ArticlePDF Available

The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior

Authors:

Abstract

The current study examined the interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship and political behavior. Specifically, we, hypothesized that for individuals high in job self-efficacy, increases in accountability would be associated with increased incidence of organizational citizenship behaviors. Conversely, for those low in job self-efficacy, we proposed that citizenship behavior should decrease as accountability increases. The form of the accountability X job self-efficacy interaction on political behavior was hypothesized to be opposite to the observed form for organizational citizenship behavior. That is, we argues that political behavior would decrease with increases in accountability for individuals high in job self-efficacy, whereas political behavior would increase as accountability increased for those low in job self-efficacy. Data that were gathered from 210 respondents representing a wide range of occupations provided strong support for the hypotheses. Implications of these results, strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
Direct all correspondence to: M. Todd Royle, Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, (850) 644-4417, Fax: (850) 644-7843. E-mail: mtr02c@ cob.fsu.edu
Organizational Analysis, Vol 13, No. 1, 2005, pp. 53–71 ISSN 1551-7470
Copyright © 2005 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY ON
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
M. Todd Royle, Angela T. Hall, Wayne A. Hochwarter,
Pamela L. Perrewé, and Gerald R. Ferris
Florida State University
The current study examined the interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy
on organizational citizenship and political behavior. Specifically, we, hypothesized that
for individuals high in job self-efficacy, increases in accountability would be associated
with increased incidence of organizational citizenship behaviors. Conversely, for those
low in job self-efficacy, we proposed that citizenship behavior should decrease as
accountability increases. The form of the accountability × job self-efficacy interaction
on political behavior was hypothesized to be opposite to the observed form for organi-
zational citizenship behavior. That is, we argues that political behavior would decrease
with increases in accountability for individuals high in job self-efficacy, whereas polit-
ical behavior would increase as accountability increased for those low in job self-effi-
cacy. Data that were gathered from 210 respondents representing a wide range of
occupations provided strong support for the hypotheses. Implications of these results,
strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
With corporate scandals involving firms such as Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia Communications,
flatter organizations, and corporate restructuring, the issue of accountability has salient and timely
relevance to both academics and practicing professionals. Building on these events, the popular
press have extolled the virtues of accountability and its presumed effects on corporate performance
for some time (Ettore, 1992; Jos & Tompkins, 2004). The academic community, however, has failed
to keep pace with realities of contemporary business environments regarding accountability at work.
In order for accountability to be a useful tool for developing a more informed understanding
of organizational phenomenon, researchers must learn more about accountability as an individual-
level construct. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and political behavior are two individ-
54 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
ual-level outcomes of accountability that have received some attention from researchers (e.g. Fandt
& Ferris, 1990; Frink et al., 1995; Hall et al., 2003). In general, studies typically have found a sig-
nificant relationship between accountability and both OCB and political behavior. However, the
relationships between accountability and OCB and between accountability and political behavior
occasionally have been inconsistent and weak (e.g., Fandt & Ferris, 1990). The reason for the weak
relationships between accountability and these outcomes might be due to the failure of researchers
to consider the effects of other variables in these relationships. Thus, it is necessary to explore the
existence of potential moderators in the accountability-OCB and accountability-political behavior
relationships.
We assert job self-efficacy might prove to be such a moderator, and, thus, represent a key pre-
dictor of behavioral reactions to accountability. Specifically, research consistently has supported a
positive link between self-efficacy and behavioral reactions, such as job performance (e.g., Harri-
son, Rainer, Hochwarter, & Thompson, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Consequently, how
employees perceive their ability to perform their jobs often can affect key behavioral outcomes. A
basic premise of previous research is that accountability entails a belief that one’s actions or deci-
sions will be subject to evaluation (Tetlock, 1985, 1992; Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Thus, within the
context of accountability, those employees who perceive their job-related abilities to be high might
welcome increased accountability, and see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. How-
ever, this might not be the case for those individuals who have low job self-efficacy. Nevertheless,
there has been no empirical research, to date, examining these important issues, especially within
the context of a field study.
In the present study, we advance the small, yet growing, body of research on accountability,
as we examine its interactive effects with job self-efficacy. In order to address the void in the
research that has examined the behavioral outcomes of accountability, we tested the interactive
effects of accountability × job self-efficacy on two important behavioral outcomes: organizational
citizenship behavior and political behavior. Specifically, we tested the extent to which employees’
beliefs in their ability to perform their job duties affect their reactions to increased accountability.
NATURE AND MEANING OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Despite its apparent importance to the effective operation of organizations, accountability, as an
individual-level construct, is a concept that has received minimal research attention. For many
years, organizational scientists essentially have studied accountability at the organization level in
their research on agency theory and corporate governance (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989; Davis, Schoor-
man, & Donaldson, 1997). However, only within the past decade have scholars begun to investigate
accountability at the individual level of analysis (e.g., Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris et al., 1997; Frink
& Ferris, 1998). Indeed, in a review of the academic literature in psychology and organizational
behavior, Frink and Klimoski (1998) found fewer than 50 references regarding accountability.
Even from this small, yet growing, body of studies, it is apparent that the area of accountabil-
ity warrants further research. First, accountability is a fundamental principle of organization theory
(Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Simply stated, organizations cannot effectively operate unless employees
feel accountable to the organization or some other entity (e.g., which might include self). Second,
accountability provides a bridge from the individual to the organization. Specifically, accountability
provides a link between “individuals and the authority relationships within which they work and
live” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999, p. 270).
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 55
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
However, researchers have yet to fully examine employee reactions to accountability (Frink
& Klimoski, 1998). Research has indicated that there are positive outcomes associated with
accountability (e.g., Frink & Ferris, 1999). Nevertheless, the limited research on accountability sug-
gests that it also has a “dark side,” and might result in negative outcomes such as inaccurate perfor-
mance evaluations (Klimoski & Inks, 1990), and reduced prosocial behaviors (Mitchell, Hopper,
Daniels, Falvy, & Ferris, 1998). Therefore, because it appears that accountability is not, in itself,
“universally positive” (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), it is especially important for researchers to exam-
ine individual reactions to accountability.
Accountability Defined
Tetlock (1985, 1992) suggested that accountability is based on the social pressure to defend
one’s views and decisions to others. Using a “person-as-intuitive-politician” metaphor, he argued
that individuals consciously and strategically mold their judgments and decisions to correspond to
the outcomes they desire from an evaluating audience. This is due in large measure to the fact that
under conditions of accountability, events can “stick” to one’s sense of self (Schlenker, 1997). In
Schlenker’s (1997) terms, accountability activates the “self-system.” Accountable individuals,
because they can be evaluated, categorized, punished and rewarded, see events as having implica-
tions for their private self-images. Furthermore, these individuals want to maintain positive self-
images (Schlenker, 1997).
Frink and Klimoski (1998) called accountability the “adhesive that binds social systems
together” (p. 3). Specifically, they contended that social systems, such as organizations, could be
defined in terms of common sets of shared expectations of behavior. Thus, through accountability,
individuals are held responsible for their actions, thereby maintaining social order. Numerous defi-
nitions of accountability have been offered in the literature. Most denote a social relationship (at
least implied), a probable evaluation by self or others, and the potential for reward or punishment
(Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, & Hopper, 1995; Frink & Klimoski, 1998).
Another important definitional aspect of accountability is its relationship to responsibility.
Schlenker (1997) referred to accountability as a condition that exists when an audience, presumably
with rewarding or sanctioning power, evaluates a responsible individual. The extent to which one is
responsible (both to others and oneself) is a function of a number of conditions. First, the presence
of a clear set of prescriptions that are seen as applicable to the situation, in part, determines respon-
sibility. Similarly, actors must be perceived to be bound by those prescriptions given their role or
identity, and connected to the event, especially when they appear to have control over it.
In the present study, we utilize the following definition of accountability, which was adopted
from Lerner and Tetlock (1999) and Ferris, Mitchell, et al. (1995): Accountability refers to both
implicit and explicit expectations that a person’s behaviors will be subject to review by a salient
audience (or group of audiences). In addition, that individual believes that this audience has poten-
tial reward or sanctioning power based on its appraisal. It is important to note, however, that the
foregoing definition allows for accountability from formal or informal mechanisms. This point is
important because not all employees are subject to formal accountability
Additionally, this definition emphasizes the perceptual nature of accountability. That is, it
underscores that accountability depends on an individual’s understanding of organizational reality
(Ammeter, Douglas, Ferris, & Goka, 2004). This way of conceptualizing accountability has been
labeled the phenomenological approach (Tetlock, 1985, 1992; Frink & Klimoski, 1998), which
views accountability as a state of mind or perceived reality, rather than an objective state. A key
56 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
point of the phenomenological approach is that it allows for perceptual distortion as individuals
make accountability assessments (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). The phenomenological view recog-
nizes, however, that some objective reality serves as the basis on which individuals form their per-
ceptions (Frink & Klimoski, 1998).
State of Accountability Research
Research on accountability, as an individual-level construct, is still in its early stages. A few
models of accountability have been proposed, such as the static pyramid model of Schlenker (1997)
and colleagues (Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994), and the model proposed
by Ferris et al. (1997). However, accountability more often has been utilized as a moderator in mod-
els examining other organizational outcomes, such as organizational politics perceptions (Ferris,
Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002). Frink and Klimoski (1998) suggested that the
literature does not adequately reflect an understanding of the accountability processes in organiza-
tions.
Moreover, much of the earlier work in accountability was based on experimental designs with
limited outcome variables, raising issues of generalizability to actual organizations. Further,
although more recently researchers have viewed accountability as being perceptual and subjective
in nature, research on accountability has frequently concentrated on contextual variables (e.g. Ferris
et al., 1997), rather than individual difference variables, such as job self-efficacy (Hochwarter, Hall,
Perrewe, Ferris, & Frink, 2004).
Additionally, whereas the body of research on accountability has been described as “highly
fragmented” (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), there are some apparent trends in the literature that have sur-
faced. One such trend involves examining the relationship between accountability and influence
behaviors, such as political behavior (e.g., Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris, Adams, et al., 2002). For
example, Fandt and Ferris (1990) found that when accountability was high and ambiguity was low,
individuals increased their use of specific categories of influence tactics. These findings were later
corroborated and expanded on in a study by Ferris et al. (1997) in which it was found that the
accountability x ambiguity interaction was significant for employee influence.
Job Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of
action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 5). Self-efficacy is an important
construct in organizational behavior, because of its impact in motivational processes and goal attain-
ment (Bandura, 1997). Specifically, human behavior is more often determined by individuals’ sub-
jective beliefs in their ability to perform, rather than from objective conditions. Moreover, research
consistently has established a positive link between self-efficacy and work-related performance,
such as managerial decision-making and coping with stressful events (e.g., Stumpf, Brief, & Hart-
man, 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Similarly research suggests that self-efficacy enhances the
individual’s propensity to strive toward desired goals, as well as to persist on difficult tasks
(Bandura, 1977; Leary & Downs, 1995).
There are three levels of self-efficacy: general self-efficacy, task-specific efficacy, and
domain-specific self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Maurer, 2001). General self-efficacy refers to indi-
viduals’ beliefs regarding their overall sense of competence (Eden & Kinnar, 1991). Task-specific
efficacy, which is the most widely researched type of efficacy (Perrewé & Spector, 2002), involves
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 57
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
individuals’ beliefs regarding their abilities within a narrow focus. Perrewé and Spector (2002) sug-
gested that a significant portion of the research on task-specific efficacy involved training or incen-
tive programs intended to increase self-efficacy with respect to a specific task. Finally, the third type
is domain-specific efficacy, which Perrewé and Spector argued referred to as individuals’ beliefs
that they have the ability to perform the general functions associated with a given situation.
In the present study, job self-efficacy is an example of domain-specific efficacy, and is
defined as individuals’ subjective beliefs concerning their ability to perform their jobs. Thus, job
self-efficacy should be distinguished from general self- (i.e., beliefs about one’s general compe-
tence) and task-specific (i.e., beliefs about one’s ability to perform a specific, narrow task) forms of
the construct. However, it is likely that there will be some overlap between the various forms of effi-
cacy.
Despite its apparent conceptual link with accountability, there has been no empirical research
that has attempted to explore the potential association between job self-efficacy and accountability.
Accountability involves an expectation of the evaluation of a decision or an action Frink & Kli-
moski, 1998; Tetlock, 1985, 1992). Employees held accountable tend to assume that their decisions
and other actions will be evaluated and potentially questioned (Ferris et al., 1995).
It is important to note that accountability involves more than mere evaluation apprehension
(Carver & Scheier, 1981; Frink & Klimoski, 1998), which refers to a concern about being judged by
others. Indeed, Lerner and Tetlock (1999) noted that evaluation apprehension is one of the dimen-
sions of accountability. Nevertheless, evaluation, including self-evaluation, is an important element
of accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that employees who are
held accountable will assess their own performance (i.e., assess their job self-efficacy) in contem-
plation of being evaluated by others.
HYPOTHESES
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been described as “individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggre-
gate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). A decade ago,
OCB was noted as being one of the most studied dependent variables in the organizational sciences
(Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). The attention paid to OCB by researchers reflects the
understanding of both academics and practitioners of the need for employees to exhibit discretion-
ary behaviors, to ensure the effective operation of an organization.
Thus, empirical examination of OCB is important due to its relationship with employee per-
formance (Organ, 1988). Previous research suggests that OCB contributes significantly to percep-
tions of employee effectiveness (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). More recently, organizational
researchers have contended that the evaluation of an employee’s performance should include an
assessment of both task performance (i.e., performance of those duties that are formally recognized
as part of the job) and contextual performance (i.e., performance of extra-role behaviors, such as
OCB, that increase organizational effectiveness) (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
By definition, OCB benefits the organization. Thus, OCB can be distinguished from another
important, but related, prosocial behavior construct (George & Brief, 1992), which refers to extra-
role acts within an organizational context that might or might not benefit the organization (e.g.,
58 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
being lenient on an employee to the detriment of the organization). However, the motivation behind
what appears to be OCB may not always be altruistic. Rather, OCBs can be an effective means to
manage impressions, depending on the intentionality attributed to the actor (Bolino, 1999; Ferris,
Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995). Thus, engaging in OCBs can be an important tool for employees
who are interested in augmenting their supervisors’ assessments of their performance (Motowidlo
& Van Scotter, 1994).
An intricate patchwork of individual, organizational, and social conditions, determine organi-
zational citizenship. For example, the attitudes, needs, and personality of the individual must be
consistent with OCB (Moorehead & Griffin, 2004). Similarly, the work context in which individuals
labor should promote and facilitate OCB if such behaviors are to be continued. In addition, the orga-
nization’s culture also must promote, recognize, and reward individuals who display OCB if they
are to be maintained (Moorehead & Griffin, 2004).
Accountability and OCB
Despite its apparent importance with respect to the accountability construct (Frink & Kli-
moski, 1998), there have been few empirical studies that have examined the relationship between
OCBs and accountability. It has been suggested that increased accountability is related to decreased
OCBs (Frink et al., 1995; Frink & Klimoski, 1998). However, this argument appears to be at odds
with studies that have found a positive relationship between accountability and the related, yet sep-
arate, construct of prosocial behavior (Mitchell et al., 1998). Furthermore, Hochwarter et al. (2004)
found accountability to be related to increased OCBs, as did Hall, Frink, et al. (2003), who con-
tended that employees might use citizenship to ensure that their work-related labors are viewed
favorable by important decision makers.
These inconsistent findings might be due to a failure to consider key moderators, such as job
self-efficacy. Specifically, it is reasonable to presume that individuals who are accountable will con-
duct a self-evaluation of their performance in contemplation of being evaluated by others, such as
their immediate supervisors (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Those employees who assess their perfor-
mance favorably will be free to engage in extra-role citizenship behaviors (Van Dyne, Vandewalle,
Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000). Thus, employees who consider themselves to be good per-
formers will use OCBs as a means to manage impressions.
Similarly, if we conceptualize OCB as a form of social exchange (Graham & Organ, 1993),
we see that OCB occurs when, over time and in good faith, individuals and organizations reciprocate
because of perceived obligations (Organ, 1988; Van Dyne et al., 1994). These perceptions represent
the tacit understanding of individuals regarding proper norms of reciprocation. Those with higher
job self-efficacy will be likely to see themselves as able to meet these obligations and can thus
explore more discretionary behaviors.
However, what about those employees who assess their ability to perform their jobs to be low?
We contend that those who assess their performance to be low will not make the effort to engage in
discretionary behaviors, but rather will concentrate more on taking other measures (i.e., those that
are not necessarily related to contextual performance or OCBs) in order to manage the assessment
of their performance made by others.
Hypothesis 1: Job self-efficacy moderates the relationship between accountability and
organizational citizenship behavior such that OCB decreases as accountability increases
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 59
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
for low job-efficacy individuals. Alternatively, OCB increases as accountability
increases for individuals high in job self-efficacy.
Political Behavior
Politics are ubiquitous within organizations, and the area of organizational politics has
received growing attention by organizational researchers over the past 2 decades (Gandz & Murray,
1980; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Ferris, Adams, et al., 2002; Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002).
Organizational politics research has developed along two parallel and largely distinct streams of
work: politics perceptions and political behavior (Ferris, Adams et al., 2002; Ferris, Hochwarter et
al., 2002). Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Dulebohn (2000) described perceptions of organizational poli-
tics as “an individual’s attribution to behaviors of self-serving intent, and is defined as an individ-
ual’s subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by co-
workers and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior” (p. 90). Key elements of this
definition are (1) perceptions of politics involve an attribution regarding the motive behind another's
behavior, (2) the perceiver labels the observed behavior as being self-serving, and (3) the percep-
tions involve a subjective determination regarding whether the observed behavior is self-serving
(i.e., political).
Political behavior typically has been labeled as a negative phenomenon, with deleterious
effects on both the individual and the organization (Ferris et al., 1989; Mintzberg, 1983; Kacmar &
Baron, 1999). For example, political behavior has been repeatedly associated with such negative
outcomes as increased job tension and higher turnover (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). More recently,
Ferris, Hochwarter, et al. (2002) suggested that political behavior, like impression management
(Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), organizational politics (Ferris et al., 1989), and influence tactics (Kip-
nis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980), falls within the larger rubric of social influence. Accordingly,
they offered a neutral definition of organizational politics, which is simply the management of
shared meaning. This definition reflects an understanding that political behaviors can have negative,
positive, or neutral antecedents and outcomes (Hall, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Bowen, 2003).
Accountability and Political Behavior
Individuals routinely manage the impressions that others form. Such tactics are used through-
out the employment relationship, including the performance appraisal process (Wayne & Liden,
1995). Moreover, these tactics often are used as a means to gain a sense of control over a situation.
Past research on accountability has examined the relationship between accountability and increased
influence tactics (e.g. Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris et al., 1997). However, these findings have typi-
cally been inconsistent and often weak.
One important consideration ignored by past research is the possibility that one’s job efficacy
can alter the relationship between accountability and political behavior. Specifically, employees
who are subject to increased accountability are presumed to conduct an evaluation of their own per-
formance in contemplation of being evaluated by others (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). If, during this
self-evaluation, employees determine that their performance is deficient, they are likely to take
remedial steps to ameliorate the assessment of their performance by others.
However, because the effective performance of job duties includes both task and contextual
elements (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), we argue that employees with low job self-efficacy will
60 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
not avail themselves of influence attempts related to these elements because of their perceived
inability to meet their job requirements. Prior research has shown that those who do not consider
themselves successful in their positions tended to employ blocking strategies with respect to the
communication of information to superiors in order to minimize the visibility of their problems or
deficiencies (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Fandt & Ferris, 1990; O’Reilly, 1978; O’Reilly & Rob-
erts 1974).
Therefore, if employees are not confident in their ability to perform their job duties, they
should be more likely to engage in another type of social influence. In this regard, political behavior
may serve as a means to overcome, or detract attention from, perceived deficiencies in their perfor-
mance. However, for those employees who determine their job self-efficacy to be high, there should
be less likelihood of the demonstration of political behaviors because such individuals do not fear a
poor evaluation. Rather, these employees are willing to depend on receiving an accurate and posi-
tive assessment of their performance.
Hypothesis 2: Job self-efficacy moderates the relationship between accountability and
political behavior such that political behavior increases as accountability increases for
low job efficacy individuals. Alternatively, political behavior decreases as accountabil-
ity increases for high job self-efficacy individuals.
PRESENT STUDY
In the current study, the interactive effects of accountability × job self-efficacy were examined on
two important outcomes. Specifically, we examined whether job self-efficacy moderates the rela-
tionship between accountability and the two key outcomes of organizational citizenship behavior
and political behavior. Because individuals with high negative affect (NA) tend to view themselves
and the immediate environment with disdain (Watson & Clark, 1984), it has been argued that these
individuals will be more likely to engage in aggressive influence tactics such as threats and coercion
(Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002). There is also a strong conceptual link between NA and organiza-
tional cynicism, which has been defined as “a negative attitude towards one’s employing organiza-
tion” (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998).
Alternatively, individuals possessing high levels of positive affect (PA) often are pleasantly
engaged with respect to their views of themselves and the setting that they currently inhabit
(George, 1992). Consequently, these individuals are presumed to engage in innocuous influence
attempts, such as ingratiation or exchange (Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002). For these reasons, we
controlled for NA and PA as well as organizational cynicism in this study. Additionally, because
research has indicated that age, gender, and tenure affect the choice of social influence tactic used
by an individual (Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002), we controlled for these variables when conduct-
ing our data analyses.
Moreover, due to the subjective nature of accountability, and as suggested by Tetlock (1985,
1992), we examined accountability in this study as a state of mind (i.e., the phenomenological
approach), rather than a state of affairs or objective contextual condition. Consequently, rather than
examining the objective accountability mechanisms in place in an organization, we examined the
employees’ subjective perceptions of accountability.
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 61
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
Students at a large university located in the Southeastern United States were each given three
surveys to be completed by full-time employees. Two separate surveys were administered roughly
2 months apart. Independent variables (i.e., NA, PA, cynicism, accountability, job efficacy) were
collected at Time 1, whereas the dependent variables (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors and
political behavior) were gathered at Time 2.
A total of 210 useable surveys were returned and included in subsequent analyses. A total of
119 females (57%) and 91 males (43%) completed surveys, with the average age being approxi-
mately 44 years (M = 43.81, SD = 9.41). Respondents reported an average of roughly 8 years of ten-
ure in their current position (M = 8.45, SD = 7.90) and 9 years with one’s current organization (M =
9.41, SD = 8.07). Professional staff (n = 72, 35%) made up the largest employment group, followed
by middle management (n = 64, 31%), nonmanagement (n = 35, 16%), upper-level management (n
= 25, 12%) and other/self-employed (n = 12, 5%). Two respondents failed to report demographic
information.
Respondents provided their birth date on the survey (day and month), and the student receiv-
ing class credit provided his or her name on the front page of the instrument. From this information,
the names and phone numbers of a random subset of respondents were generated. Respondents were
called and asked noninvasive questions pertaining to the completion of the survey. Results of these
phone calls support the notion that the actual respondents completed the surveys and not the student
or the student’s friends. Although undertaking this step does not unequivocally rule out the possibil-
ity of some type of response distortion, we have greater evidence that the data are somewhat
“clean.”
Measures
Affective Disposition. We used Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (PANAS, 1988) scale to
measure negative (NA, α = .88) and positive affect (PA, α = .89). Respondents were asked to indi-
cate the extent to which they experienced 10 positive (e.g., interested and determined) and 10 nega-
tive (e.g., distressed and hostile) emotions. Responses ranged from 1 (very little or not at all) to 5
(extremely).
Organizational Cynicism. A nine-item measure (α = .89) was used to examine organiza-
tional cynicism (Brooks & Vance, 1991; Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999). “I’ve pretty much given
up trying to make suggestions for improvement at work” and “When we try to change things around
here, they seem to go from bad to worse” are two representative items. A 5-point response format (1
= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was used.
Job Self-Efficacy. Six items adapted from Jones (1986) were used to measure job self-effi-
cacy (α = .72). Items include “My job is well within the scope of my abilities,” and “I am confident
that my skills meet or exceed those of my colleagues.” A 5-point response format (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree) was used.
Accountability. Eight items that measured an employee’s level of accountability were taken
from measures developed by Hochwarter et al. (2004; Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2003).
The internal consistence of the scale was acceptable (α = .84). Representative items included, “I am
held very accountable for my actions at work” and “To a great extent, the success of my immediate
62 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
work group rests on my shoulders.” The scale utilized a 7-point response format with strongly dis-
agree (1) and strongly agree (7) as endpoints. A list of items and their subsequent factor loadings
are reported in the Appendix. Factor analysis results indicated that one factor emerged that
explained a significant proportion of variance. These results are available from the authors.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 6-item scale was
used to measure organizational citizenship behaviors (α = .72). Sample items include, “My atten-
dance at work is above the norm” and “ I often complain about insignificant things at work” (reverse
scored). A 7-point response format, with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as anchors,
was used.
Political Behavior. Three items developed for this study were used to measure the level of
political engagement at work (α = .76). These items included “I am actively involved in politics at
work,” “I participate in organizational politics on a daily basis while at work,” and “I never partici-
pate in organizational politics at work” (reverse scored). Items were scored using a 7-point response
format (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 7).
Data Analysis
Moderated multiple regression (MMR, Cohen & Cohen, 1983) analyses were conducted to
examine the moderating effects of job self-efficacy on the accountability – work outcomes relation-
ships. In the first step, the demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, and organizational tenure) were
entered, followed by the nondemographic main effect variables (i.e., NA, PA, cynicism, job self-
efficacy, and accountability) in the second step. The accountability × job efficacy interaction term
was entered in the third step. MMR analyses tests for the significance of the increment in criterion
variance explained by the interaction term beyond the variance accounted for by the main effects
and control variables.
RESULTS
Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables. Table 2
presents moderated regression results. Results suggest that age (β = .02, p < .01), NA (β = .28, p <
.05), PA (β = .26, p < .05), and cynicism (β = .13, p < .10) predicted citizenship behaviors. The
accountability × job self-efficacy interaction term entered in the third step explained incremental cit-
izenship behavior criterion variance (β = .28,
R2 = .03, p < .05). Further, age (β = .01, p < .10),
NA (β = .27, p < .10), PA (β = .30, p < .05), and cynicism (β = .46, p < .01) predicted political
behavior. Finally, the accountability × job efficacy interaction term was significant (β = .30, p <
.10), explaining an additional 2% of criterion variance in political behavior scores, beyond the con-
trol variables and main effects.
A procedure outlined by Stone and Hollenbeck (1989) was used to graphically depict the two
significant interaction terms. Three levels of individual job self-efficacy were plotted: at one stan-
dard deviation below the mean, at the mean, and at one standard deviation above the mean. Figures
1 and 2 illustrate the significant interactive effects. As shown in Figure 1, individuals perceiving
themselves to be efficacious were more likely to participate in citizenship activities as they per-
ceived themselves to be held increasingly accountable at work. Conversely, those with fewer job
competencies were less prone to participate in extra-role behaviors. Figure 2 indicates that those
possessing high levels of perceived job self-efficacy were less likely to act politically at work as
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 63
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables
Variable MSD123456789
1. Age 43.81 9.41
2. Gender1 00.56 0.49 .01*
3. Tenure 09.41 8.06 .39* .01*
4. Negative affect 04.63 0.59 .24* .04*.08
5. Positive affect 03.78 0.69 .16* .03*.03 .20*
6. Cynicism 02.47 0.73 .13*.02*.04 .39* .37*
7. Accountability 04.99 0.98 .04*.16* .05 .19* .35* .05*
8. Job self-efficacy 04.09 0.53 .11*.01*.03 .04*.08*.15* .10
9. OCB 05.72 0.88 .21* .09*.07 .24* .24* .14* .05 .09
10. Political behavior 03.36 1.45 .11*.05*.05 .06*.17* .22* .05 .03 .15*
N ranges from 199-210.
*p < .05.
1gender was scored “0” for male and “1” for female.
Table 2
Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Political Behavior
Step and Variable
Citizenship Behavior Political Behavior
βR2βR2
Step 1: Demographics
Age .02*** .01†
Gender .16 .16
Tenure .01 .05 .01 .02***
Step 2: Main Effects
Negative Affect .28** .28† .07***
Positive Affect .26** .30**
Organizational Cynicism .13† .46***
Accountability (A) .01 .06
Job Self-Efficacy (B) .30 .08*** .05 .07***
Step 3: Interaction
A x B .28** .03***.30† .02****
N = 198
p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
64 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
Accountability
Citizenshi
p
Low Job Efficacy
Mean Job Efficac y
High Job Efficacy
-1 SD +1 SD
FIGURE 1
Interactive Effects of Accountability and Job Self-Efficacy on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.
Equation to Plot: (.99 + .28f) X + (1.03f + 8.02)
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Ac c o unt a b ilit y
Political Behavi
o
Low Job Effic ac y
Mean Job Efficacy
High Job Efficacy
FIGURE 2
Interactive Effects of Accountability and Job Self-Efficacy on Political Behavior.
Equation to Plot: (1.07 .27f) X + (1.26f + .90).
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 65
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
accountability increased. On the other hand, the slope of the line for low job self-efficacy employees
suggests that those with few perceived job skills were shown to participate more fully in the political
process when their efforts were under closer scrutiny.
DISCUSSION
In this study, the interactive effects of accountability × job efficacy were investigated on the two
important outcome variables—organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior. As such,
this study addressed the void in the accountability literature with respect to the behavioral reactions
to accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Ferris, 2003). Specifically, the
data supported Hypothesis 1, indicating that increased accountability is associated with fewer orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) for those who are low in job self-efficacy, but greater OCBs
for those who are high in job self-efficacy.
Furthermore, the data supported Hypothesis 2, demonstrating that high job-efficacy individu-
als perform less political behaviors, and that those who are low in job self-efficacy perform more
political behaviors, as accountability increased. These findings support the previous work that found
a significant relationship between accountability and the use of influence tactics. Moreover, the
present study expands on the findings reported by Fandt and Ferris (1990) and Ferris et al. (1997),
which both reported that when accountability was high (and ambiguity was low) there was greater
use of influence tactics.
Nonetheless, past empirical research on the relationship between accountability and key out-
come variables, such as political behavior, has been inconsistent and weak. These findings might
have been due to past researchers’ failure to include in their studies an examination of key modera-
tors. The current study advances this previous research by the inclusion of the accountability × job
efficacy interaction. Specifically, the results showing that increased accountability resulted in
increased organizational citizenship behavior only when individuals had high job self-efficacy, and
that increased accountability resulted in increased political behavior for only those who had low job
self-efficacy, underscore the importance of individual differences when investigating behavioral
reactions to accountability. Moreover, these findings lend further support to the notion that there is
a “dark side” to accountability, in that increased accountability might result in behavioral outcomes
that are either not organizationally determined or desired (i.e., political behavior) (Frink & Kli-
moski, 1998).
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
As with any empirical study, there are both strengths and limitations that warrant comment. A
criticism of past empirical research on accountability has been the lack of realism in research design,
and the concomitant lack of generalizability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Specifically, accountability
researchers in the past have utilized experimental research design, rather than examining real
employees in an actual organizational setting (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). As such, two key strengths
of the present study include the wide range of actual employees and occupations examined, thereby
bolstering external validity arguments. Another strength of the study is that the data were gathered
at two separate times, which were roughly two months apart.
Limitations of this study include the potential for common method variance because the data
were collected exclusively from surveys. Indeed, the contaminating effects of response bias can
66 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
cause interpretation problems. In response, James, Gent, Hater, and Corey (1979) asserted that
claims of common method bias have more authenticity when there appears to be something operat-
ing which results in the spurious inflation of obtained results. This would imply that, in fact, if
method variance is evident and thus problematic, the correlation matrix should reflect this tendency
by showing consistently high correlations across variables. An inspection of the correlation table in
the present study, however, suggests that such a general artificial inflating mechanism is not evident
(i.e., r’s ranging from .24 to .39 for nondemographic factors). Therefore, although scholars need to
be aware of this issue and employ multiple methods and measures in subsequent research to avoid
impending problems, method variance does not appear to be a serious problem in the current inves-
tigation.
Another limitation of this study was the manner in which the data were collected. Specifically,
selection bias could be an issue, because individuals might have relied on family members and
friends as data sources. Furthermore, the data collection manner prevents us from formulating defin-
itive statements regarding potential contextual or organizational influences on the results we
reported herein.
A final limitation concerns the self-report nature of the OCB measure in this study. Because
research in this area frequently uses other reports of OCB in conjunction with self-report measures
of other variables, the relationships of OCBs with other variables in the present study could be spu-
riously inflated due to common method variance. Future research should seek to confirm the present
results when using other reports of OCBs.
Directions for Future Research
The results of the current study advance research on accountability and provide the backdrop
for future research. In this study, we examined the interactive effects of accountability and job self-
efficacy. This study helps address a void in the research by addressing behavioral reactions to
accountability. Future research should explore other behavioral reactions, in an attempt to further
examine the often-ignored organizational processes associated with accountability (Frink & Kli-
moski, 1998).
Moreover, this research contributes to the knowledge base in accountability by examining job
self-efficacy as an individual difference variable. Organizational scholars have lamented the lack of
studies that have explored individual difference variables in accountability research (e.g.,
Hochwarter et al., 2003). For example, the accountability-conscientious relationship warrants future
research (Frink & Ferris, 1999). Specifically, it would seem that conscientiousness and job self-effi-
cacy share significant construct overlap, as both relate to the perceived ability to become proficient
in the skills required to accomplish job tasks (Hochwarter et al., 2003).
Also, it is interesting to note that Ferris, Bhawuk, et al. (1995) and Bolino (1999) suggested
that organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior might not be constructs anchoring
opposite ends of a continuum. Rather, these constructs might represent the same behavior, with the
difference being solely in the motivations that are attributed to the actor by the perceiver. Future
research in accountability would be greatly served by exploring this argument.
OCB was measured in the present study as a unidimensional construct. Yet, the research liter-
ature has established that there are at least two types of OCB: one directed at coworkers and one
directed at the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Future research should expand on the
present results by investigating the extent to which accountability, and its interaction with self-effi-
cacy, relate similarly or differently to different dimensions of OCB.
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 67
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
Finally, as indicated above, the majority of work in the area of organizational politics has
couched political behavior as a negative phenomenon (Hall, Hochwarter, et al., 2003; Kacmar &
Baron, 1999). Specifically, political behavior typically is viewed as a “dark side” phenomenon that
is driven by self-interest, and which is associated with deleterious effects for both the individual and
the organization (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Hall, Hochwarter, et al., 2003).
More recently, however, researchers have taken the view that political behavior is not necessarily
driven by, or results in, negative motives or phenomenon (e.g. Ferris, Adams et al., 2002).
Rather, it has been argued that there are neutral, and even positive, motives and outcomes
associated with political behavior (Hall, Hochwarter, et al., 2003). Historically, empirical research
on organizational politics has employed instruments that only capture the dark side of political
behavior (Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Hall, Hochwarter, et al., 2003). However, the present study
advances a broader conceptualization by using a survey instrument that couches political behavior
in neutral terms. Future research on accountability and political behavior should seek to continue
this trend by attempting to capture the positive and neutral aspects of political behavior, in addition
to negative aspects.
CONCLUSION
Accountability is an important construct that is gaining increased attention from organizational
researchers, who, to date, have examined only portions of the accountability process in organiza-
tions. Researchers and practitioners, alike, have begun to recognize the importance of this phenom-
enon, and its significance to organizational success. However, this study and others suggest that
accountability is not “universally positive.” Thus, the key for future organizational researchers of
accountability includes testing models that examine the organizational processes of accountability.
Moreover, future researchers must examine the conditions under which accountability results in
positive outcomes, and when it has negative consequences. This truly presents a challenge to
researchers, because accountability can reflect both objective, contextual conditions as well as sub-
jective, individualized perceptions. Nevertheless, by examining accountability processes, we will
advance our understanding of one of the most fundamental features of organizations.
APPENDIX: ACCOUNTABILITY SCALE
Item Loading
I am held very accountable for my actions at work. .61
I often have to explain why I do certain things at work. .55
Top management holds me accountable for all of my decisions. .73
If things at work do not go the way that they should, I will hear about it from top management. .68
To a great extent, the success of my immediate work group rests on my shoulders. .74
The jobs of many people at work depend on my success or failures. .68
In the grand scheme of things, my efforts at work are very important. .56
Coworkers, subordinates, and bosses closely scrutinize my efforts at work. .65
Eigenvalue = 3.39
Proportion of Variance Explained = .46
68 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
REFERENCES
Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship conceptualization of trust
and accountability in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 47-65.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bolino, M. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Man-
agement Review, 24, 82-98.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brooks, S., & Vance, R. (1991). Organizational cynicism: Initial investigation of a construct. Unpublished
manuscript.
Caldwell, D., & O’Reilly, C. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibility on impres-
sion management. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 121-136.
Carver, C. S, & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics
and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy
of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
Dean, J. W., Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 341-352.
Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 770-780.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 1, 57-
74.
Ettore, B. (1992, April). Corporate accountability ‘90’s style: The buck had better stop here. Management
Review, 16-21.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees
behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 140-158.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of
organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.),
Research in multi-level issues, Volume 1: The many faces of multi-level analysis (pp. 179-254). Oxford,
UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship:
Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution
theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 231-252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., Frink, D. D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T. R., & Matthews, L. M. (1997). Job
and organizational characteristics, accountability, and employee influence. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 9, 162-175.
Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relation-
ship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.),
Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 17, pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002).
Social influence processes in organizations and human resource systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martoc-
chio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 21. pp. 65-127). Oxford,
England: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 69
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human
resource systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource
management (pp.175-196). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld
(Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the perfor-
mance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51, 1259-1283.
Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The moderating effects of accountability on the conscientiousness-perfor-
mance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 515-524.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource
management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16,
pp. 1-51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Frink, D. D., , Klimoski, R. J., Hopper, H., Mitchell, T. R., Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995, August).
Dramaticus personae in organizations: Two faces of accountability effects. Symposium presented at the
meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23,
237-251.
George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Manage-
ment, 18, 185-214.
George, J., & Brief, A. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work—Organi-
zational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
Graham, J. W., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Commitment and the covenantal organization. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 5, 483-502.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Account-
ability in human resources management. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in
human resource management (pp. 29-63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). The dark side of politics in organiza-
tions. In R. W. Griffin & A. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 237-
261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L, & Ferris, G. R. (2003, November). Job autonomy as an antidote
to the dysfunctional effects of accountability as a stressor: Implications for job satisfaction and emo-
tional exhaustion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association,
Clearwater Beach, FL.
Harrison, A. W., Rainer, R. K., Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. R. (1997). Testing the self-efficacy–per-
formance linkage of social–cognitive theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 79-87.
Hochwarter, W., Hall, A., Perrewe, P., & Ferris, G., Frink, D. D. (2004). Negative affectivity as moderator of
the accountability-tension relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2003, April). Accountability at work: An examination of
antecedents and consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
James, L., Gent, M., Hater, J., & Corey, K. (1979). Correlations of psychological influence: An illustration of
the psychological climate approach to work environments perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 32, 563-
588.
Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy
of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.
Jos, P., & Tompkins, M. (2004). The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problems
of preserving character and judgment. Administration and Society, 36, 255-283.
70 ACCOUNTABILITY AND JOB SELF-EFFICACY
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes,
and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in get-
ting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem sys-
tem as a sociometer. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123-144). New York:
Plenum Press.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
255-275.
Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for
development. Journal of Management, 27, 123-140.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., Falvy, J. G., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power, accountability, and inap-
propriate actions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 497-517.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moorehead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2004). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Motowidlo, S., & Van Scotter, J. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from
extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.
O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational decision making: A laboratory
and field examination. Human Relations, 31, 173-193.
O’Reilly, C., & Roberts, K. (1974). Information filtration in organizations. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 11, 253-265.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
Perrewé, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in organizational sciences sciences. In G. R. Ferris
& J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 1-64).
Oxford, England: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Schlenker, B. R. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. In L .L. Cummings & B.
M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 241-301). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of respon-
sibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.
Stone, E., & Hollenbeck, J. (1989). Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures of
detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matter. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 3-10.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related
events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91-108.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management in the organization. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J.
Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tesluk, P., Vance, R., & Mathieu, J. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative
work environments. Group and Organization Management, 24, 271-299.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings
& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Tetlock, P. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 331-377). New York: Academic
Press.
M. T. ROYLE, A. T. HALL, W. A. HOCHWARTER, P. L. PERREWÉ, & G. R. FERRIS 71
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redef-
inition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L.L. (2000). Collectivism, propen-
sity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 3-23.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 465-490.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organi-
zational citizenship and in-role performance. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex
decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
... Accountability goes beyond rendering an account of the resources used, but also includes the efficient use of those resources and the ability of policy decisions and managerial activities to satisfy public needs [1]. The state of being responsible can be referred both to the organizational level -in this case, for example, we consider the accountability of LGAsand at the individual level -i.e. the accountability of manager or politicians [2]. These reform processes derived from the need of enhancing public performances are necessary to ensure transparency on data. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tools of Web 2.0 and Open Data source have witnessed a massive improvement and become the most used platforms to divulgate information and to shrink the gap between Local Government Authorities (LGAs) and their stakeholders. The aim of this work is to test the effect of financial performance on the Openness of the Italian LGAs, in order to assess transparency and participation for improving accountability. Our results show no significant relationship between “Openness” and traditional performance focused on financial autonomy but, on the other hand, we find a strong association between “Openness” variables and a score deriving from the ten financial performance indexes (“Financially Distress” Score). Notice that the use of only one traditional financial indicator is not able to explain the relationship while a more complex indicators derived from a set of 10 financial ratios (as we call “Financially Distress” Score) is considered more appropriate.
... Bir tanımda psikolojik sözleşmeler "bireyin odak kişi ile başka bir taraf arasındaki karşılıklı değişim anlaşmasının hüküm ve koşullarına ilişkin inançlarıdır" (Rousseau, 1989). Bu sözleşmeler her zaman yerine getirilmez; sözleşme ihlal edildiğinde, çalışanın ihlale karşı duygusal veya duygusal tepkisine ise sözleşme ihlali denir (Royle vd;2005). Diğer bir tanımda ise psikolojik sözleşme, çağdaş örgüt yapılarında, sosyoloji biliminde ki sosyal sözleşme kavramının örgütlere yansıması olarak tanımlanmaktadır (Sarikaya ve Kok, 2017). ...
... Also, we controlled for perceived accountability for self, which is distinct from perceived AFO. Following previous research (Hall et al., 2003;Hochwarter et al., 2005;Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2005), we used an eight-item scale (␣ = .88 in Sample 1; ␣ = .81 in Sample 2). A sample item is, 'I often have to explain why I do certain things at work'. ...
... These social demands, however, are rarely examined as predictors of well-being in this context largely because of their exclusion from previous job design models such as the original JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and the JD-C model (Karasek, 1979). However, outside the context of lean manufacturing, these demands have become recognised as significant work stressors (Hall et al., 2006;Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2005;Wong, DeSanctis, & Staudenmayer, 2007). The above-cited findings from studies using the JD-R model, examining lean manufacturing and job design more generally (Humphrey et al., 2007), suggest that lean-specific job demands (i.e. ...
Article
Full-text available
Studies examining the relationship between lean manufacturing and employee well-being to date have yielded contradictory findings, whereby positive, negative and contingent effects have all been demonstrated. These inconsistencies are partly attributed to the absence of an appropriate model that captures the complex job design associated with this context and its relationship with employee outcomes. In this paper, we propose and test a model of job design under lean manufacturing using the job demands-resources framework to capture the distinct motivational and health-impairing potential of this context. Data from 200 employees from a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer with extensive levels of long-term lean usage supported the direct and interactive effects of lean-specific resources and demands in the prediction of employee work engagement and exhaustion. The findings encourage lean users to minimise the health-impairing potential of its demands and utilise their motivational potential by complementing them with the appropriate job resources necessary to cope with a high-involvement, fast-paced work environment.
Article
Full-text available
Araştırmanın amacı, çalışanların öz-izleme ve politik yetilerinin bireysel düzeyde hesap verebilirlik üzerinde etkisi olup olmadığını ve bireysel düzeyde hesap verebilirliğin, demografik değişkenlere göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını incelemektir. Bu kapsamda, Adana Şehir Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi' nde çalışan 863 çalışana ait veri, kolayda örnekleme ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak anket yoluyla elde edilmiştir ve gerekli nicel analizler yapılmıştır. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi sonucunda, politik yeti kavramı ile kişisel sunumu düzenleyebilme becerisinin (öz-izleme yetisinin sadece bir boyutunun) bireysel düzeyde hesap verebilirliği pozitif yönde etkilediği bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca, bireysel düzeyde hesap verebilirliğin, cinsiyet, medeni durum, eğitim durumuna göre farklılık göstermediği, öte yandan, meslek gruplarına, yönetici-ast pozisyonunda çalışma durumuna ve çalışanların kamu-özel sektör tarafından istihdam edilmesine göre farklılık gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar literatürle uyumludur ve bu çalışmanın sonuçları bireysel düzeyde hesap verebilirlik literatürüne kayda değer katkı yapmaktadır. Abstract The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of employees' self monitoring and political skill on felt accountability and to investigate whether felt accountability differs according to demographic variables or not. In this context, the data is obtained with the convenience and snowball sampling methods via survey from 863 employees working in Adana Training and City Hospital and necessary quantitative analyzes were made. As a result of structural equation modeling, it is concluded that political skill and ability to modify self-presentation (only one dimension of self-monitoring) has a significant positive effect on felt accountability. Morever, it is revealed that felt accountability does not differ according to gender, marital status and educational level. On the other hand, felt accountability differs depending on occupational group, the position of working as a manager or subordinate and employment by the public or private sector. The results obtained in this study are consistent in terms of literature. Based on this research findings current research makes a significant contribution to felt accountability literature.
Book
This book presents a collection of original research papers addressing the relationship between information systems (IS) and innovation. “Open”, “Smart” and “Network” are three keywords that are currently guiding information systems (IS) innovation, enhancing IS potentialities and their ability to support decision-making processes. The book discusses the relevance of these three new concepts in connection with technological and organizational innovations (i.e. cloud, smart technologies and networking), and the role they play in the development of accounting and management information systems. The book’s primary aim is to investigate how these innovations could influence information systems (with a particular focus on accounting and management information systems) by enhancing their information potentialities and improv ing accounting methodologies, performance measurement systems, data management, information systems architectures, and external and internal reporting. The book is based on a selection of the best papers—original double-blind reviewed contributions—presented at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Italian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems (AIS).
Chapter
In this chapter, the authors introduce the second component of clarity in their Leadership OS model—accountability. Using both their own and previous research, they describe the social and neural underpinnings of accountability and the functions it plays in a leaders’ Operating System—how it affects people’s performance. They introduce a case study (Rene Obermann at Deutsche Telekom) showing the role and importance of accountability in a leaders’ OS. They then describe practical techniques leaders can use to increase the degree to which their OS enables and supports accountability. Finally, they introduce a checklist leaders can use to test the extent people experience accountability in their OS.
Article
Full-text available
This study focuses on how self-efficacy plays an important role as moderator between knowledge sharing and organizational citizenship behavior. The target population of this study comprises sales and operations department of pharmaceutical companies operating in Islamabad, Pakistan and the employees of pharmaceutical companies were taken as unit of analysis. The data was collected from 350 employees through a well-established questionnaire by random sampling technique. The study used Cronbach's alpha, correlation test, multiple regression and ANOVA test to find consistency of data, the type of relationship between variables, effectiveness of self-efficacy between relationship of knowledge sharing & organizational citizenship behavior and difference between knowledge sharing intensity among the different departments respectively. The results established strong correlation between knowledge sharing and organizational citizenship behavior. The study confirmed that self-efficacy strongly and positively affects the association of organizational citizenship behaviour and knowledge sharing.
Article
This study intends to explore the effect of team-member exchange on perceived accountability and organizational citizenship behavior, as well as the potential moderating effects of social loafing in the relationship. Data were collected from full-time hotel employees in northern Taiwan. A convenience sampling method was used to distribute questionnaires to employees in 25 five-star international tourist hotels. A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed, of which 366 were returned and 184 were rejected due to incorrect completion and incoherent information, yielding a response rate of 66.5%. The result fills previous studies’ research gap and indicates that a moderated mediation model with perceived accountability as the mediator of the relationship between team-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior, and with social loafing as the moderator on such negative indirect link between team-member exchange, perceived accountability, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Article
Self-efficacy is not a phenomenon solely applicable to the individual; it may be applicable to several levels within an organisation. Although the theoretical development of efficacy beliefs has been discussed, few studies have investigated how to enhance self-efficacy through individual motivation or management policies. After collecting data from 414 employees of 38 research and development teams, multilevel analyses are conducted to empirically integrate efficacy beliefs at the individual and team levels in a moderated mediation model. The results indicate that self-efficacy mediates the effects of both learning orientation and affective commitment on group efficacy, which further facilitates innovation effectiveness. Training not only affects self-efficacy, but also moderates the mediation effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between learning orientation and group efficacy. Moreover, goal clarity moderates the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between affective commitment and group efficacy.
Article
Accountability is viewed as a fundamental principle of organization theory, yet theoretical and empirical research on this important construct has lagged behind its pivotal role in organizations. The present study tested portions of a model of accountability, examining job and organizational characteristics as predictors and employee influence tactics as outcomes of accountability. Accountability demonstrated significant positive relationships with hierarchical level and employee influence tactics, and a negative relationship with job ambiguity. Furthermore, an accountability X job ambiguity interaction was found on employee influence indicating that under low job ambiguity, increases in accountability are associated with greater use of influence tactics. Implications of the results for researchers and practitioners are discussed, as are direction for future research.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.