ArticlePDF Available

Relationships Between Felt Accountability as a Stressor and Strain Reactions: The Neutralizing Role of Autonomy Across Two Studies

Authors:

Abstract

Felt accountability, conceptualized as a workplace stressor, has been gaining increased attention in terms of its importance for explaining variance in work attitudes and behaviors. Building on these investigations, the present research tests in 2 studies a conceptualization that positions job autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between felt accountability and strain reactions. In Study 1, the interactions of Felt Accountability x Job Autonomy on job tension and job satisfaction were investigated. As hypothesized, the results demonstrated that autonomy neutralized the dysfunctional effects of accountability for each outcome. Study 2 extended the findings from Study 1 by replicating the form of the interactive effects, with job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion serving as strain reactions. Implications, strengths and limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Relationships Between Felt Accountability as a Stressor and Strain
Reactions: The Neutralizing Role of Autonomy Across Two Studies
Angela T. Hall, M. Todd Royle, Robert A. Brymer, Pamela L. Perrewe´,
Gerald R. Ferris, and Wayne A. Hochwarter
Florida State University
Felt accountability, conceptualized as a workplace stressor, has been gaining increased attention
in terms of its importance for explaining variance in work attitudes and behaviors. Building on
these investigations, the present research tests in 2 studies a conceptualization that positions job
autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between felt accountability and strain reactions. In
Study 1, the interactions of Felt Accountability Job Autonomy on job tension and job
satisfaction were investigated. As hypothesized, the results demonstrated that autonomy neutral-
ized the dysfunctional effects of accountability for each outcome. Study 2 extended the findings
from Study 1 by replicating the form of the interactive effects, with job satisfaction and emotional
exhaustion serving as strain reactions. Implications, strengths and limitations, and suggestions for
future research are discussed.
Lawful and civil societal participation is predi-
cated on the understanding that individuals are an-
swerable for their decisions and behaviors. Without
accountability, which is briefly defined as the need to
justify one’s actions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tet-
lock, 1985), all entities would cease to exist, causing
chaos and social unrest. This is especially true with
regard to business settings, where accountability rep-
resents an inherently assumed, yet historically under-
examined, linkage between the individual and the
enterprise (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Recent contri-
butions to the organizational accountability literature
(i.e., Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004; Hall, Frink, et
al., 2003; Lindkvist & Llewellyn, 2003) suggest that
researchers are gaining interest in this important phe-
nomenon. It is our intention to build on the momen-
tum created by these studies.
Conventional wisdom suggests that outcomes as-
sociated with accountability are generally positive
(e.g., more accountability 3more favorable out-
comes). For example, because accountability is pred-
icated on the notion that individuals will provide
evidence of contribution, those individuals may exert
the means necessary to ensure that favorable out-
comes result. Also, when examined in unison with
theoretically appropriate contextual and individual
difference factors, accountability may require indi-
viduals to acquire control. In this regard, accountabil-
ity may serve a stress-buffering role. Finally, the
need to demonstrate competence may have a direct
effect on commitment, in that being held accountable
often requires individuals to “buy in” to the objec-
tives and values of the organization.
However, other research suggests that accountabil-
ity is not a panacea for all organizational ills (Lerner
& Tetlock, 1999). For example, studies have found
accountability to be associated with a host of nega-
tive consequences (Quinn & Schlenker, 2002), in-
cluding inaccurate performance appraisals (Klimoski
& Inks, 1990). Further, it has been argued that ac-
countability represents a stressor (Siegel-Jacobs &
Yates, 1996) because of its potentially anxiety-pro-
voking effects. Finally, juggling multiple account-
abilities (Carnevale, 1985; Green, Visser, & Tetlock,
2000) can promote attendant strain-related outcomes
(Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004) because of its effect
on role stress. It is our position that accountability
represents a consequential job demand that individ-
uals experience at work.
The present series of studies advances the stream
of felt accountability research by exploring, in two
studies, the interactive effects of felt accountability
and job autonomy on strain reactions. Building on
previous discussions (Semin & Manstead, 1983; Tet-
lock, 1985), we argue that discretionary decision
making is an important moderator in accountability–
outcome relationships that have the potential to pro-
Angela T. Hall, M. Todd Royle, Pamela L. Perrewe´,
Gerald R. Ferris, and Wayne A. Hochwarter, Department of
Management, Florida State University; Robert A. Brymer,
Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Angela T. Hall, Department of Management,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110. E-
mail: ath6462@cob.fsu.edu
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
2006, Vol. 11, No. 1, 87–99
Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
1076-8998/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.87
87
duce strain (Karasek, 1979; Simmering, Colquitt,
Noe, Porter, 2003; Spector, 1986).
Theory and Research on Accountability
Over the past 20 years, accountability research has
grown rapidly, largely in social psychology domains
(Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1985, 1992).
These studies often have been laboratory experi-
ments, with undergraduate students as participants, in
which accountability is an objective, experimental
manipulation (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock,
1992). This stream of research is based largely on the
work of a few scholars, most notably Tetlock (1985,
1992) and Schlenker (e.g., Quinn & Schlenker, 2002;
Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty,
1994). For example, Tetlock (1985, 1992) proposed
the social contingency model of accountability,
which argued that feelings of accountability involve
an “implicit or explicit expectation that one may be
called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings, and actions
to others” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999, p. 255). Because
of the need to defend one’s opinions or actions to
others, research has referred to accountability as one
of the many social pressures individuals experience
across life domains (Green et al., 2000).
Frink and Klimoski (1998) argued that felt ac-
countability is related to, but distinct from, two con-
cepts found in the social psychology literature: mere
presence (Zajonc, 1965) and evaluation apprehension
(Cottrell, 1972). For example, Zajonc argued that the
mere presence of others affects individual behaviors.
However, the mere-presence perspective, which is
based on drive theory (Hull, 1943), conceptualizes
influence as mechanistic and largely ignores under-
lying cognitive processes. Conversely, accountability
theory is based largely on a model of cognitive par-
ticipation (Frink & Klimoski, 1998).
Second, Frink and Klimoski (1998) argued that felt
accountability is not the same as apprehension about
evaluation. It has been argued that expectations of
potential evaluation serve as the impetus for individ-
ual reactions to accountability (Frink & Klimoski,
1998). However, this form of apprehension does not
delve into individual reactions to an expected evalu-
ation, whereas this is a key aspect of felt
accountability.
Finally, it has been argued that accountability is
not responsibility, and theorists have exerted consid-
erable energy to conceptually distinguish these con-
structs (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Responsibility,
which has been defined as “the personal causal influ-
ence on an event” (Cummings & Anton, 1990, p.
262), is a component of felt accountability. That is,
responsibility can be present; however, whether it is
accepted (i.e., internalizes) is a separate issue.
We share the view that accountability differs sig-
nificantly from responsibility. Responsibility in-
volves notions of causal influence and duty (Schlen-
ker et al., 1994). However, accepting responsibility
does not mean that an evaluative audience will be
present. Conversely, appraisal by an external audi-
ence is a critical component of accountability. The
fact that individuals subjectively interpret external
conditions to hold them responsible (i.e., the individ-
ual was the causal influence of the event) does not
mean that the same individual feels accountable.
Whether an individual recognizes responsibility is
different from whether an individual accepts respon-
sibility (Cummings & Anton, 1990).
Borrowing from the phenomenological perspective
(Tetlock, 1985, 1992, Frink and Klimoski (1998,
2004) argued that conceptualizations of felt account-
ability should include individualized, subjective per-
ceptions. Further, we share the view of Frink and
Klimoski (1998) and others (Tetlock, 1992) who
advocate the inclusion of meaningful consequences
of accountability success or failure. As such, our
discussion of organizationally generated accountabil-
ity outcomes includes both favorable (i.e., rewards)
and unfavorable (i.e., sanctions) consequences. Ac-
cordingly, we adopt a modified definition proposed
by Hall, Frink, et al. (2003). This definition borrows
liberally from prior conceptualizations of the felt
accountability construct offered in prior research
(Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, & Hopper, 1995;
Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004; Tetlock, 1985, 1992):
Felt accountability refers to an implicit or explicit
expectation that one’s decisions or actions will be
subject to evaluation by some salient audience(s) (in-
cluding oneself), with the belief in the potential for
either rewards or sanctions based on these evaluations.
Conceptual Foundations
Conservation-of-Resources Theory
Conservation-of-resources theory (COR, Hobfoll,
1989; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993; T. Wright & Hobfoll,
2004) proposes that stress comes from the interaction
of the person and environment and that the situation
is subjectively interpreted to tax or exceed a person’s
self-regulatory resources (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Specifically, Hobfoll (1989)
theorized that reactions to stressors are caused by the
88 HALL ET AL.
imbalance of perceived resource demands, instead of
a clear and objective deficiency of resources vis-a`-vis
demands. Similarly, stress occurs when individuals
believe that a disproportionately large ratio between
their efforts and the depletion of their resources ex-
ists. Accordingly, psychological stress is a reaction to
the environment when there is a threat of net loss of
resources, there is actual loss of resources, or there is
a loss of resources following an investment of re-
sources (Hobfoll, 1989).
COR theory argues that resources are the single
unit necessary to understand stress. These resources
are objects, personal characteristics, social condi-
tions, and various energies that individuals possess to
cope with stress and use to acquire other objects,
energies, and conditions (Hobfoll, 1989). Hobfoll
(1989) argued that during situations deemed stress-
ful, individuals must offset the loss of resources in
one area by securing resources from anotherarea.
That stated, as the persistence of a stressor increases,
the number of resources on which one can call is
depleted, leading to fatigue, a lack of resilience, and
an increased vulnerability to the encroachment of
other stressors (Monnier, Cameron, Hobfoll, &
Gribble, 2002).
A shortcoming of previous accountability research
has been the inability to consider the role of resource
accumulation and utilization. Because high levels of
accountability require individuals to exert more en-
ergy and deploy more interpersonal resources than
low levels do, the ability to maintain a reserve of
these assets likely facilitates favorable individual and
organizational outcomes. For example, a supervisor’s
accountability for the activities of more subordinates
than noted on the job description is plausibly better
equipped to manage these increased demands if re-
sources are easily accumulated and managed appro-
priately (Hobfoll, 1989).
Self-Regulation Theory
Undoubtedly, many of the actions in which hu-
mans engage are unconscious or habitual (i.e., breath-
ing and blinking). However, those actions that in-
volve conscious, deliberate, and controlled responses
are equivalently important to one’s health, success,
and happiness (Baumeister et al., 1998). Much of
what researchers (e.g., Carver, 2004; Carver &
Scheier, 1981) consider within the domain of self-
regulation has its origin in self-awareness research.
Vohs and Baumeister (2004) proposed that self-reg-
ulation is a conscious effort on the part of individuals
to align behaviors with established or preferred stan-
dards. Fundamentally, this involves directing behav-
iors toward a priori goal states deemed necessary or
appealing (Baumeister et al., 1998).
Understanding self-regulation is important to gain
a full appreciation of felt accountability. Because
individuals are often accountable to multiple constit-
uencies with largely divergent needs (Carnevale,
1985; Green et al., 2000), there is likely a disparity in
pressures, which require the thoughtful deployment
of finite resources. To secure favorable responses
(albeit to varying degrees; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999)
across constituents, individuals must try to regulate
behaviors to curb ego depletion (Baumeister et al.,
1998; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1993), which
is described as a depletion of self-generated resources
(i.e., energy, effort, attention).
Reactions to accountability often include high-
cognitive-effort attempts, such as integrative com-
plexity of thought (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), to se-
cure positive evaluations (Green et al., 2000). Thus,
being held accountable taps more resources than not
being held to comparable standards. It is noteworthy
that resources typically are expended more rapidly
than they are replenished (Baumeister et al., 1998).
Further, the environment of accountability does not
always allow individuals the needed respite from
examination to restore resources. As a consequence,
resource-accumulating activities (e.g., securing deci-
sion-making latitude) that are self-generated can en-
sure that ego depletion remains within levels that do
not provoke anxiety.
Integration of Resource-Based Theories
and Adaptation
Collectively, COR and self-regulation theories as-
sume similar arguments relating to stress, coping, and
adaptation mechanisms. For example, both theories
have the management of self-generated capabilities at
their core (e.g., personal resources in COR and deci-
sion-making resources for self-regulation; Baumeis-
ter et al., 1993; Hobfoll, 2002; Holahan, Moos, Ho-
lahan, & Cronkite, 1999). Further, both COR and
self-regulation represent proactive strategies that
minimize the harmful effects of stressors. For exam-
ple, Ito and Brotheridge (2003) detected a significant
relationship between resource levels and active cop-
ing (i.e., seeking advice and assistance, positive ori-
entation, working harder). Further, self-regulation
models of proactive coping often have resource as-
sessment and accumulation as critical attributes.
89ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
Felt Accountability as a Stressor
Schlenker, Weigold, and Doherty (1991) argued
that accountability is potentially detrimental in situ-
ations where individuals believe demands extend be-
yond their capabilities. As such, accountability might
be perceived as a threat and thus as potentially stress
inducing. Indeed, Schlenker et al. (1991, p. 96) ar-
gued, “problems with accountability are at the core of
most dysfunctional behaviors.” Moreover, they con-
tended that many clinical disorders are attributed to
an individual’s failure to assess and cope with self-
identity within the milieu of both internal and exter-
nal accountability.
Accountability scholars have only begun to posi-
tion felt accountability as a stressor (Siegel-Jacobs &
Yates, 1996). For example, Royle, Hall, Hochwarter,
Perrewe´, and Ferris (2005) found that increased job
self-efficacy reduced the established anxiety-provok-
ing effects of felt accountability on work outcomes.
Further, Hall, Frink, et al. (2003) reported that felt
accountability was directly associated with tension
and the exertion of emotional labor.
In the workplace, as in other life domains, individ-
uals rarely are accountable to just one person or
entity. Rather, individuals exist in a “web of account-
abilities” in which they are scrutinized by more than
one audience (Carnevale, 1985). Moreover, account-
abilities often clash with one another and often re-
quire prioritization. As an example, a nurse might
serve simultaneously on committees for budget and
ethical treatment of patients —which casts each role
in conflict with the other. In support of this view, role
theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) acknowledges that felt
accountability represents a stressor by resulting in
role overload and/or conflict.
Moreover, there can be a lack of alignment with
respect to an individual’s accountability webs. Gel-
fand, Lim, and Raver (2004) discussed two types of
alignment that can occur. The first, structural align-
ment, refers to the extent to which individuals accu-
rately perceive the formal rules, policies, and proce-
dures within the workplace. The second, web
alignment, represents the extent to which individuals
and groups have comparable accountability networks.
More specifically, web alignment occurs when em-
ployees with equivalent job duties experience com-
parable accountability requirements (i.e., to whom,
how much, when). Gelfand et al. (2004, p. 141)
proposed that “conflict and confusion will arise when
accountability webs are misaligned.” Frink and Kli-
moski (2004) argued that this lack of alignment has
the potential to not only create conflict but also
increase anxiety because employees are unable to
rely on the behaviors of others to secure social infor-
mation in ambiguous situations.
Autonomy as Resource-Based Neutralizer of
Strain Reactions
deCharms’s (1968) theory of personal causation
asserts that individuals strive to achieve a sense of
mastery and competence in relation to their immedi-
ate environment. When an individual
perceives his behavior as stemming from his own
choice he will cherish that behavior and its results;
when he perceives his behavior as stemming from the
dictates of external forces, that behavior and its results,
although identical in other respects to behavior of his own
choosing, will be devalued. (deCharms, 1968, p. 273)
Further, Brehm (1966) emphasized the negative
psychological reactance individuals experience due
to a loss of discretion. Reviews of the literature
indicate that increased levels of autonomy can be
used to attain more discretion to cope with future
accountability demands (Noe, Wilk, Mullen, &
Wanek, 1997).
Job Autonomy as Personal Choice Behavior
Autonomy represents “the degree to which the job
provides substantial freedom, independence, and dis-
cretion to the individual in scheduling the work and
in determining the procedures to be used in carrying
it out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 79). The scope
of autonomy research is vast, including studies as-
sessing its effects on decision making (Leana, Ahl-
brandt, & Murrell, 1992), job redesign and work
scheduling (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Pierce &
Dunham, 1992), and goal setting (Latham & Yukl,
1976; P. M. Wright, 1992). Further, autonomy has
been associated with individual difference variables
such as persistence (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994),
the pursuit of challenges (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey,
& Tighe, 1994), and an appreciation for interesting
work (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). In short, compel-
ling evidence that perceptions of autonomy are asso-
ciated with a myriad of positive outcomes exists in
the literature.
Because job characteristics are defined largely by
organizations themselves, possessing job autonomy
is analogous to what Hobfoll (1989) called a “con-
dition resource.” To the extent that individuals value
autonomy, it serves as a means of attainment of other
goals (Freund & Riediger, 2001), including more
90 HALL ET AL.
decision-making discretion (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If
this condition resource outpaces its depletion by
competing stressors, individuals likely avoid what a
lack of autonomy triggers, such as strain and ill
health (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser,
& Deci, 1996).
Hypotheses and Plan of the Research
Hypotheses
We contend that the stress associated with in-
creased demands of felt accountability requires one
to pull from a reserve of personal characteristics.
Hobfoll (2002) contends that these resources are, for
example, feelings of self-efficacy, self-esteem, a
sense of optimism, and a sense of mastery. These
personal characteristics also may be cumulatively
related to successes stemming from job autonomy, or
they may be related to decision latitude, as a condi-
tion resource that better allows one to cope with
events deemed stressful (Hobfoll, 2002).
Further, those possessing autonomy are likely
more resilient to stress-provoking conditions due to
the ability to sustain goal-directed effort (Carver &
Scheier, 1998). Similarly, autonomy can lead to
higher levels of social support (Tummers, Lande-
weerd, & van Merode, 2002). As a consequence,
those reporting high levels of autonomy both per-
ceive and realize that social resources are available
when exposed to stressful conditions.
In terms of self-regulation theory, autonomy is
hypothesized to ameliorate the harmful effects of
accountability on strain because choices are made on
the basis of internal needs and preferences (Deci &
Ryan, 1985) instead of anxiety-provoking mandates
by the organization. A considerable body of research
(i.e., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) has
demonstrated the influence of choice on motivation
factors that lead not only to appropriate growth and
development, but to well-being as well (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). A manifestation of exercising choice is
an increase in cognitive efficiency, which likely has a
positive effect on resource preservation.
Hypothesis 1: Autonomy moderates the relation-
ship between felt accountability and job tension.
Specifically, individuals with lower levels of au-
tonomy will report higher levels of job tension in
high-accountability conditions. Further, high lev-
els of autonomy will neutralize the effects of felt
accountability on job tension.
Hypothesis 2: Autonomy moderates the rela-
tionship between felt accountability and job sat-
isfaction. Specifically, individuals with lower
levels of autonomy will report lower levels of
job satisfaction in high-accountability condi-
tions. Further, high levels of autonomy will neu-
tralize the effects of felt accountability on job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Autonomy moderates the rela-
tionship between felt accountability and emo-
tional exhaustion. Specifically, individuals with
lower levels of autonomy will report higher levels
of emotional exhaustion in high-accountability
conditions. Further, high levels of autonomy will
neutralize the effects of felt accountability on emo-
tional exhaustion.
Overview of the Research Plan
The present research involves two studies designed
to examine the effects of job autonomy as a moder-
ator of the relationships between felt accountability
and strain reaction. Convergent evidence regarding
the operation of autonomy across two studies with
different outcome variables will serve to construc-
tively replicate (Lykken, 1968), and thus provide
more confidence in the results. In Study 1, job tension
and job satisfaction serve as strain outcomes. In
Study 2, we examine the effect of the interactive
autonomy–accountability relationship on emotional
exhaustion and job satisfaction.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedures
Surveys were distributed to 249 administrative employ-
ees of a university in the southeastern United States. Par-
ticipation was voluntary, and the surveys were returned
directly to the researchers. A total of 183 usable surveys
were returned, for a response rate of approximately 73%.
Occupations included accountant, human resources admin-
istrator, and software coordinator. The average age of re-
spondents was roughly 42 years, and organizational tenure
was 11 years. The sample included 97 men (53%), and the
average number of direct reports was 19. Archival data
indicated that sample and population demographics did not
differ in terms of age (population age 42.3 years) and
gender (population gender 54.1% male).
91ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
Measures
Felt accountability. An eight-item, unidimensional
scale developed by Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003)
was used to measure felt accountability (
. 91). The
scale used a 7-point response format, with strongly disagree
(1) and strongly agree (7) as endpoints. Representative
items included, “I am held very accountable for my actions
at work” and “To a great extent, the success of my imme-
diate work group rests on my shoulders.” Prior research has
demonstrated scale adequacy (Hall, Hochwarter, & Ferris,
2003; Hochwarter et al., 2003). Factor analysis results in-
dicated that one factor emerged that explained a significant
proportion of variance (eigenvalue 3.39, proportion of
explained variance .46). A comprehensive list of items
and their subsequent factor loadings are reported in the Ap-
pendix.
Autonomy. Job autonomy (
.93) was measured with a
four-item scale developed by Beehr (1976). “I have a lot of say
over what happens on my job” and “I have enough authority to
do my best” represent scale items. A 7-point Likert format was
used (1 strongly disagree to7strongly agree). Factor
analysis results indicated unidimensionality (eigenvalue
4.04, proportion of explained variance .71).
Job tension. Job tension (
.89) was measured with
House and Rizzo’s (1972) six-item scale. Sample items
included, “I work under a great deal of tension” and “My
job tends to directly affect my health.” The measure was
scored using a 7-point response format (1 strongly dis-
agree to7strongly agree). Factor analysis results sup-
ported a unidimensional factor structure (eigenvalue
3.97, proportion of explained variance .73).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction (
.90) was mea-
sured with a five-item subscale of Brayfield and Rothe’s
(1951) index (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998).
“Each day of work seems like it will never end” (reversed
coded) and “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work”
are two items that were measured with a 7-point format
(1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree). Factor
analysis results indicated unidimensionality (eigenvalue
2.91, proportion of explained variance .59).
Control variables. Age, gender, and organization ten-
ure were used as control variables given their previous
influence on stressor–strain relationships (Sheridan & Vre-
denburgh, 1978).
Data Analyses
Moderated multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983)
analyses were conducted to examine the hypothesized mod-
erating relationship. In the first step, demographic factors
(i.e., age, gender, and organization tenure) were entered,
followed by the main effect variables (i.e., felt accountabil-
ity and autonomy) in the second step. The Accountability
Job Autonomy interaction term was entered in the final step.
Moderated multiple regression was used to test 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 pre-
sents moderated regression results. All variables were
standardized. Gender, tenure accountability, and au-
tonomy predicted job tension. Furthermore, auton-
omy predicted job satisfaction. Each Felt Account-
ability Job Autonomy interaction term was
significant, explaining incremental variance in both
job tension (
⫽⫺.13, p.05, R
2
.03) and job
satisfaction (
.09, p.05, R
2
.03). The
amount of explained variance for each interaction
term was comparable with that expected (i.e., 1–3%)
for moderator effects in field studies (Champoux &
Peters, 1987; Chaplin, 1991).
A procedure outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983)
and Stone and Hollenbeck (1989) was used to depict the
two significant interaction terms. Three levels of indi-
vidual job autonomy were plotted: at one standard de-
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables
Variable
Study 2
a
(N 118)
Study 1
b
(N 183)
1234567MSDM SD
1. Age 41.51 9.95 41.77 11.73 .05 .48 .07 .01 .16 .27
2. Gender
c
.03 .04 .02 .08 .01 .06
3. Organization tenure 7.97 7.34 11.40 9.15 .40 .15 .06 .04 .09 .20
4. Felt accountability 2.75 .48 5.35 1.44 .09 .21 .12 .21 .34 .04
5. Autonomy 4.61 1.49 5.37 1.07 .08 .12 .11 .28 .06 .23
6. Job tension/exhaustion 3.60 1.51 4.10 1.47 .16 .22 .22 .26 .29 .06
7. Job satisfaction 5.02 1.49 3.70 .83 .01 .02 .02 .15 .40 .45
a
Intercorrelation values are above the diagonal. r.17, p.05.
b
Intercorrelation values are below the diagonal. r
.12, p.05.
c
Study 1: 1 male, 2 female. Study 2: 0 male, 1 female.
92 HALL ET AL.
viation below the mean, at the mean, and at one
standard deviation above the mean. Figures 1 and 2
illustrate the significant interactive effects. For job
tension, the slope for low-autonomy individuals was
significant from zero, t(1, 30) 2.74, p.01,
whereas the slope for high-autonomy individuals was
not, t(1, 30) ⫽⫺.02, ns. For job satisfaction, the
slope for those with high levels of autonomy was
positive and significantly different from zero, t(1,
30) 2.19, p.01, but the slope for those with low
levels of autonomy was not t(1, 30) ⫽⫺.10, ns.
Study 2
Method
Participants and Procedures
The sample consisted of administrators of a large health
care facility in the southeastern United States. A total of 309
surveys were distributed to employees at their work site.
Participation was voluntary, and respondents were guaran-
teed anonymity. A total of 118 surveys were returned di-
rectly to the researchers, for a 38% response rate. Accounts
receivable manager, payroll coordinator, and security man-
ager were representative occupations. The sample consisted
of 86 women (72.9%) and averaged 41 years of age (SD
9.95 years). Tenure at the organization was approximately 8
years (M7.97, SD 7.34). Archival data indicated that
sample and population demographics did not differ in terms
of age (population age 41.7 years) and gender (population
gender 72.1% female).
Measures
With the exception of the inclusion of a measure of
emotional exhaustion, scales used in Study 2 are equivalent
to those used in Study 1.
Felt accountability. Felt accountability (
.71) was
measured by the eight-item scale (Hall, Hochwarter, &
Ferris, 2003; Hochwarter et al., 2003). Factor analysis for
Study 2 indicated unidimensionality (eignenvalue 3.49,
proportion of explained variance .44).
Table 2
Moderated Regression Analyses
Step and variable
Study 1 Study 2
Job tension
Job
satisfaction
Emotional
exhaustion
Job
satisfaction
R
2
R
2
R
2
R
2
Step 1: Demographics
Age .02* .02* .01 .01
Gender .01 .13 .72** .09
Organization tenure .01 .03 .01 .08 .05** .12 .01 .01
Step 2: Predictors
Felt accountability (A) .46** .05 .59* .02
Autonomy (B) .01 .11** .14** .06* .22** .10** .52** .24**
Step 3: Interaction
AB.13* .03* .09* .03* .47** .05** .46** .07**
*p.05. ** p.01.
Figure 1. Interactive effects of felt accountability and job autonomy on job tension (Study 1).
93ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
Autonomy. Job autonomy (
.87) was measured us-
ing a four-item scale (Beehr, 1976). Factor analysis results
indicated unidimensionality (eigenvalue 2.94, proportion
of explained variance .74).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction (
.90) was mea-
sured using a five-item scale (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951).
Factor analysis results indicated unidimensionality (eigen-
value 4.83, proportion of explained variance .81).
Emotional exhaustion. Six items were adapted from
Pines, Aronson, and Kafry’s (1981) measure of burnout
(
.95). Items included “I feel emotionally drained from
my work,” “I feel used up at the end of each workday,” and
“Working with people all day is really a strain for me.” A
4-point response format was used with never (1) and always
(4) as endpoints. Factor analysis results indicated unidimen-
sionality (eigenvalue 3.70, proportion of explained vari-
ance .74).
Control variables. Age, gender, and organization ten-
ure were included in the regression analyses as control
variables.
Data Analyses
Moderated regression analyses were conducted to deter-
mine the influence of the felt accountability–autonomy in-
teraction on job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
are presented in Table 1, and results of the hierarchi-
cal moderated regression analyses are shown in Table
2. Gender and tenure predicted emotional exhaustion.
Demographic factors failed to predict job satisfac-
tion. Felt accountability predicted emotional exhaus-
tion, whereas autonomy predicted both emotional
exhaustion and job satisfaction. Finally, each Felt
Accountability Job Autonomy interaction term
was significant, explaining incremental variance in
both emotional exhaustion (
⫽⫺.47, p.01,
R
2
.05) and job satisfaction (
.46, p.01,
R
2
.07). Figures 3 and 4 illustrate these effects.
Individuals with low levels of autonomy reported
higher levels of exhaustion, t(1, 25) 2.02, p.01,
and lower levels of job satisfaction, t(1, 25) ⫽⫺1.60,
p.10. Conversely, high autonomy respondents
reported lower levels of emotional exhaustion, t(1,
25) ⫽⫺1.92, p.05, and higher levels of job
satisfaction, t(1, 25) 1.78, p.05.
Discussion
This study characterized felt accountability as a
potential work environment stressor that has dysfunc-
tional consequences. In support, evidence of a direct
relationship between felt accountability and strain
reactions (i.e., job tension and emotional exhaustion)
was shown in each study. Furthermore, results dem-
onstrated the neutralizing effects of autonomy on job
tension, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction,
as hypothesized.
We found it interesting that job satisfaction in-
creased concurrently with felt accountability for
high-autonomy individuals. This finding supports
past research (Thoms, Dose, & Scott, 2002), which
found a positive relationship between both account-
ability to coworkers and job satisfaction and account-
ability to management and job satisfaction. Further,
Hall, Frink, et al. (2003) reported that felt account-
ability related positively to both job involvement and
job tension.
Taken in their entirety, our results support the view
that stressors do not always result in negative indi-
vidual outcomes (Selye, 1982). For example, some
Figure 2. Interactive effects of felt accountability and job autonomy on job satisfaction
(Study 1).
94 HALL ET AL.
degree of stress or urgency can have positive effects
on motivation. That is, individuals might not feel
activated to perform a task (or perform it well) if
stress is completely absent. Perhaps some degree of
felt accountability is necessary for one to feel con-
nected to or engaged in work. As such, felt account-
ability might have positive outcomes when one has
the resources (e.g., autonomy) to match or exceed the
anxiety that follows increased evaluation. However,
if one does not possess adequate resources, higher
levels of felt accountability conceivably trigger ap-
prehension due to a failure to satisfactorily control
the evaluation process.
Contributions of the Research
Accountability has frequently been treated in the
literature as an objective condition. Following more
contemporary treatments of the construct (Frink &
Klimoski, 1998; Hochwarter et al., 2003), we
adopted the phenomenological view (Tetlock, 1985,
1992), in which accountability represents a subjec-
tively experienced phenomenon. Our findings help
better establish a growing line of work that has in-
vestigated individual-level, or felt, accountability and
its consequences.
A final contribution was our inclusion of COR and
self-regulation theories to explain autonomy’s role as
a moderator of the accountability–job strain relation-
ship. Including both theories was required because
choosing one would not capture the influence of
autonomy in its entirety. Specifically, possessing au-
tonomy requires individuals to (a) make work deci-
sions based on one’s perceived strengths and limita-
tions (i.e., regulate behavior to maximize the
contribution of strengths and minimize harm caused
Figure 3. Interactive effects of felt accountability and job autonomy on emotional exhaus-
tion (Study 2).
Figure 4. Interactive effects of felt accountability and job autonomy on job satisfaction
(Study 2).
95ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
by deficiencies) and (b) continually monitor exertion
and regeneration of resources deemed necessary. In-
cluding self-regulation theory allowed us to capture
the “how” of autonomy. Incorporating COR allowed
us to explain the “what” of autonomy.
Strengths and Limitations of the Research
A number of strengths warrant brief mention. First,
we were able to substantiate consistent accountabil-
ity–autonomy associations on related strain outcomes
in two unique environments, thus increasing the gen-
eralizability of our results. Second, archival informa-
tion allowed us to demonstrate that data gathered
from the participating organizations were not af-
fected by response bias.
A final strength was our ability to conduct this
research in a field setting. As noted, the majority of
accountability research has been performed in labo-
ratory settings (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-
Jacobs & Yates, 1996; Tetlock, 1985, 1992). How-
ever, the number of studies that have examined
accountability in actual organizations is limited. De-
spite the fact that laboratory settings provide the
opportunity to exercise greater control over threats to
internal validity, generalizability of the findings is
always suspect (Schwab, 1999). Lerner and Tetlock
(1999, p. 270) noted, “regardless of the kind of ac-
countability one examines, laboratory contexts typi-
cally create a situation in which people expect only a
brief encounter with someone they have never met
before and never expect to meet again.” As such, our
conclusions are strengthened by our constructively
replicated findings across two studies conducted out-
side of the laboratory.
As with any empirical research, there are limita-
tions that need to be discussed. One limitation is that
the data in each study came from a single source, a
self-report survey. Without estimating a common
method variance factor using structural equation
modeling, we were unable to determine the extent to
which the variance affected our data (Widaman,
1985; Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). Although
common method variance represents a threat to the
validity of this study, an examination of Table 1 does
not suggest spuriously inflated relationships because
of response–response bias. Although we cannot rule
out the potential for artifactually generated effects,
the evidence suggests that common method variance
is not likely problematic.
A possible limitation in the current study is that a
self-report measure of autonomy was used in both
studies. In addition to scale measures, archival data
(e.g., those available from the Department of Trans-
portation) or job analysis ratings might be used. Be-
ing able to demonstrate our hypothesized interactions
with both self-report data and data from other sources
would strengthen our conclusions. Another limitation
is that in the absence of a structural equation model
or a true experimental design (Schwab, 1999), we
cannot assess causality. We can only state the exis-
tence or nonexistence of a relationship between the
variables.
Directions for Future Research
Research on felt accountability in organizations is
still in its early development. As such, there exists
fertile ground for future research. Frink and Klimoski
(1998) noted that scholars are beginning to more
fully understand certain aspects of the accountability
phenomenon. However, the field has not conceptual-
ized and tested a comprehensive model of account-
ability in organizations to date (see Hall, Frink, et al.,
2003, for a modest step in this direction). The entire
body of accountability research would be greatly
served if a comprehensive model of accountability in
organizations were proposed and tested to guide fu-
ture work.
Further, it would be interesting to see if other
potential resources assist the coping process by neu-
tralizing the negative effects of stressors on strains.
Recently, two studies have found political skill,
which Hobfoll (1989) would classify as a personal
characteristic resource, to moderate stressor strain–
strain relationships (Perrewe´ et al., 2004) and role
overload (Perrewe´ et al., 2005) as stressors.
Building on this idea, it may be insightful to ex-
amine the influence of role stressors (i.e., role conflict
and role overload) on the various relationships be-
tween accountability and work outcome. We noted in
this series of studies that high levels of accountability
would inherently lead to increases in role stressors.
However, these immediate linkages were not directly
examined. Doing so may shed additional light on this
potentially intricate relationship.
Finally, it may be useful to consider the culture of
the work environment when conducting felt account-
ability studies. Presumably, there are some settings
where accountability is ingrained in the social fabric
of the organization. Perhaps a failure to secure ap-
propriate levels of accountability to fit in with other
members of the organization may be as stress-pro-
voking for some as when high levels are experienced.
96 HALL ET AL.
Conclusion
The recent emphasis on eliminating levels of em-
ployees has a considerable impact on both account-
ability and autonomy. For example, employees will
likely become accountable for more activities and
outcomes at work than they had previously because
of the widespread reduction of coworkers with which
to share job duties. The stress associated with in-
creased accountabilities is likely amplified by the fact
that evaluative audiences are not only larger but also
unable to spend adequate time assessing individuals’
unique contributions. As such, we expect that the
direct positive association between felt accountability
and tension will intensify as this practice continues.
Developing a greater appreciation of factors, such as
autonomy, that assuage this potentially noxious rela-
tionship represents an important endeavor.
References
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E.
(1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing in-
trinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950 –967.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice,
D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the self a limited re-
source? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1993).
When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: Negative
consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 141–156.
Beehr, T. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the
relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role
strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35– 40.
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satis-
faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New
York: Academic Press.
Carnevale, P. (1985). Accountability of group representa-
tives and intergroup relations. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.),
Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 227–248).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Carver, C. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R.
Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regula-
tion: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 13–39).
New York: Guilford Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and
self-regulation: A control theory approach to human
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regula-
tion of behavior. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Champoux, J., & Peters, W. (1987). Form, effect size, and
power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Oc-
cupational Psychology, 60, 243–255.
Chaplin, W. (1991). The next generation of moderator re-
search in personality psychology. Journal of Personality,
59, 143–178.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. G. Mc-
Clintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp.
185–235). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Cummings, L. L., & Anton, R. J. (1990). The logical and
appreciative dimensions of accountability. In S. Sriv-
astva, D. Cooperrider, & Associates (Eds.), Appreciative
management and leadership (pp. 257–286). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal
affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic
Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom prone-
ness—The development and correlates of a new scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4 –17.
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, UK: Blackwell.
Freund, A. M., & Riediger, M. (2001). What I have and
what I do: The role of resource loss and gain throughout
life. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50,
370 –380.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of
accountability in organizations and human resource man-
agement. 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. (2004). Advancing account-
ability theory and practice: Introduction to the human
resource management review special edition. Human Re-
source Management Review, 14, 1–17.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and
accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of
social control across cultures. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review, 14, 135–160.
Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping
with accountability cross-pressures: Low effort evasive
tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11,
1380 –1391.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation
through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250 –279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A.,
Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in
human resources management. In C. A. Schriesheim &
L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource
management (pp. 29 63). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003).
Accountability job efficacy on citizenship and politics.
Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Or-
lando, FL.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new
97ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources
and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6,
307–324.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of re-
sources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In W.
Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional
burnout: Recent developments in theory and practice
(pp. 115–129). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2003).
Accountability at work: An examination of antecedents
and consequences. Paper presented at the 18th Annual
Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Cronkite,
R. C. (1999). Resource loss, resource gain and depressive
symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 620 – 629.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and
ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organiza-
tional behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 7, 467–505.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping
strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of
resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
63, 490 –509.
Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998).
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role
of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
17–34.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and
mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 24, 285–306.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in
performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 45, 194 –208.
Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orienta-
tions, failure, and achievement. Journal of Personality,
62, 321–346.
Latham, G., & Yukl, G. (1976). The effects of assigned and
participative goal setting on performance and job satis-
faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166 –177.
Leana, C. R., Ahlbrandt, R. S., & Murrell, A. (1992). The
effects of employee involvement programs on unionized
workers’ attitude, perceptions, and preferences in deci-
sion making. Academy of Management Journal, 35,
861– 873.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the
effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
255–275.
Lindkvist, L., & Llewellyn, S. (2003). Accountability, re-
sponsibility, and organization. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 19, 251–273.
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psycholog-
ical research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.
Monnier, J., Cameron, R. P., Hobfoll, S. E., & Gribble, J. R.
(2002). The impact of resource loss and critical incidents
on psychological functioning in fire-emergency workers:
A pilot study. International Journal of Stress Manage-
ment, 9, 11–29.
Noe, R., Wilk, S., Mullen, E., & Wanek, J. (1997). Em-
ployee development: Issues in construct definition and
investigation of antecedents. In J. Ford, K. Kozlowski, E.
Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving
training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 153–
188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perrewe´, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M.,
Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job
stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunc-
tional consequences of role conflict stressors. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 141–152.
Perrewe´, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G. R.,
Kacmar, C. J., Liu, Y., Zinko, R., & Hochwarter, W. A.
(in press). Political skill: An antidote in the role over-
load–strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 10, 239 –250.
Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1992). The 12-hour work
day: A 48 hour, eight-day week. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 35, 1086 –1098.
Pines, A. M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout:
From tedium to personal growth. New York: Free Press.
Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability
produce independence? Goals as determinants of the
impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 472– 478.
Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe´, P., &
Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountabil-
ity and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship and
political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13, 53–72.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68 –78.
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L.
(1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic
perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In
P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of
action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior
(pp. 7–26). New York: Guilford Press.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R.,
& Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsi-
bility. Psychological Review, 101, 632– 652.
Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Doherty, K. (1991).
Coping with accountability: Self-identification and eval-
uative reckonings. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth
(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp.
96 –115). New York: Pergamon Press.
Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational
studies, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Selye, H. (1982). History and present status of the stress
concept. In L. Goldberg & S. Brenitz (Eds.), Handbook
of stress (pp. 7–17). New York: Free Press.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. (1983). The accountability of
conduct. London: Academic Press.
Sheridan, J. E., & Vredenburgh, D. J. (1978). Usefulness of
leader behavior and social power variables in predicting
job tension, performance, and turnover of nursing em-
ployees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 89 –95.
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of proce-
dural and outcome accountability on judgment quality.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 65, 1–17.
98 HALL ET AL.
Simmering, M. J., Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Porter, C.
(2003). Conscientiousness, autonomy, fit, and employee
development: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 88, 954 –963.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A
meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and par-
ticipation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Stone, E., & Hollenbeck, J. (1989). Clarifying some con-
troversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for
detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and
related matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 3–10.
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 judg-
ment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In
M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (pp. 331–377). New York: Academic Press.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. P., & Scott, K. (2002). Relationships
between accountability, job satisfaction, and trust. Hu-
man Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 307–323.
Tummers, G., Landeweerd, J. A., & van Merode, G. G.
(2002). Work organization, work characteristics, and
their psychological effects on nurses in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 183–206.
Vohs, K., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-
regulation. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Hand-
book of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applica-
tion (pp. 1–9). New York: Guilford Press.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance
structure models for multitrait–multimethod data. Ap-
plied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, R. M. (1989). Lack
of method variance in self-reported affect and percep-
tions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 462– 468.
Wright, P. M. (1992). An examination of the relationships
among monetary incentives, goal commitment, and per-
formance. Journal of Management, 18, 677– 693.
Wright, T., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psy-
chological well-being, and job performance: An exam-
ination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and
job burnout. Journal of Business Management, 21,
1129 –1140.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965, February 16). Social facilitation. Sci-
ence, 149, 269 –274.
Appendix
Factor Analyses for the Felt Accountability Scale
Item
Loading
(Study 1)
Loading
(Study 2)
I am held very accountable for my actions at work. .61 .58
I often have to explain why I do certain things at work. .55 .63
Top management holds me accountable for all of my decisions. .73 .69
If things at work do not go the way that they should, I will
hear about it from top management. .68 .61
To a great extent, the success of my immediate work group
rests on my shoulders. .74 .66
The jobs of many people at work depend on my success or
failures. .68 .59
In the grand scheme of things, my efforts at work are very
important. .56 .51
Coworkers, subordinates, and bosses closely scrutinize my
efforts at work. .65 .59
Eigenvalue 3.39 3.49
Proportion of variance explained .46 .44
Received November 15, 2004
Revision received April 25, 2005
Accepted June 4, 2005 y
99ACCOUNTABILITY, AUTONOMY, AND STRAIN
... In contrast to the objective system, success or failure of enterprises is more influenced by how employees perceive their accountabilities (Park, 2018;Dewi and Riantoputra, 2019). Felt accountability is a subjective reflection of accountability and defined as perceived expectations that one's actions or decisions will be evaluated by a specific audience, and rewards or punishments are conditioned on this evaluation (Hall et al., 2006). As an essential mechanism for explaining workplace phenomena, felt accountability significantly impacts individuals' emotions, cognitions, behaviors, and decisions (Hall et al., 2017). ...
... First of all, felt accountability emphasizes the obligation to take responsibility for the work results. Second, due to the emphasizing of the reward or punishment brought about by the evaluations (Hall et al., 2006), felt accountability leads to pressure and makes individuals comply with work requirements (e.g., performance requirements, workflow) for fear of mistakes (Frink and Ferris, 1998). Finally, individuals with high felt accountability tend to meet external expectations and maintain their self-esteem, image, or status (Kuo et al., 2021). ...
... Accountability is a system of rewards and punishments designed to ensure that individual behavior is in line with organizational standards (Frink and Ferris, 1998). Felt accountability is defined as perceived expectations that one's actions or decisions will be evaluated by a specific audience, and rewards or punishments are conditioned on this evaluation (Hall et al., 2006). Compared to accountability as an external public process, felt accountability is considered to be an internal process that emphasizes the individual perception of norms (Cummings and Anton, 1990). ...
Article
Full-text available
Accountability is a core element for groups and societies to operate efficiently. However, there have been confusing findings in previous studies on felt accountability, and few efforts have been made to clarify its complicated role. Drawing on self-determination theory, we developed an integrative model to examine the double-edged sword effect of felt accountability on work outcomes and individual wellbeing. We utilized a three-wave sample of 294 employees to test our hypotheses. The findings supported our hypotheses. Specifically, felt accountability is positively related to both task performance and emotional exhaustion, and obsessive passion mediates the positive relationship between felt accountability and task performance, while work overload mediates the positive relationship between felt accountability and emotional exhaustion. This study integrates the positive and dark sides of felt accountability, provides new insights into its mechanism and expands the application of self-determination theory.
... As we mentioned Role of transformational leadership earlier, felt accountability could be negatively related to extra-role behavior (Mitchell et al., 1998;Hall and Ferris, 2011). In addition, felt accountability has been understood as a work stressor for employees, as it brings social pressures to employees and provokes anxiety (Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996;Hall et al., 2006). For example, employees' felt accountability has been associated with a higher level of job tension (Hall et al., 2006) and negative behavioral outcomes such as escalation behavior (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999;Wolff and Klauss, 2008), decision avoidance (Green et al., 2000) and poor performance (Tan et al., 2002). ...
... In addition, felt accountability has been understood as a work stressor for employees, as it brings social pressures to employees and provokes anxiety (Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996;Hall et al., 2006). For example, employees' felt accountability has been associated with a higher level of job tension (Hall et al., 2006) and negative behavioral outcomes such as escalation behavior (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999;Wolff and Klauss, 2008), decision avoidance (Green et al., 2000) and poor performance (Tan et al., 2002). These findings suggest that felt accountability, though aims to facilitate organizational operation, can bring negative implications on individual performance. ...
Article
Purpose Studies have reported negative effects of felt accountability on employees' extra-role behavior. Deviating from that focus, this study proposes that leadership plays a role in shaping the implications of felt accountability for employees' extra-role behavior. We propose that under high transformational leadership, felt accountability can motivate employees to engage in task-relevant information elaboration and facilitate innovative work behavior, a form of extra-role behavior that seeks to improve the work environment. Design/methodology/approach We conducted a pilot study to validate measurements of felt accountability and task-relevant information elaboration in a sample of 202 employees. We then conducted the main study using a time-lagged, multisource survey design with a sample of 120 supervisor–employee pairs. Findings The results from the main study reveal that the association between felt accountability and task-related information elaboration is positive and stronger when transformational leadership is higher. Furthermore, task-relevant information elaboration positively predicts innovative work behavior. Finally, when transformational leadership is higher, the mediation effect of task-relevant information elaboration on the association between felt accountability and innovative work behavior is stronger. Originality/value Our study indicates that felt accountability can have positive implications for employees' extra-role behavior contingent on leadership styles. In contrast to previous studies that emphasize the negative implications of felt accountability on employees' behavior, our study depicts when and why felt accountability can have positive implications on employees' behavior.
... Accountability reflects the degree that one's decisions or actions are subject to evaluation by others and tied to consequences such as rewards and sanctions (Hall et al., 2006). These decisions or actions can include responsibility for others' work outcomes, the quality of results produced by others, and the health or safety of coworkers (Strong et al., 1999). ...
... Accountability. This variable was operationalized using six items adapted from the felt accountability scale described by Hall et al. (2006). The items were: "I am held very accountable for my actions at work"; "my job requires that I often have to explain why I do certain things at work"; "My boss holds me accountable for all of my decisions"; "If things at work do not go the way that they should, my boss will let me know"; "In the grand scheme of things, my job is very important"; and, "Co-workers, subordinates, and bosses closely scrutinize my efforts at work." ...
Article
While substantial research demonstrates that personal attributes and the manner with which people construe their work roles both play important antecedent roles in predicting organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), there has been very little examination of the process by which these distinct factors jointly affect the performance of OCB. We apply the principles of role theory and identity theory to articulate how an understudied personal attribute (interpersonal skill) influences OCB as well as the boundary conditions for this relationship. We posit role cognitions as a key mechanism through which interpersonal skills ultimately facilitate OCB. We also examine how work contexts characterized by demands from social contingencies placed on an individual's work role by other people shape this role enactment process, specifically situational differences in accountability, routinization, interdependence, and external interactions. Results support the proposed mediating effects of role cognitions and show the indirect effects of interpersonal skills through role cognitions are amplified when contexts are high in accountability and interdependence and are attenuated in contexts high in routinization.
... (Lazarus 1984) According to the transactional definition, also referred to as ‗conservation of resources theory': -…stress comes from the interaction of the person and environment and that … situation is subjectively interpreted to tax or exceed a person's self-regulatory resources.‖ (Hall 2006) These resources include personality traits which together can be termed resilience, as well as social supports and material conditions. A closely related model of workplace stress refers to the -stress [which] arises from lack of fit between the person and the environment.‖(Sutherland ...
... However, studies on related concepts suggest that accountability hampers exploration (relative to exploitation). Notably, the literature on socialevaluative pressure, which is a well-documented consequence of accountability (Hall et al., 2006;Laird et al., 2009), tends to show negative effects on individual creative exploration, at least at relatively high levels of social-evaluative pressure (Byron et al., 2010). Consistent with this, Gardner (2012) found that when project teams at a consultancy firm worked under high performance pressure, they adopted a "getting the job done" mode, which means that they disregarded advice that challenged their current understanding of their task, thus quenching any chance for exploration of different paths. ...
Article
Full-text available
Because accountability is a central feature of many management practices, feeling accountable is a fact of life in modern organizations. Accountability has been found to have many beneficial outcomes, yet it may also increase certain cognitive biases. Building on the social contingency model of accountability, we examine the effect of accountability on manager’s individual decision making about exploration vs. exploitation. We distinguish between outcome and process accountability and examine them as independent predictors of exploration behaviour. Although previous work suggests that outcome accountability may lead managers to quickly switch to old ways of working (i.e., exploitation), we propose that process accountability will increase individual exploration. Furthermore, employing the concept of disfluency, we propose that this positive effect of process accountability will be especially strong when outcome accountability is also high. Combining two survey studies (n = 361, n = 438) with employees and a lab experiment (n = 211), we find overall support for our hypotheses. Specifically, we find that process accountability increases exploration while outcome accountability decreases it (and increases exploitation). We also find partial support for a positive interaction of process and outcome accountability.
... The job demands-control model proposes that when an individual experiences high demands on the job, control in that job can buffer the harmful effects of those demands on the individual's mental strain and other outcomes (Karasek, 1979). More specifically, job autonomy has been found to buffer the effect of stressors on strain reactions (Hall et al., 2006). We contend that job autonomy, which occurs when "the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out" (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 162), is a potential moderator of the family undermining to incivility relationship in that autonomy allows individuals to have the freedom to engage in a variety of behaviors that help them deal with stress (Sakurai & Jex, 2012). ...
Article
We propose a spillover-crossover-spillover process model of dual-career couples by which job incumbent job tension contributes to strain-based work-family conflict which motivates their work-based family undermining, that later relates to the spouse’s workplace incivility. Further, we propose the spouse’s job autonomy moderates the relationship between job incumbent work-based family undermining behaviors and spousal incivility at work. We test the proposed model using a sample of 420 dual-career couples’ survey responses collected over three time periods. Results indicate that job incumbent job tension relates positively to their work-based family undermining behaviors, which then associates with the spouse’s workplace incivility. These effects are moderated by the spouse’s job autonomy such that greater autonomy weakens the relationship between perceived work-based undermining behaviors and incivility at work.
... Thus, a primary outcome in contexts of heightened accountability is that individuals typically increase their awareness of, and attentiveness to, external performance standards. It is thus unsurprising that some research finds strong accountability contexts are associated with increases in role strain (Hall et al., 2006) and decreases in prosocial behaviors like OCB, as employees narrow their attentional capacity to focus on task performance directly linked with visible rewards or results (Mitchell et al., 1998;Rubin et al., 2013). Yet at the same time, other research has shown the positive effects of accountability on OCB (Hall et al., 2009;Hall & Ferris, 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Across two studies, we directly test the widely held tenet in the scholarship of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) that individuals choose to engage in OCB as a result of felt obligations to reciprocate. We further examine how obligations to reciprocate operate against a backdrop of relevant contextual factors (accountability) and individual differences (proactive personality and interpersonal skill). Using an experimental method, we find evidence supporting the proposition that reciprocity obligations increase OCB engagement and that these effects are amplified by contexts high in accountability and when individuals possess high levels of proactive personality. In a subsequent field study, we find further corroborating evidence for the effects of reciprocity obligations on OCB and reaffirm the moderating influences of proactive personality and accountability. Overall, the convergent evidence supports the causal relationship between reciprocity obligations and OCB, as well as explicates the conditions under which this foundational effect operates across individuals and varying contexts.
Preprint
Full-text available
In this chapter, we report on an experimental study which examined how different impression management (IM) tactics used by applicants in job interviews influence interviewer evaluations of the two universal dimensions of social judgment (likeability, competence) and how these fundamental personal evaluations in turn affect perceived hireability. Experimental scenarios presented 3 fictitious male applicants who used modesty, ingratiation, or self-promotion in a job interview. In addition, the amount of background information about the applicants and raters’ accountability for their potential hiring decisions were experimentally manipulated. A total of 82 experienced job interviewers rated how likeable and competent each applicant appeared to them, and how likely they would be to offer him a job. As expected, modesty induced the most favorable interviewer evaluations: The applicant using modesty was perceived as more likeable than the applicants using ingratiation or self-promotion and, as a consequence, as more hireable. Applicants’ perceived competence proved to be of secondary importance. The benefits of modesty increased further when positive background information about applicants was available and when raters’ accountability was low. The results shed light on both the crucial role of interviewers’ interpersonal affect and the considerable potential of the tactic of modesty for job applicants.
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.
Article
Full-text available
In this study, it is aimed to investigate the moderation roles of perceived organizational support and tightness in the relationships between felt accountability and its consequences. For this purpose, 863 data were obtained in Adana City Hospital via survey method. The results show that felt accountability was positively associated with job-related tension, the dimensions of emotional labor and contextual performance, but negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Moreover, perceived organizational support had a moderation role between felt accountability and some consequences (job satisfaction, contextual performance, histrionics), whereas it did no moderation role between felt accountability and the other consequences (work-related tension, deep action, hidden emotions). Similarly, there was no moderation effects of the tightness in the relationships between felt accountability and its all consequences.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Book
I: Background.- 1. An Introduction.- 2. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination.- II: Self-Determination Theory.- 3. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Perceived Causality and Perceived Competence.- 4. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Interpersonal Communication and Intrapersonal Regulation.- 5. Toward an Organismic Integration Theory: Motivation and Development.- 6. Causality Orientations Theory: Personality Influences on Motivation.- III: Alternative Approaches.- 7. Operant and Attributional Theories.- 8. Information-Processing Theories.- IV: Applications and Implications.- 9. Education.- 10. Psychotherapy.- 11. Work.- 12. Sports.- References.- Author Index.
Article
• Reports an error in the the article "Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction" by Gary P. Latham and Gary A. Yukl (Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 61(2) Apr 1976, 166-171). The last paragraph in the Results section subtitled "Manipulation Check and Reliability of Measures" on page 168 was a repetition of the previous paragraph. It should be changed to read as follows: The internal consistency of the satisfaction measure was .83, The stability of the satisfaction scale, as estimated by the correlation between the before and after measures of satisfaction, was .70 (p < .01). (The following abstract originally appeared in record 1977-30702-001 .) Evaluated the job performance of 41 female typists under participative or assigned goal setting conditions over a 10-wk period. Significant productivity improvement occurred in both conditions during the 2nd 5 wks. There was no significant difference between conditions with respect to goal difficulty or frequency of goal attainment. Job satisfaction declined slightly in both conditions. Individual trait measures such as need for independence did not moderate the effects of either type of goal setting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) • Reports an error in the the article "Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction" by Gary P. Latham and Gary A. Yukl (Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 61(2) Apr 1976, 166-171). The last paragraph in the Results section subtitled "Manipulation Check and Reliability of Measures" on page 168 was a repetition of the previous paragraph. It should be changed to read as follows: The internal consistency of the satisfaction measure was .83, The stability of the satisfaction scale, as estimated by the correlation between the before and after measures of satisfaction, was .70 (p < .01). (The following abstract originally appeared in record 1977-30702-001 .) Evaluated the job performance of 41 female typists under participative or assigned goal setting conditions over a 10-wk period. Significant productivity improvement occurred in both conditions during the 2nd 5 wks. There was no significant difference between conditions with respect to goal difficulty or frequency of goal attainment. Job satisfaction declined slightly in both conditions. Individual trait measures such as need for independence did not moderate the effects of either type of goal setting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
This revision of a best selling research methods textbook introduces social science methods as applied broadly to the study of issues that arise as part of organizational life. These include issues involving organizational participants such as managers, teachers, customers, patients and clients, and transactions within and between organizations. In this new edition, chapter 19 now focuses on describing the modeling process and outcomes. An entirely new chapter 20 now addresses challenges to modeling. It goes substantially beyond a discussion of statistical inference. It also discusses issues in interpreting variance, explained estimates, and standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients. A new capstone chapter 21 helps students recognize good research. This textbook is accompanied by an Instructor's Manual for course use. © 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.