An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability

• Date: 01 February 2017
• Author: Angela T. Hall,Dwight D. Frink,M. Ronald Buckley
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
• Published date: 01 February 2017

An accountability account: A review and synthesis

of the theoretical and empirical research on felt

accountability

ANGELA T. HALL

1

*, DWIGHT D. FRINK

2

AND M. RONALD BUCKLEY

3

1

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, U.S.A.

2

University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, U.S.A.

3

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, U.S.A.

Summary Accountability is a fundamental element of all societies and the organizations that operate within them. This

paper focuses on the individual-level accountability concept of felt accountability (also referred to in the lit-

erature as simply accountability), which can be described as the perceptions of one’s personal accountability.

We describe key theories that have formed the theoretical groundwork for the body of felt accountability lit-

erature, and discuss the empirical research published since the last major review of the accountability litera-

ture in the late 1990s. Empirical research has revealed that accountability has both constructive and

deleterious consequences. Moreover, research examining accountability and key outcomes has produced

mixed results, suggesting that consideration of moderators and nonlinear relationships are important when ex-

amining accountability. Although accountability is an important construct, there are many issues that have yet

to be investigated by scholars. We identify limitations and gaps in the current body of the empirical research

and conclude the paper with suggestions for scholars striving to make contributions to this line of research.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: accountability; responsibility; self-image

A moral being is an accountable being. An accountable being, as the word expresses, is a being that must give an account of

its actions to some other, and that consequently must regulate them according to the good-liking of this other.

Adam Smith, The theory of moral sentiments, 1754

In the history of any area of scientific inquiry, there are periods when significant opportunities present them-

selves, and such is the time for accountability literature. A scholarly interest in accountability can be traced to

early research in negotiations (e.g., Klimoski, 1972; Klimoski & Ash, 1974). Subsequent conceptualizations of

accountability by Tetlock (1985), Schlenker (e.g., Schlenker & Weigold, 1989), and others (e.g., Cummings

& Anton, 1990) fostered by increasing real-world calls for accountability in the public and private sectors

spurred a steady growth in interest that tended to focus on the foundational issues developed in those works.

We would suggest that while this work is vitally important, accountability is still in the nascent stage as a schol-

arly research domain. Specifically, although scholars and academics alike proclaim the need for accountability in

many areas, there is still much that is unknown about this construct. This review is purposed toward presenting

a succinct overview of various theoretical frameworks of accountability along with a focused overview of the

current status of accountability research, followed by a more in-depth look at methodological concerns and prof-

fering future directions that can broaden theoretical foundations and substantially clarify the nature of account-

ability at work.

*Correspondence to: Angela T. Hall, School of Human Resources and Labor Relations, Michigan State University, 368 Farm Lane, East Lansing,

MI 48824, USA. E-mail: athall@msu.edu

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 1 December 2013

Revised 14 July 2015, Accepted 29 July 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 204–224 (2017)

Published online 1 September 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2052

The IRIOP Annual Review Issue

Accountability is a fundamental element in all societies and to the organizations that inhabit society (Hall et al.,

2003). Without accountability, individuals would be able to act without regard to the consequences imposed by

others (Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, Falvy, & Ferris, 1998). Furthermore, if groups and organizations had no account-

abilities, coordinated activities would be difficult, and organizations would find it challenging to operate efficiently

(Frink & Klimoski, 1998). From ancient times, the importance of accountability has been recognized by scholars.

Plato argued that “without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly.”In recent times, numerouspo-

litical and corporate scandals have been linked to failures in accountability (Hall, Ferris, Bowen, & Fi tzgibbons, 2007).

However, that is not to say that accountability is “universally positive”(Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Accountability

has a “dark side”(Frink & Klimoski, 1998), as being accountable has been linked to such negative consequences as

increased age stereotyping (Gordon, Rozelle, & Baxter, 1989), squandered resources (Adelberg & Batson, 1978),

flawed performance evaluations (Klimoski & Inks, 1990), and heightened negative employee outcomes in the pres-

ence of abusive supervision (Breaux, Perrewé, Hall, Frink, & Hochwarter, 2008). Indeed, accountability has been

found to both attenuate and amplify cognitive biases (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Moreover, accountability has been

found to be positively related to such disparate constructs as job satisfaction (Thoms, Dose, & Scott, 2002) and job-

induced tension (Hochwarter, Perrewé, Hall, & Ferris, 2005). Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, and Hopper (1995)

suggested that either too much or too little accountability can be deleterious. This all suggests that accountability is

an important, yet complicated, construct.

Accountability has implications for all levels of organizational analyses (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Lerner &

Tetlock, 1999). It is a meso-level (Frink et al., 2008) and multi-level construct (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). However,

we will concentrate on micro-level accountability. Specifically, the focus of this review will center on the main form

of micro-level accountability that has received the overwhelming majority of research attention: felt accountability.

Felt accountability, which is often called simply accountability, refers to an individual’s perceptions of his or her

own accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998).

This review contributes to the accountability literature by providing the first inclusive overview of the individual-

level accountability literature since Lerner and Tetlock (1999). We begin the paper with a discussion of key models

and conceptualizations that have guided research. We discuss salient research streams within the accountability lit-

erature, concentrating on empirical studies that have been published since 1998. We used 1998 as our starting date to

allow for a 1-year time lag between the acceptance and in print publication of the Lerner and Tetlock review. Our

primary foci are as follows: to (1) address gaps in the research by emphasizing conceptual and theoretical frame-

works that can inform accountability research; (2) identify empirical limitations that have stunted accountability

research; and (3) proffer suggestions for future directions and opportunities in accountability research.

Review process

In 1998, Frink and Klimoski conducted a review of the accountability literature as it pertained to organizations. They

reported that in their search of the academic management and psychology literatures, they found fewer than 50 ref-

erences to accountability and that approximately half of these citations were attributed to five researchers and their

colleagues.

The review process for this paper included searching management, psychology, and related literatures using ABI

Inform Proquest, ISI Web of Science, Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, searching under the terms

“accountability”and “responsibility.”This process revealed 234 articles on micro-level accountability and respon-

sibility. Of these 234 articles, 57 were empirical articles with organizational contexts published since 1998, which

we discuss in the section of this paper entitled “Overview of Empirical Accountability Research.”

Defining accountability

In this paper, we concentrate on felt accountability, which is commonly referred to as simply accountability. Felt

accountability is based on the perceptions of accountability of the actor (Frink & Klimoski, 1998) as opposed to

ACCOUNTABILITY 205

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 204–224 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job