify the result to him/herself to determine whether, and to what extent, to hold
him/herself accountable. At the next stage of the accountability response, others and/or the accountee will decide
how the accountee will be held, or hold him/herself, accountable. The preferred response option(s) will then be im-
plemented, leading to the accountee‟s future behavior.
Below, we describe the key elements of the model in more detail, starting with responsibility.
4. Responsibility
Creating a single, all-purpose definition of responsibility is prone to lead to confusion because six quite dis-
tinct concepts of responsibility have a place in accountability theory. Four singular concepts of responsibility
role/task responsibility, ethical/legal responsibility, moral responsibility and causal responsibility interact to give
rise to two hybrid concepts of responsibility judged responsibility and felt-responsibility. In the vernacular, people
sometimes use the term “felt responsibility” to describe a situation whereby they, or others, feel the obligation to
perform some future task, solve some problem etc. We argue that this concept is, in fact, an amalgam of role/task
and legal/ethical/moral responsibility. For example, a mother “feels responsible” for the well-being of her child
thus part of her role is to provide her child with food, and she has a legal and moral duty to do this.
Role/task, moral and legal/ethical responsibility are, in effect, inputs brought to a situation, eg before peo-
ple consider doing something, they usually already have a role, and are subject to moral, ethical and legal impera-
tives. In contrast, causal, felt and judged responsibility can only be determined after
some consequence has occurred, and are regarded as outputs of an accountability ex-
change, taking a fundamentally different place in any accountability system or process.
The relationship between these six forms of responsibility is shown in the In-
tegrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model (Figure 1). Below, each step
of the model is discussed in turn, and the relevant part of the model is depicted next to
the text for clarity.
4.1 The accountee Role/task responsibility
Role/task responsibility is defined as a product of social roles that one acquires
or chooses to accept, implying duties and obligations arising from the proper perform-
ance of the role and from group membership. Role/task responsibility, and concomitant
accountability, is usually understood to be attached to particular tasks assigned to, or car-
ried out by, people. The concepts of role and task are closely linked, although two ac-
count managers in a firm servicing different clients can have the same role responsibility,
but different task responsibilities. Tasks are of a lower order category than roles.
Role/task responsibility has limits, and can be diluted (see below).
4.2 The choice Legal/ethical and moral responsibilities
Ethical/legal and moral responsibility derive from the requirement to make be-
havior, decisions and choices subject to legal, ethical and moral rules of conduct. Ethi-
cal/legal responsibility occurs in the external (accountor) domain, moral responsibility
role/task
responsibility
role/task
responsibility
accountee
accountor
1
2
legal/ethical
responsibility
moral
responsibility
consider
options
may give
advice,
endorse
choice
choice
guide, etc.
accountee
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
35
occurs in the internal (accountee) domain.
Both kinds of responsibility influence choice, and in some circumstances, people may have legal/ethical or
moral responsibility but no role/task responsibility, eg patients of a hospital could be argued to have certain ethical
and moral obligations vis-à-vis other patients, but no role/task responsibility. For the purposes of a responsibility/
accountability system, the single most distinguishing feature between moral issues on the one hand, and legal/ethical
issues on the other, is that legal/ethical issues provide external checks and guidelines on behavior, whereas moral is-
sues tend to be internally focused.
Law can be seen to depend for its effectiveness most heavily on force (with the severity of the punishment
reflecting the seriousness of the transgression). Ethics derives from education, membership of a society or other
group, and is associated with potential ostracism; while morality is based around membership of a society or other
group, and potential shame (Koniac, 1996). It is noteworthy that ostracism happens very much in the public or ex-
ternal domain, while shame operates very much in the private or internal domain. This is consistent with the alloca-
tion of ethical/legal responsibility and moral responsibility into public and private do-
mains.
4.3 The consequence Causal responsibility
Consequences can display a number of characteristics: quality (extremely nega-
tive, through neutral, to highly positive), significance (highly significant to negligible),
frequency (once only to repeated), and reversibility (fully reversible to irreversible). The
definition of a positive consequence is one that meets or exceeds requirements. Thus a
loss in a start-up company that is smaller than was planned for and expected, would be
regarded as a positive consequence. People aim for, or are meant to aim for, positive con-
sequences. The achieving, or not, of such consequences is assessed in the light of the con-
sequence itself, the action and factors that led to it (there may be multiple causes), and the
intentions that guided that action (whether it was ethical or not). Causal responsibility re-
lates to whether a person(s) caused a consequence to occur, precipitated it, or contributed
to it.
4.4 Evaluation and reflection process
The accountor will evaluate the consequence of a decision or choice,
and the accountee‟s contribution to the consequence. Note that at this stage,
the focus is solely on obtaining an evaluation result that describes the accoun-
tee‟s effort in achieving the consequence. The accountee has not yet been
asked to explain, justify or defend anything.
How soon or how frequently the accountor evaluates the accountee‟s
performance depends on factors like the nature of the task (ongoing, to a
once-only evaluation; easy to complicated); the importance of the task (criti-
cal to survival of organization, to marginal); and the competency of the per-
son (greenhorn to expert). Evaluation may be informal or formal, eg using
performance management, written contracts or other tools. Evaluating an ac-
countee‟s contribution to the consequences can be difficult in the absence of
suitable measures (Gallo & Thompson, 2000).
An accountee also reflects on the consequence to assess the extent to
which s/he performed according to external criteria such as goals, targets, objectives, laws, contractual obligations,
job description, procedures, policies, union rules, or work practices. Internal criteria the accountee can apply during
reflection include ethics, morals, values, personal targets, professional norms, and the accountee‟s perceived social
role and ideological fit with the situation. An accountee‟s perceptions about a consequence can range from highly
causal
responsibility
causal
responsibility
conse-
quence
of
choice
implement
decision
monitor ac-
countee
3
causal
responsibility
reflection
result
evaluation
result
reflect on
consequence
& accountee’s
contribution
conse-
quence
of
choice
evaluate con-
sequence
& accountee’s
contribution
3
4
judged
responsibility
felt
responsibility
causal
responsibility
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
36
positive to highly negative. These perceptions can be influenced by the relative personas of accountor(s) and ac-
countee, their relationship, and situational factors, such as the perceived degree of interference from the accountor or
others, adequacy of resources, and organizational culture and norms (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). In organizations with
a pronounced blame culture, people‟s preparedness to take risks is likely to be diminished, as people try to protect
themselves from anticipated negative consequences.
4.5 The evaluation result Judged and felt responsibility
Note that unlike the consequence, which is shown in a single box, the evaluation result
and the reflection result are shown in different boxes. This reflects the fact that objectively the
consequence will be the same for the accountor and the accountee (so many widgets made, so
many contacts made, etc.). However, perceptions as to the meaning of the consequence can vary
dramatically (the same consequence may be perceived as a reasonable result by one party,
whereas another may see it as deficient).
Judged responsibility reflects the combination of role/task, ethical/legal, moral and
causal responsibility. We coined this term to refer to the extent to which a person(s) is judged
responsible for the consequence of a decision or action. This judgement takes into consideration
the contribution the person(s) made to the consequence (causal responsibility); the person‟s role
(role/task responsibility); legal, ethical and moral issues (legal/ethical and moral responsibility);
and any factors that may dilute, or make one or more of these responsibilities irrelevant.
Following a consequence, accountors raise questions, whose answers become inputs into, and may dilute,
judged responsibility considerations (Schlenker, 1997), eg:
Was the decision/choice or action defensible?
What were the role/task, legal/ethical, moral and causal responsibilities of the person who occasioned the
consequence?
Would any factors dilute, or render irrelevant, one or more of these responsibilities?
Dilution affects role/task, ethical/legal, moral and causal responsibility, although some writers argue that
accepting role/task responsibility precludes dilution of that responsibility (Cummings & Anton, 1990). Others con-
cur that responsibility can be diluted, eg role/task responsibility can be diluted by:
Sharing responsibility (usually horizontally eg via teamwork);
Devolution (vertically eg through delegation); or
Dispersion (horizontally eg making managers responsible for the HR function and abolishing the central
HR group).
Ethical/legal and moral responsibility can be diluted eg legal systems consider what a person could rea-
sonably have been expected to know or understand in a particular circumstance. However, people can be held mor-
ally responsible for acts of their organization, such as poisoning drinking water supplies or selling toxic products.
The moral responsibility stems from people not exercising their choice not to be part of that organization (Fischer,
1999).
Causal responsibility can be diluted, eg in organizations that „shoot the messenger‟ of bad news, executives
would be understandably reluctant to speak up, even when the enterprise as a whole is in danger. Here, the culture
constrains responsibility and accountability, even though the managers‟ silence could cause harm to the organiza-
tion.
In complex organizations, a perceived dilution of responsibility occurs through the “problem of many
hands (Bovens, 1998). Here, it becomes difficult to either attribute responsibility to such organizations as a whole,
or to hold specific individuals responsible.
judged
responsibility
felt
responsibility
reflection
result
evaluation
result
4
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
37
Felt responsibility refers to an accountee‟s cognitive and emotional acceptance of having contributed to, or
caused, a consequence, taking into consideration role/task, legal/ethical, moral and causal responsibility, and dilut-
ing or mitigating factors.
Felt responsibility parallels judged responsibility except that it involves consideration of one‟s own pe r-
ceived contribution, rather than having one‟s contribution judged by others. Whilst a group (eg an autonomous
team) can be judged collectively responsible for a particular consequence, irrespective of each individual group
member‟s feelings, only individual members can feel responsible. If sufficient group members share these feelings
of responsibility, the rest of the group may concur in any self-accountability measures, although some individual
members may not feel personally responsible.
Clearly, many attributions, defence mechanisms, attitudes, values and other personal factors influence the
degree of felt responsibility. It should be noted that felt responsibility is not synonymous with holding moral values,
eg most members of the Cosa Nostra are perfectly able to decide when it is opportune to brag about a crime (“I did it
and I‟m proud of it” – felt responsibility) and when it is better to deny it (eg to police!). Here, felt responsibility is
acknowledged or denied depending on the circumstances.
So far, we have seen how the combination of role/task, ethical/legal, moral and causal responsibility leads
to judged responsibility from external parties, and felt-responsibility arising from internal reflection. At this stage,
we have covered only responsibility, which many writers regard as a sub-set of accountability (eg Cummings & An-
ton, 1990).
However, we argue that responsibility precedes accountability. This is consistent with common parlance,
where responsibility is implied to occur before accountability. For example, a public transport authority CEO is
quite likely to say to his/her operations chief: I’m making you responsible for getting the trains to run on time and
I’m going to hold you accountable, if they don’t. It would be semantically contrived, if not nonsensical, to say: I’m
making you accountable for getting the trains to run on time and I’m going to hold you responsible, if they don’t.
Once judged responsibility has been established, the accountability process can begin. Felt responsibility
may or may not apply at this stage.
5. Accountability
Following the last stage of the responsibility episode, ie the evaluation result at Stage 4 of the Integrative
Responsibility and Accountability Process Model (Figure 1), the accountability episode begins between Stages 4 and
5. The discussion below explains the concepts of judged accountability and self-accountability, but first we con-
sider the concept of mitigating circumstances.
5.1 Mitigating circumstances Explaining, justifying and defending evaluation/reflection result(s)
Evaluation and reflection results arise from the two parties‟ delib-
erations, which may not be in agreement. From the accountor‟s perspective,
once an evaluation result of the accountee‟s efforts has been obtained, the
accountee may or may not be called upon to explain, justify or defend the re-
sult. From the accountee‟s point of view, evaluation and reflection results
may need reconciling or, when substantial differences are apparent, a deci-
sion needs to be made on how to deal with the situation. An accountor will
examine whether an accountee can validly be held accountable for a particu-
lar consequence, which will depend upon whether any mitigating circum-
stances operate. Mitigating circumstances include unforseen external circum-
stances, insufficient resources, complex new procedures, etc.
Further, there are three conditions when it is not reasonable to hold
choose ac-
countab. re-
sponse
reflection
result
judged
accountability
self-
accountability
choose
accountab.
response
evaluation
result
justify
reflection
result
to self
ask
accountee
to explain,
defend
evaluation
result
4
5
judged
responsibility
felt
responsibility
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
38
someone accountable.
These are:
When there is a lack of capacity for rational behavior,
When the condition of foreseeability is not given, and
When behavior is not volitional.
The capacity for rational behavior refers to whether the accountee‟s mental or psychological state departed
from that of a „normal adult‟ at the time of the event. Diminished capability for rational behavior (through mental
deficiency, illness or immaturity) reduces the extent to which a person can be held accountable for their actions.
Foreseeability is concerned with whether a rational person could have foreseen the condition, rather than
with whether a given accountee did actually foresee the consequence (Cummings & Anton, 1990). A challenge for
accountors is to differentiate between behavior that is merely an excuse, such as “I could not have known” (Mark-
man & Tetlock, 2000), and behavior that reflects a genuine inability to have foreseen a consequence.
The volition argument holds that a person ought only to be held accountable for volitional acts, ie not acts
beyond the person‟s control or executed under duress. Further, while the notion that less deliberation (implying less
intent) necessarily leads to less judged responsibility seems to hold in criminal cases, in an organization it is likely to
be an exacerbating factor. For example, an IT department that recommends an ill-suited IT system cannot claim lack
of deliberation as a mitigating factor. In fact, the less deliberation, the greater the judged responsibility for the fail-
ure.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that people should only be held accountable when routine expectations
are violated or when deviations from the norm occur (Cummings & Anton, 1990; Schlenker, 1997; Semin & Man-
stead, 1983). However, a focus on deviations for holding people accountable seems to ignore the consequences for
people who are simply doing their job. Grossly oversimplified one could say that underperformers lose their jobs,
steady performers keep theirs, and superior performers are promoted. In each case there is an outcome for the ac-
countee, and, by definition, the fact that there is an outcome (eg not being promoted) means that people are being
held accountable. We also wonder how an employee who consistently meets others‟ high expectations (ie there is no
deviation from standards) would react if there were no occasional rewards, even if these only take the form of praise.
Clearly, accountability can arise under alignment with, as well as deviation from, the norm.
5.2 The accountability response Judged and self-accountability
Judged accountability is done by another (or others) applying relevant behav-
ioral modification/maintenance tools (the accountability response) and, where appro-
priate, the calling to give account (excuses, explanations or justifications) to another (or
others) for a consequence, and for how this consequence came about. Accountability
responses can take many different forms, ranging from substantial rewards, through
feedback and counselling, to severe punishment. A major issue is how to determine the
appropriate accountability response.
In brief, within the context of an accountability system it is insufficient to de-
termine mere causal responsibility, one needs to consider the actual consequences and
the overall context in which they arose. Various external influences affect an account-
ability response, such as the value and magnitude of rewards and sanctions, nature of
the mistake/failure or achievement, the extent to which others are aware of an account-
ability situation, past history of accountability exchanges, and the gravity of the conse-
quence. Internal influences like personal and attributional factors, emotional maturity,
locus of control, level of initiative, and reward focus, affect the explanations and justi-
fications people proffer when faced with an evaluation result.
judged
accountability
self-
accountability
choose
accountab
response
imple-
ment
imple-
ment
5
choose ac-
countab.
response
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
39
Self-accountability refers to behavior applied to the self, and involves self-evaluation of behavior and its
consequence, and making voluntary changes to behavior (Dose & Klimoski, 1995). Individuals may seek or self-
administer rewards, sanctions or feedback based on progress towards goal attainment. In some situations, self-
accountability may not be entirely voluntary, but people are “allowed”, “encouraged”, or perhaps even “required”,
to exercise self-accountability in order to allow them to save face, or avoid protracted legal proceedings. Self-
accountability is also culturally determined. For example, Lord Carrington‟s resignation as British Foreign Secretary
the day after the Argentines occupied the Falkland Islands compares with his US counterparts, who apparently did
not accept responsibility in the same situation (Cummings & Anton, 1990). Lord Carrington‟s resignation is a strik-
ing example of self-accountability in action, which presupposes that there was felt responsibility.
5.3 Accountee’s future behavior
The final stage of an accountability exchange is an accountee‟s future be-
havior, which can take the form of:
Same behavior continues (accountee maintains desirable behavior),
Existing behavior is discontinued (accountee ceases undesirable behavior
and learns not to repeat it),
New behavior is acquired (accountee engages in new desirable behavior and
learns to repeat it).
6. Linking Responsibility And Accountability
In the model, we have identified the responsibility and accountability processes (eg how an accountee looks
at options, makes a choice, implements it, and brings about a consequence), and shown how these processes relate to
different concepts of responsibility and accountability (role/task, legal/ethical, moral, judged and felt responsibility;
and judged and self-accountability). In Figure 1, the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model
depicts how the responsibility and accountability concepts and sub-models can be integrated into one process.
The upper part of the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model represents the external
or accountor domain, includes judged responsibility and judged accountability. Both of these terms describe observ-
able behavior that can be objectively measured. Judged responsibility is what a person is judged on; judged account-
ability is how a person is dealt with by others as a result of a consequence of his/her actions. Essentially, the external
domain illustrates an organization‟s approach to accountability.
The lower part of the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model represents the internal
or private (accountee) domain, which includes felt responsibility and self-accountability. Both of these terms refer to
an internal cognitive and emotional state, and describe individual perceptions that may be subjective. Felt responsi-
bility refers to an evaluation of a person‟s own contribution towards a consequence, whereas self-accountability is
how the person acts upon a consequence of his/her actions. This is also the domain that concerns the accountee‟s
willingness to be held accountable.
From Figure 1, we can see that through an evaluation process, the combination of A (role/task responsibil-
ity) with B (legal/ethical responsibility) and C (causal responsibility) gives rise to D (judged responsibility), which
in turn may give rise to E (judged accountability). It does not make sense for E to occur before D, ie for someone to
be held accountable who has not been judged responsible (dysfunctional relationships excepted). Similarly, through
a reflection process, the combination of F (role/task responsibility) with G (moral responsibility) and H (causal re-
sponsibility), gives rise to I (felt responsibility), which in turn may give rise to J (self-accountability).
Again, it does not make sense for J to occur before I, ie for someone to hold themselves accountable for
something they do not feel responsible for (dysfunctional personalities excepted). Further, we would argue that
judged accountability is more likely to find acceptance on the part of an accountee in the presence of felt responsi-
bility (Collins & Hoyt, 1972).
future
accountee
behavior
imple-
ment
imple-
ment
6
International Business & Economics Research Journal Volume 2, Number 2
40
7. Conclusion
The hope is that the concepts and processes depicted in the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability
Process Model will help reduce confusion in future discussions on accountability and responsibility, and will stimu-
late further research into responsibility and accountability processes.
Clearly, additional features need to be incorporated into the Integrative Responsibility and Accountability
Process Model. Many factors influence the accountability exchange process (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), but for the
purposes of simplicity and meeting length considerations, we have chosen to merely indicate the general nature of
these moderating variables.
The Integrative Responsibility and Accountability Process Model allows for multiple constituencies, al-
though showing specific multiple constituents in the model has been omitted here. In any accountability exchange,
the relationship between different constituents can be the focus of the accountability process, but only one exchange
has been the focus here to simplify the model.
Further features that the model needs to take into account include the mutual influencing processes between
accountor and accountee that occur at various stages of the process, and at times involve others in the organization.
A mutual influence model has already been developed and described elsewhere, but is beyond the scope of this pa-
per.
References
1. Akula, J.L. (2000) Business crime: What to do when the law pursues you, Sloan Management Review,
spring, 41 (3), 29-41.
2. Bovens, M. (1998) The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisa-
tions, Cambridge University Press.
3. Collins, B.E. & Hoyt, M.F. (1972) Personal responsibility-for-consequences: An integration and extension
of the forced compliance literature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 558-593.
4. Cummings, L.L. & Anton, R.J. (1990) The logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability, in S.
Srivasta & D. L. Cooperrider and Associates (Eds.), Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power
of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 257-286.
5. Dose, J.J. & Klimoski, R.J. (1995) Doing the right thing in the workplace: Responsibility in the face of ac-
countability, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8 (1), 35-36.
6. Faust, G.W., Lyles, R.I. & Phillips, W. (1998) Responsible Managers Get Results: How the Best Find Solu-
tions Not Excuses, AMACOM, New York: American Management Association.
7. Ferris, G.R., Mitchell, T.R., Canavan, P.J., Frink, D.D. & Hopper, H. (1995) Accountability in human re-
sources systems, in Ferris, G.R., Rosen, S.D. & Basman, D.T. (Eds), Handbook of Human Resource Man-
agement, Oxford: Blackwell Business, pp.175-196.
8. Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D.C. (1996) Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Or-
ganizations, Minneapolis: West Publishing Company.
9. Fischer, J.M. (1999) Recent work on moral responsibility, Ethics, Oct, 110 (1), pp. 93ff.
10. Frink, D.D. & Klimoski, R.J. (1998) Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human re-
source management, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 1-51.
11. Gallo, J. & Thompson, P.R. (2000) Goals, measures, and beyond: In search of accountability in federal
HRM, Public Personnel Management, 29 (2), 237-248.
12. Koniac, S. (1996) Law and ethics in a world of rights and unsuitable wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and
Jurisprudence 9(11), 21.
13. Lerner, J.S. & Tetlock P.E. (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability, Psychological Bulletin,
125, (2), 255-275.
14. Markman, K.D. & Tetlock, P.E. (2000) „I couldn‟t have known‟: Accountability, foreseeability and coun-
terfactual denials of responsibility, British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 313-325.
15. Schlenker, B. (1997) Personal responsibility: Applications of the Triangle Model, Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 19, 241-301.
16. Semin, G.R. & Manstead, A.S.R. (1983) The Accountability of Conduct: A Social Psychological Analysis,
London: Academic Press.
... Accountability arises as a logical consequence of the relationship between agent and principal (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2011). Agent is intended as the party who carries out the accountability and the principal is defined as the party who must be held accountable (Kholmi, 2017). ...
... Agent is intended as the party who carries out the accountability and the principal is defined as the party who must be held accountable (Kholmi, 2017). In other literature, Bergsteiner and Avery (2011) refer to them -agent and principal-as accountants and accountors. The accountant (agent) is a person who is responsible to the accountor (principal). ...
... This model shows that responsibility and accountability are separate but interrelated processes. Accountability appears preceded by responsibility that begins with decision making by the agent (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2011). This action or decision creates moral responsibility for the agent (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui implementasi akuntabilitas pengelolaan zakat di Indonesia serta menganalisis dampak penerapan finansial teknologi dalam kerangka akuntabilitas pengelolaan zakat di Indonesia. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan framework systematic literature review. 3 pertanyaan utama dirumuskan untuk mengakomodir framework systematic literature review. Diperoleh dua puluh empat artikel yang diterbitkan pada jurnal nasional maupun internasional terakreditasi. Hasil analisis terhadap seluruh artikel tersebut adalah akuntabilitas pengelolaan zakat di Indonesia diwujudkan dalam bentuk laporan keuangan yang disusun oleh organisasi pengelola zakat dengan mengacu pada PSAK 109. Penyelesaian masalah terkait rendahnya akuntabilitas pengelolaan zakat di Indonesia dapat diatasi melalui penerapan finansial teknologi dalam pengelolaan zakat oleh organisasi pengelola zakat. Namun demikian, masih dibutuhkan regulasi pemerintah yang mengatur lebih rinci mengenai bagaimana pelaksanaannya.Kata Kunci: Finansial Teknologi Syariah, Akuntansi Syariah, Zakat, Indonesia. ABSTRACTThis study aims to determine the implementation of zakat management accountability in Indonesia and to analyze the impact of the application of financial technology in the accountability framework of zakat management in Indonesia. We employed the systematic literature review framework as a methodology to achive the research’s objectives. Three main questions were formulated to accommodate the systematic literature review framework. Twenty-four articles published in accredited national and international journals were obtained. The results of our study indicate that the accountability of zakat management in Indonesia is manifested in the form of financial reports prepared by the zakat management office with reference to PSAK 109. Solving problems related to the low accountability of zakat management in Indonesia can be overcome through the application of financial technology. However, there is still a need for government regulations that regulate in more detail on how to implement the financial technology.Keywords: Sharia Financial Technology, Sharia Accounting, Zakat, Indonesia.
... The mutual exchange of behavioral expectations with supervisors and work peers form the basis for employee accountability and accentuates the social context in which employees judge deservingness and equity for themselves and others (Frink et al., 2008). Little is known, however, about employees' comparative judgments, especially when it comes to those of responsibility and accountability (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003). ...
... Prior empirical accountability studies primarily concentrate on how employees perceive and react to accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998) but do not consider if there are differences in how employees assign responsibility and accountability for themselves versus others. This gap is a problem because researchers (e.g., Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Frink & Klimoski, 1998) contend that accountability and responsibility become defined over time through iterative cycles that develop as a result of employee interactions with others (i.e., supervisors and work peers). To understand these iterative cycles, researchers must be able to measure and predict how employees judge responsibility and accountability for both themselves and others. ...
... To understand these iterative cycles, researchers must be able to measure and predict how employees judge responsibility and accountability for both themselves and others. Additionally, accountability researchers (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Cummings & Anton, 1990;Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994;Schlenker & Weigold, 1989) have long debated the distinctions between responsibility and accountability but have never tested it. Empirically assessing this relationship will move accountability theory forward. ...
Research
We proposed and found that employees’ judgments of responsibility and accountability are distinct but positively related constructs. Using attribution theory for responsibility judgments and lay dispositionalism for accountability judgments, we hypothesized that employees hold others more responsible (i.e., causal) and accountable (i.e., punishable) than they hold themselves for the same workplace mistakes. Independent mean differences within a sample of 286 working adults revealed that people held others more responsible but not more accountable than they held themselves. Post hoc analyses revealed a counterintuitive finding. Counter to what theory would predict, as workplace mistake seriousness increased the variation between self-judgement and other-judgment decreased. Implications and future directions for accountability research are discussed.
... The mutual exchange of behavioral expectations with supervisors and work peers form the basis for employee accountability and accentuates the social context in which employees judge deservingness and equity for themselves and others (Frink et al., 2008). Little is known, however, about employees' comparative judgments, especially when it comes to those of responsibility and accountability (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003). ...
... Prior empirical accountability studies primarily concentrate on how employees perceive and react to accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998) but do not consider if there are differences in how employees assign responsibility and accountability for themselves versus others. This gap is a problem because researchers (e.g., Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Frink & Klimoski, 1998) contend that accountability and responsibility become defined over time through iterative cycles that develop as a result of employee interactions with others (i.e., supervisors and work peers). To understand these iterative cycles, researchers must be able to measure and predict how employees judge responsibility and accountability for both themselves and others. ...
... To understand these iterative cycles, researchers must be able to measure and predict how employees judge responsibility and accountability for both themselves and others. Additionally, accountability researchers (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Cummings & Anton, 1990;Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994;Schlenker & Weigold, 1989) have long debated the distinctions between responsibility and accountability but have never tested it. Empirically assessing this relationship will move accountability theory forward. ...
Article
Full-text available
We proposed and found that employees’ judgments of responsibility and accountability are distinct but positively related constructs. Using attribution theory for responsibility judgments and lay dispositionalism for accountability judgments, we hypothesized that employees hold others more responsible (i.e., causal) and accountable (i.e., punishable) than they hold themselves for the same workplace mistakes. Independent mean differences within a sample of 286 working adults revealed that people held others more responsible but not more accountable than they held themselves. Post hoc analyses revealed a counterintuitive finding. Counter to what theory would predict, as workplace mistake seriousness increased the variation between self-judgement and other-judgment decreased. Implications and future directions for accountability research are discussed.
... Romzek and Dubnick (1998) pointed out that one may be held responsible, and thus accountable, for an outcome whether or not they directly caused it (i.e., "empirical blameworthiness") or simply could be officially called to answer for it (i.e., "formal answerability"). However, if a manager concludes that a subordinate is not responsible for an event, then an accounting may not be deemed necessary (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Cummings & Anton, 1990;Schlenker et al., 1994). ...
... Additionally, how managers perceive personal responsibility, which is often a prerequisite for accountability (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Schlenker et al., 1994), likely influences when and how they enact it. Schlenker et al. (1994) argued that the combined strength of three linkages, which vary across managers, influence managers' assessed responsibility: the managers' subjective perceptions of a subordinates' event, the identity images that of subordinate, and their prescriptions for subordinate behavior. ...
Article
Accountability research has focused primarily on how subordinates perceive or react to workplace accountabilities and largely ignored how managers choose to enact it. This omission has occurred despite repeated claims that managers hold subordinates accountable to different degrees and in different ways. We conducted a systematic review of accountability research for insights into managers' role in, and differential application of, workplace accountability. Through this review, we inductively developed a model of managerial accountability enactment, which highlights how managers choose to enact accountability in reaction to relevant subordinate events. Research suggests that variations in managers' enactment of accountability depend upon a myriad of individual, organizational, and situational characteristics. We discuss implications and suggest new directions for future accountability research that consider managers' role in the accountability process.
... Romzek and Dubnick (1998) pointed out that one may be held responsible, and thus accountable, for an outcome whether or not they directly caused it (i.e., "empirical blameworthiness") or simply could be officially called to answer for it (i.e., "formal answerability"). However, if a manager concludes that a subordinate is not responsible for an event, then an accounting may not be deemed necessary (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Cummings & Anton, 1990;Schlenker et al., 1994). ...
... Additionally, how managers perceive personal responsibility, which is often a prerequisite for accountability (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003;Schlenker et al., 1994), likely influences when and how they enact it. Schlenker et al. (1994) argued that the combined strength of three linkages, which vary across managers, influence managers' assessed responsibility: the managers' subjective perceptions of a subordinates' event, the identity images that of subordinate, and their prescriptions for subordinate behavior. ...
... In this article, we lean toward responsibility as being assigned to employees by management, but we recognize that it need not necessarily be imposed top-down. Responsibility can also be created in response to, for example, local needs and expectations on site or employees' own values (Bergsteiner 2012;Bergsteiner and Avery 2011;Johansson 1998). We also acknowledge that responsibility can vary between employees and groups in an organization (Arnold et al. 2022;Johansson 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to deepen our knowledge of how employees make themselves into responsible subjects when involved in sustainability initiatives in rural welfare services. The analysis was guided by the question of how employees make sense of themselves as responsible actors, capable of addressing managerial aspirations for enhanced sustainability in the public services they deliver. Data were collected through ethnographic field studies following sustainability work in a public housing company in a rural municipality in southern Sweden. The analysis draws on sensemaking theory and a Foucault-inspired conceptualization of how actors define themselves as subjects. The results identify two main modes of responding to management aspirations, linking to the emergence of two types of subjects; the habitual selves and the struggling selves. In total, the results depict four different responses as the main modes contain varieties, illustrating a wide range to make sense of responsibility. Furthermore, the analysis depicts an interplay between rural practices and the relational dimensions of responsibility (relations to management), diverging from established rural discourses as well as from a conventional Foucauldian conceptualization of managerial power as urging discipline at a distance.
... Those different points of views have been discussed in research on responsibility, for example, by Bergsteiner and Avery (2003) and Holdorf and Greenwald (2018), where they describe how all choices are influenced by legal and ethical constraints from the external world, such as laws, rules and policies, and by internal moral constraints. They further describe that the choice one makes depends on the consequences of one's action. ...
Article
Purpose Sustainability is regarded as a core value that the coworking movement aspires to. However, most sustainability efforts focus on the providers’ perspective while neglecting the coworking members’ role. Therefore, this paper aims to explore sustainable coworking from the members perspective by focusing on sustainable behaviors. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a flexible pattern matching approach. Theoretical patterns are identified using literature on coworking space and sustainable behavior while matching them with the empirical data. Data were collected from three different coworking spaces in Sweden through interviews and observations. Findings Based on the theoretical patterns, three constructs for sustainable coworking were identified, namely, productive behavior, prosocial behavior and responsible space sharing behavior. Through the empirical data, the constructs were further concretized to understand their different aspects. The findings uncovered a new layer of complexity where members can show the same behavior and be perceived differently. Originality/value This study offers a more holistic understanding of sustainable coworking by highlighting the members’ role and identifying different member perceptions on sustainable coworking behaviors.
... Because accountability-related roles can be fluid, even in hierarchies, we refer to the person in an accountable role as the accountee who answers to the accountor for fulfilling relevant responsibilities (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2003). The accountor needs to have the standing to ask another person to fulfill responsibilities within a specific domain (Peteet et al., 2022a). ...
Article
Full-text available
Embracing accountability to others for one’s responsibilities within relationships is important for flourishing, yet underexamined. An interdisciplinary team defined the construct of accountability and developed an 11-item single-factor Accountability Scale. In national samples with US census demographic representation (total N = 1257), we conducted psychometric analyses using methods from classical test theory (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and item response theory. The Accountability Scale demonstrated internal consistency, construct validity, test-retest reliability, and incremental validity. Accountability correlated positively with relational variables (agreeableness, empathy) responsibility-oriented variables (conscientiousness, self-regulation), virtues (gratitude, forgiveness, limitations-owning humility), relational repair, perceived meaning presence, and flourishing, inversely with symptoms (personality disorders, temper, anxiety, depression), and weakly with searching for meaning and social desirability. Accountability scores superseded demographic variables, conscientiousness, and agreeableness to predict relational repair, perceived presence of meaning in life, and flourishing. We offer the accountability construct and scale to advance human flourishing research and applied work.
Article
Purpose Combining early and untested accountability perspectives with stress research, the authors examined the degree to which employees perceive workplace accountabilities as either worthy challenges to be overcome or potential threats to be avoided. Design/methodology/approach The authors utilized structural equation modeling to evaluate our hypotheses and tested them across two data samples, using two different sampling techniques collected four years apart. Findings Employees' individual differences of attribution style, negative affectivity and core self-evaluations influenced how subjects approached accountability pressures in their workplace, which in turn, was associated with job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Originality/value By examining how employees evaluate accountability pressures, this investigation advances existing research by exploring the different ways in which employees perceive workplace accountabilities.
Article
This paper presents a model that identifies accountability, responsibility, and choice as high-level determinants of employee psychological empowerment in the oil and gas industry particularly in relation to improving operational quality. Psychological Empowerment is targeted at influencing the hearts and minds of the individual and can only be said to have taken place when the individual truly believes he is empowered. As such, there is a need to promote highly situated human cognition targeted at creating an empowered state of mind leading to the conviction, commitment, and conversion of the personnel to embracing organizational goals, in this case quality. To examine the relationship amongst the dimensions of psychological empowerment, a survey was administered to 239 oil and gas industry personnel in different countries. The results showed personnel in the industry link high empowerment to accountability, responsibility, and choice when investigated with meaningfulness, mindfulness, competence and impact.
Article
Full-text available
Part I. The Quest for Responsibility: 1. Complex organisations and the quest for responsibility 2. Complex organisations as corporate actors 3. Two concepts of responsibility Part II. Passive Responsibility: 4. Accountability: the problem of many hands 5. Corporate accountability: the organisation as a person 6. Hierarchical accountability: one for all 7. Collective accountability: all for one 8. Individual accountability: each for oneself Part III. Active Responsibility: 9. Virtue: active responsibility in complex organisations 10. Exit: resignation and refusal 11. Voice: whistleblowing and leaking 12. Loyalty: responsibility as a by-product.
Article
Law, ethics and morality. What distinguishes these concepts? What connects them? Those are my questions. My argument is this. There is a traditional understanding of the relationship between law and ethics, and that understanding is inadequate as description. While passing as description, the traditional understanding of the relationship between law and ethics is instead normative. The normative message in the traditional understanding is worthy of examination and ripe for critique. This Article offers an alternative method of understanding the relationship between law and ethics and a normative examination of the old and the new.
Article
U.S. prosecutors are imposing giant fines and imprisoning managers when regulatory, compliance problems arise. Know how to protect your company and yourself when a legal crisis hits.
Article
Accountability has become a hot topic in federal HRM. The authors describe how downsized, reinvented Government places a great demand on line managers both to comply with personnel laws and to achieve excellent results from their management of people. Yet, the task of identifying a viable approach to HRM accountability has not been easy. There has been no common understanding of what accountability is, let alone any clear idea of how to measure it. Indeed, the bewildering array of results measurement models that seem to promise "The Answer" often only end up confusing managers and HR professionals alike. To help Federal managers and HR professionals make sense of this situation, the authors offer the HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the product of an interagency task force of which both were members. The Guide provides a clear depiction of accountability as applying to both legal compliance and HR program results, and examples of how each can be measured in the federal context. While acknowledging that there is no one answer or set of answers in HRM accountability, the authors advocate the Guide as an invaluable framework that can show the way to any and all federal agencies as they set out to achieve accountability.