Moving from individual to constructive accountability

Tilburg University

Moving from individual to constructive accountability

Seiling, J.G.

Publication date:

2005

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Seiling, J. G. (2005). Moving from individual to constructive accountability. [s.n.].

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

0.

Moving

from Individual to

Constructive Accountability

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging vande graad vandoctor aandeUniversiteitvanTilburg, op gezag van derector

magnificus, prof. dr. F.A. van der Duyn Schouten, in het openbaarteverdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college van promoties aangewezen commissie, in de aula vande_{Universiteit op}

vrijdag23 september 2005 om 10.45 uur door

JANEGALLOWYSEILING

1

.3. 1

1.,lit.kiltEIT * -,, . I#, .1.111'i R<,

0-1..

BIBLIOTHEEK TILBURG

Promotores: Prof. Dr. K._Gergen Prof. Dr._{J.B. Rijsman}

Submitted by:

Jane_{GallowaySeiling MOD}

Lima, Ohio, USA 419-227-7979

Index

Page Chapter1 Introduction 4

Chapter2 ResearchProceduresandContext 40

Chapter3 Managers Speak: Accountability 52 in Question

Chapter4 _{Constructive Accountability:} 150

TheEnriched Account

Chapter5 _MovingToward Constructive 196

Accountability

Bibliography 235

Appendix A A Family

of

CriteriaforSocial 247

ConstructionistPractices

AppendixB ConversationComments onTraditional 248 and_{Constructive Accountability}

Table 1: CommentsonTraditional 249

Accountability

Table2: Comments onConstructive 250

Summary

Aqualitative studywith standardized questions (yet_flexible) wasundertaken toidentify

(1) what accountability currently looks like in organizations today, (2) introduce the concept

of

constructive accountability (CA) into the

thinking of

top organizational

members, (3) identify the interviewees' sense of the concepts usefulness in the organizational context, and (4) request the interviewees input on how CA could be introduced into today's organizations. The process included face-to-face and telephone

conversations with twelve currently in a managerial role and two former managerial members

of

twelve organizations. The outcome suggested that, although some organizations are actively and purposely accepting the concepts

of

participation and collaboration (and many are not), accountability remains in a traditional mode. According to the interviewees, accountability is most often experienced as demeaning,

punitiveand"something they do not want to do." Accountability hasnotmoved into the paradigm of member involvement and the movement

of

decisioning

_{lower in}

organizations. CA was acknowledged as "a new way to look ataccountability," useful,

and preferred-yet how to get to being a CA organization was a dilemma for these

executives. One_{organization offered}amodelfor_{moving toward CA in}organizations.

SAMENVAlTING

Aan de hand

van gestandardiseerde (maar toch flexibele)

vragen werd in deze

kwalitatieve studie (1) nagegaan hoe _{accountability} er thans uitziet in organisaties (2) werd het_begrip van constructive accountability(CA) geintroduceerd (3)werd nagegaan hoe nuttig de _{geinterviewden} dit _concept vonden in de context vanorganisaties, en (4) werd gevraagd in hoeverre zij zouden kunnen _{bijdragen aan} het invoeren van CA in

hedendaagseorganisaties. De resultaten gavendeindrukdat,alhoewel_{enkele organisaties} (maar vele ook niet) het idee van participatie en collaboratie actief en doelbewust accepteerden,accountability toch bleef bij wat het was.Accountability is kennelijk nog

niet zover dat het _{aansluit bij het paradigma van} betrokkenheid van de leden en besluitvorming laag in de _{organisatie. CA werd wel} herkenden erkend als _{zijnde "een}

nieuwe visie op accountability", nuttig, en te prefereren, maar de echte stap naar een daadwerkelijke CA-organisatie was een dilemma voor deze bestuurders. Een enkele

Chapter 1

Introduction

Morally, it simply is not open to us to do what we want whenweplease. John Shotter, 1984

This dissertation introduces a relational approach to accountability in organizations. This

approach, called _{constructive accountability (CA),} broadens and builds the strengths of an organization and itsmembers_{movingaccountability into everyday work}insteadofdelaying and calling to account after thefault. Although there is no shortage

of

interest in accountability,

academicliterature has notbeen responsive tothatinterest(FrinkandFerris, 1998, p. 1). This is

an attempt to"removetheblinders"

of

traditional accountabilitywhile remaining sensitive to the

effects

of

_{language on}ourpractices

of

accountability.

Brooks (1995) provides the following definition

of

traditional accountability within Western organizations: "Accountability is a mechanism to ensure that individuals can be called

to account for their actions, and that sanctions are incurred if the account is unsatisfactory- (p.

12, italics in text). Brooks emphasizes the following words in his definition: mechanism as a procedural activity; indivWualsbecausetheactivity focuseson individualswhilealsonoting the collective aspect of the term as reasonable and essential; sanctions being seen as essential to

holding offenders to account. He believes that "the purpose of sanctions is not to act as a threat to you but as a guarantee tome" (p. 13, emphasis in text). Brooks also notes that since values evolve overtime, there isavagueness andconstant flux andimprecisenesswithinthemechanism

of accountability in organizations. This flux makes

it difficult to

say precisely what an unsatisfactory_{account is,}otherthanwithin theunderstanding ofthe person holdingsomeone to

account (p. 14).

An account, according to Webster's Dictionary, is a verbal or written description of a particulartransactionorevent;anarrative; anexplanatorystatement

of

conduct, as toasuperior; a statement

of

reasons, causes,etc.,explaininganevent;areason,basis, consideration. This puts

accountability intoacoercive_{mode practiced}after-the-fault. Asnotedby Shotter (1984), Our waysofaccountingforthings havea_{coercive quality to them; only if we}makesense

of things in certain approved ways can we be accounted by others in our society as

competent, responsiblemembers of it (p. xi).

Accordingto Scott andLyman (1968),"Anaccount isalinguisticdeviceemployedwhenever an action is subjected tovaluative inquiry" (p. 46). Theypoint out that, "Anaccount isnotcalled

for when people engage in routine, common-sense behavior in a cultural environment that

recognizes that_{behavior as such" (pp. 46-47). Although}a "valuativeinquiry" isnot necessarily negative, the inference that it only occurs after non-routine or non-commonsense behavior suggests a punitive posture. Thus, this statement also sees constructive disobedience or deviation from the norm as a separating behavior that is not acceptable in the cultural environment ofthe_{organization.}

Scott and Lyman (1968), as does the quoted dictionary account, clearly place

this definition intheworkplace that Iamchallenging in this writing. I believe thatthetraditional

penalties ofaccountability create an _implicit and/or _explicitconstraint on virtually everything

that is done in theworkplace.

Lawrence and Maitlis (2005), after researching the writings,

of

Garfinkel (1967), Fairclough _(1992),

Mills

(1940), Antaki (1994), and others, agree with Woodilla (1988) that

"accounts are constructed through practices

of

talkingand writing" (p. 11). In their study of

accounts as asegment

of

sensemaking, they state, "Perhaps themostdefining characteristic of

accounts is that theyprovideanexplanation ofanevent thathasdisrupted the flow

of

everyday

life" (p. 14).

Goffman's (1974) work on accounts focuses on the frames

of

accounts. Frames, according to Goffman, can be understood as a particular form

of

accounts-an account of the context in which some action occurs, which provides the foundation for making an action sensible and meaningful (noted in Lawrence & Maitlis, 2005, p. 8). This suggests that an account(frame) can bea_{motivation/justification}foraction,making it part ofhow_{people make}

sense

of

_{everyday life.}

Unfortunately, as noted by Aram (1990) regarding the American perspective of accountability and individual _performance, accountability is individualized; cooperation and collaboration have notbeenessential to achievement. Thus,accountability hasbeenlocalized in the individual.

Historically, _{cooperation [and} collaboration havel played only a supporting role in the value structure

of

American society. Individual struggles against nature and the

life-threateningfrontier(fightorflight)aredominantAmericanimages. Human relationships

After-the-fault or end accountability, as currently practiced, includes account-demanding,

account-giving and account-selection activities. Account-demanding is the act ofa _{person in}

authority calling someone to account to explain something that has been said or done. The person being called to account participates _{by account-giving, the giving of excuses and} justifications toasuperior in response to the account

demand-if

anopportunity to dosooccurs.

After account-giving, account-selection by the person in authority includes acknowledgement/ acceptance/non-acceptance of the given account. (Unfortunately, the person demanding the

account may already have assumed a stance that is not adjustable, making it unlikely that authentic account-selectionwill occur.) Theaccount_{authority (demander)} selects what will be initiated as punishment for the accountable act or behavior. Because these accountings are usually held when it is too late foradjustment or redemption ofthe alleged misdemeanor, the event maybe experienced as a-beating of the soul," as even unfair, cruel andabusive. If not directlyabusive, the accounting mayincludeajudgmental

"gaze"-a look

that suggests a lack of

feelingand presence on the part ofthedemander. Relationships, iftheyexisted inthefirstplace,

dissolve throughthereceiver'sassumption of what "thegaze"means. Levels

of

mistrustbecome

part ofacontinuing,unspokenphenomenonin futureexchanges.

Within daily work practices there is a tolerance for some _degree of ineffectiveness.

When there is finally a _{failure, however,} the demander sets in motion after-the-fault accountability "without,"according to Aram, "anyone beingparticularly caring" (1990, p. 175). Within this scenario, tolerance

of

ineffectiveness allows misunderstandings to go unexplained and little mistakes to go unaddressed until the resulting big mistake occurs. Then there are assumptions that specific "bodies

of

reason" (Gergen, 1991, p. 12) exist that justify the

doingsomething seenas_{"wrong." Atthat moment the person(s)experiencing}thedemand fur an account is seenas

"out"-instead of

_{being "us," he or she is a "them."}

Unfortunately, calling someone to account in Western culture is all too often done in demeaning ways, both publicly and privately. Public, abusive _{accountability} is _particularly damaging because of the significance of the humiliation and exploitation experienced by the

target. Credibility, relationships, availability

of

resources and, as noted above, levels

of

trust

diminish. Evenwhencalling toaccount isnot meant tobedemeaning, the results areoften so

because of the sense of

it

beingunsafe togive information tothe personin authority. This may occureven thoughthe information might clarify,justify, excuseorexplain amisunderstanding.

"I' m being punished; this is unfair" is a likely internal response. The current prominent

leadership orientation, I believe, maintains traditional accountability as appropriate. This

leadershiporientationincludes:

• Treatingtheworkersaschildren

• Limiting opportunities to perform and be involved in organizational outcomes and

performance

•

_{Putting specific}frames_{with rigid}boundaries around roles andresponsibilities. • _{Seeingaccountability as}amethodofcontrol, rewardand_punishment

• Planting andnourishingtheseedsofconflictanddivisiveness • Usingthe"preferred few" toget things done

• Seeing employee choicesasnecessarily orchestratedbythosein authority • Limitingtheopportunityforothersto chooseresponsibility

• Seeing activities going beyond the leader's desire for "order" as disobedience and

malpractice.

As a result

of

theseleadershipoutlooksandpractices, itisroutinefororganizationalmembers to

activities attempting topushaccountabilityupward, downwardor sidewise (p. 3). Theshuffler has "given them what they want," thatis,aligned his orheractions around whatis perceived as acceptable,butthings went _{wrong anyway. Thus, in his or her mind, blame must}beshuffled to

someone elseinordertoremain credible. Often,theshufflerspendstime recruitingothers into a mass

of

employees who blame and shame "those others." Shuffling is also an attempt to

maintainthe status quointerms of whatis expected and safe. Scott'saccountabilityshuffle may

also occurwhen there are strong peergroup standards that allow little forgiveness whendoing things differently. Givingthe excuse of "they made me do it" is ashuffle

of

accountability to avoidchastisementfrompeers-and to cullsympathyforbeingforced by"thoseabove" to step out of line.

As noted, under this long _{accepted scenario,} accountabilityoccurs after the fault and is based in the assumption ofone-person being fully responsible and accountablefor particular actions and/or outcomes. Much effort is expended in locating this one person. Ifa group is

identified asresponsible forthefault,the groupturnsinwardto locate the one atfault. Some one personmust pay. In writing about "the logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability,"

Cummings andAnton (1999) defined accountability as "acalling togive _{accounts (excuses or} justifications) to another (or others) for deviation between the event for which one is_responsible and organizational expectations or norms" (p. 258, emphasis added). Even in discussing the appreciativedimensions

of

accountability,thefocus remains on one person causing the problem.

TheCollectivePerson

Holding one person to account suggests that thisoneperson is fully responsible for the action. Yet activities in_{organizations} are_{outcomes of past} and_{present scenarios}

of

collective

resources and actions are the result

of

collectivities

of

influence, thought, communications, performances with and observations

of

others. It is the collective person, relating with other collective_persons,whotakes action.

My focus is on the person as a collective being. I suggest that relationships are the forming point forthe person. Personsaremutuallyanduniquelyco-constructed.

Thecollectiveperson (and thecollective organization)isformed metaphorically like the Mississippi River: the water rushing to the Gulf

of

Mexicoincludesdroplets thatformed at its origin and instreams andtributaries along the way. The power oftherivercomesfromsources such as the Ohio River and manyother large and small rivers and tributaries passing through

many states and manyother small and large passages from fields and streams along the way.

Each droplet merges with many others.

It

would be hard toidentify where any drop

_of

water originated...it justcame alongdissolving into acollective river as the waterflowed toward the Gulf. Each person, liketheMississippi River,isaltered witheach contact, experience,learning, desire and action. This collectiveperson isa _{uniqueperson made up of}the influences

of

other unique persons. Thecollectiveperson is createdthrough ongoing relationships;thus"personal" reflection and contemplation is influencedby multiples

of

others. Gergen (1991) suggests,

As the self as

a serious

reality is laid to rest and the self

is constructed and reconstructed in multiple contexts, one enters finally the stage ofthe relational self. One's sense

of

individual autonomy

gives way to

a reality

of

immersed interdependence, inwhich itisrelationship that constructs the self (p. 147).

This is notto suggest that thecollectiveperson does not make decisions and choices thatbring

occurrences about-sometimes _positively, sometimes _{catastrophically. Yet,} as MeNamee and

Gergen (1999) state, "One cannot constitute _{meaning alone nor engage in} a rational choice

It is inthe conscious"heedfulness" (Langer, 1997)

of

others that wecan envisionthemutuality

or interdependence of relational responsibility (McNamee

&

Gergen, 1999). People together design actions through relational processes

of

conversation. Although appearing to act singularly, diverse thoughts and actions are coordinated in ways that produce outcomes that

cannotpossiblybecreatedor claimedalone.

Even the traditional practice

of

individual accountability is co-constructed. It is in

Shotter' s (1984, p. _x) "joint action" that the emerging flow of interaction produces

accountability. "Jointaction produces the conversational resources that enable people to account

for their actions," states _{Lannamann (1999, p. 87-88).} As noted by Johann Roux, PhD, a

professor, therapist, and consultantfrom Vanderbijlpark,SouthAfrica,

Millions and millions

of

relational interactions create the same amount

of

possible

interpretations. Then in turn, those interpretations drive people's actionsin relationship and in the co-creation

of

accountability inside their relational interactions" (personal

communication).

Toward Constructive Accountability

The weaknesses

of

traditional accountability andtherecognition ofthecollectiveperson suggest

that a new form

of

accountability mustbe brought forward into everyday work. Inthe present

thesis I

will

attempt to re-form and reframe accountability as a relational, ongoing exchange among persons. Specifically, I propose a model of constructive accountability (CA), which I define as an ongoing process of relationship that contributes to a mutuality of sensemaking and

its outcomes, bringing a heightened willingness to be collaboratively contributive and

co-constructed thought, knowledge and action; mutually constructed synergies; open communication; and multiple connections and partnerships. It includes recognition of the

importance

of

workingWell together over time.

Such thinking asks us toreassess virtuallyeverything we havebeentaughtabout how we

live, work and

are accountable together. With the reassessment and re-valuation of accountability, new and _{exciting forms}

of

action and _{interaction may}be located. Most_people see accountability as a_{picture ofwhat happens}

if

_{things gowrong or when he or she does not} "behave right." This picture includes the possibility

of

punishment, embarrassment and

degradation and suggests the needforpersonalcontrol. Suchapicturedegrades thepossibility

of

meaningful relationships, contributionandsupportduringtheprocess of work. One"knows"

that

if

things do notgo perfectly,asanticipated or planned, he or she is alone and can be held negatively accountable. In contrast, constructive accountability emphasizes_{the strengths(skills,}

talents, knowledge, intentions, positive aspirations, collaborative

tendencies, etc.) of

organizational members and encourages members to seek and offer support, resources and

cooperation. It is

to participate at a higher level

of

involvement and learning, locating accountabilityinongoing communalaction.

If

somethinggoeswrong,others step up to assist in locating what has gonewrong and to identifyanalternative,withoutplacingblame.

As noted by Boyatzis,Stubbsand_Taylor(2002),"Beyond knowledgeand competencies, the additional ingredient necessary to outstandingperformance appears to be thedesire to use one's talent" (p. 150). In the new form

of

accountability, "thedesire to useone'stalent"expands

when others are _{working beside you} and _{punitive accountability is less likely. Knowledge,}

through the ongoing practice

of

constructive accountability. Recursively, it also builds the

strengths

of

other members and theorganization served. The developmentand integration of

strengths and skills in the ongoing practice

of

constructive accountability positively adjusts attitudes,expanding opportunitiestocommunicatein meaningful ways.

Accountability thatisconstructiveis based inside theactivity

of

accomplishingassigned and non-assigned activities. It is the process

of

using the collective person' s and the group' s strengthsin relationshiptoaccomplishtheexpected and deal with theunexpected. In my view, accountability will stay within the architecture

of

traditional accountability practices (after-the-fault accountability) unless relational, collaborative action occurs; working together is the impetusto accomplishment. Unfortunately,thediscovery ofastrengthening hypothesis requires

turning away from what is _{currently assumed as} a _{rational organizational} context of

accountability. Turning to a new form

of

accountability thatis movedinside the work will be difficult for many.

Accountability that is experienced as constructive supports the development of peer

group collaboration. Collaboration provides peer groups with various forms

of

assistance,

including information, encouragement and a sense

of

_{safety. Yet, constructive accountability}

(CA) is morethan_{collaboration. CA, as}

it

spreads across theculture ofan organization, blurs

lines

of

status and title. It brings people together into the work, creating a mutuality of

accountability for the work. It allows, evenencourages, one topull others into his or her work

and then, ultimately, to join them in their work. Sensemaking becomes easier, and a pride in

participationexpands.

people's momentary thought-action repertoires and buiW their enduring personal resources" (2002, p. 122,emphasis intext). Assuming that CAexchanges areexperiencedas positive, the

broaden andbuild theory

of

positive emotion would, although notablyfocused on theindividual,

be an appropriate model for reframing accountabilityasbeneficialandconstructive. Fredrickson

(2002) also notes, "[T]hese broadened mindsets carry indirect and long-term adaptive benefits because_{broadening builds enduring personal resources" (p. 123, emphasis in text). Seo, Barrett}

and Bartunek (2004) quote Frederickson (2001) as saying that "thought-action repertoires

include_{approaching,exploring,learning,creating andplaying,whereas negativefeelings narrow}

them by urging people to act indefensive ways (e.g., escape,attack, or expel)" (p. 25). These thought-action repertoires are synonymous with the positive, strengthening

activities of

constructive accountability. Strengthsflow naturally in a CA environment. Strengths are

broadened andbuiltthrough theongoing positive performative practices of CA. These practices create a sense that one has provided valued contributions. As noted by BandlerandGrindler

(1982),

"It's

positive to be useful" (p. 30).

Clifton and Nelson (1992) state,

"A

strength is an inner _{ability" (p. 56). They add,} "Practice

_[of

these strengths] is the classic activity

of

successful people" (p. 64). In these statements,CliftonandNelson focus ontheindividual. Yetstrengths cannotbebroadened and

builtalone. _{"Inner strength"}and_{knowledgestrength is co-createdwithin relationships.} Unless a

thought or action is recognized as positive and useful in the eyes

of others, it will not be

Historyand

_Writings

_{About Accountability}

In looking at the historical emergence

of

accountability practices, Dubnick' s (1998) writings

discuss theorigin of the term andthe assumptions regardingaccountabilitythatcurrentlysupport

its practice. He states, 'We take the need for accountability for granted and assume that

everyone understands what the conceptmeans and why it is soimportant" (p. 68). As Dubnick

(1998) argues, "Accountability is an anglican concept" (p. 69). It is particular to English

speaking_{countries, and, too, it}is quitedistinctive. In most oftheromance languages (French, Spanish andItalian, as wellasPortuguese),variousforms of theterm'responsibility' are used in lieu ofthe_{English 'accountability}

.-(1998, p. 69). InRussia the termisdistincthavingroots in

the term "report" (p. 70). In non-English countries that have adopted the anglican version of accountability,the_adoptionhasoccurred outofforced necessity (e.g., Japan),orbecause of past

Anglicangovernance (e.g.,Israel) (p. 70).

According to Dubnick (1998), tracingthe history of the term back in English history, "accountability" existed as far back as the 14th century, potentially tied to a French origin (although it was not aFrench language term). It gained specific_{importance twenty years}after

theNorman Conquest withthepublication oftheDomesdayBooks in 1086. William I ordered a full survey ofhis domainin ordertocollecttaxes. Asurvey, or call to account, was a new and

innovative way to make sure collectionwas achieved from those who owed the Crownmoney

(Douglas, 1964,pp. 355-356,quotedin Dubnick, 1998, p. 70).

of women, get married, or for men, earn enough money to start theirown business. Between 1870 and 1900, 25 millionpeople came to America and a _{permanent wage class} was created.

This fueled a 150 percent growth and eliminated the personal connection to organizational

success. The ProtestantWork Ethic (PWE) was alive and well during all thesechanges even though asense

of

alienationbetween one's work andthe outcome hadbecomeevident with the

advent

of

technology, repetitive work and boredom. The PWE is reflected in the American culturethat emphasizes the capacity andresponsibility oftheindividual toact independently and

effectively.

It is, in

my thinking, in the pre- and post-WWII erathat accountability, as we know it

today, became more pronounced. Thedisconnectionexperiencedbyemployeesstanding in long

linesatmachinesincreased "the need" intheminds

of

management tocallpeople to account and set thingsstraight. Individualsuccesshadbecomemore remote and dependence on "those who know" in the role

of

administratorand manager, anow impersonalrole, emphasizedacommand andcontrol orientation.

Soon Heider (1958) didhis researchon_{explanations, later becoming}areference_{point for} the above referenced work

of

Scott and Lyman (1968). Heider's work, to become known as attribution _{theory, emphasized "personal} causation" as _being "of _great importance" placing attribution inthecontext ofthe_{individual. Heider (1958) identified}ten prototypes that build a

person'saccount ofthesocialworld (notethewordsinparentheses). He said,

People haveanawareness

of

their surroundings andthe events within it (thel(fe space),

they attain thisawareness throughperception) and otherprocesses, they areafected by theirpersonal and impersonal environment, theycause changes in theenvironment, they are able to (can) and trytocause thesechanges, they have wishes (want) and sentiments,

they stand in unit relations to other entities (belonging) and they are accountable

Philip _{Tetlock (1985,} 1989, 19924 1992b, 1995, 1998, 1999) is prominent in the few

academy writings about accountability. His writings on accountability theory discuss the anticipation

of

responses to accountability. He suggests that accountability puts people in the

role of

the "intuitive politician"-seeking means to maximize status and self-image, to avoid negativejudgments and to managetheirresponses. Accountability is afeature

of

judgment and

choice, linking employees to the organization by reminding them that they need to (a) act according to the prevailing norms and (b) give accounts when they deviate from those norms.

How accountabilityoccurs _{in organizations}influences decisions and_{behavior (Tetlock, 1992a).}

Because ofthis, members attempt toalign theirthoughts, attitudes and valuesinaccordance with

their organization.

In this thinking, each organizational member seeks positive evaluation by those in authorityandtheir peers, even if it isfeltthere isapossibility

of

being wrong. An earlyresearch

effort _{focusing on strategies} for _{coping with accountability by Tetlock, Skitka} and Boettger (1989) resulted intheemergence of "arobust, replicable, and theoreticallyinterpretablepattern" of accountability (p. 640). Itrevealed that, "Interpersonalgoals andconcerns play a key role in

shaping theunderlying cognitivestructureofexpressedpolitical attitudes" (p. 640).

Theirfindingssuggest that one's activitiesareconsciouslyandunconsciouslyfocused on

potential outcomes/consequences of his or heractions "as they relate to interpersonal goals and

concerns." There is specialattentiondirected toavoidingnegativejudgments and/orimpressions thatwouldimpact one's social standing in the group. There isafocus onappropriate responses andactivities, which adds tothe stress

of

day-to-day activities. One must "stay in the loop" as

be (p._{640). Tetlock' s (1999)}intuitivepoliticianconsiders therelativejustifiability ofaresponse and the options based on acceptance ofthe outcomes that might follow (p. 119). Thus, the

central function

of

judgmentandchoice inthe scenario

of

traditional accountabilityisneither to

make causal sense of theworld, nortomaximize profit, butto protectone'ssocialidentity in the

eyes

of

othersimportant tothe person.

As with _{Dubnick (1998, p.} 68), noted earlier, Koestenbaum and Block (2001) suggest,

"We... have a small way

_of

thinking about accountability." They add, "We think that people want toescapefrombeing accountable. We believe thataccountabilityis something that must be

imposed. We have to holdpeople accountable, and we devise reward andpunishment schemes

to do this (p. 3)." Their focus for the book is located in the title: Freedom and Accountability at

Work. Theysay, "[A] key task

of

management would be to confront subordinates with their freedom" (p. _7). Essentially, they say, "In the end, our freedom and our experience of accountability may be all we have to hold on to" (p. 10). Koestenbaum andBlock believe that employees have beendefined as the problemandmanagement as thesolution. They add, "Our

model

of

leadership is _{constructed in [an] engineering, cause-and-effect} vein," defining

management as the cause ofthe workplaceand employees as the effect. It is an instrumental transaction. Thisisunintentionally creatingabreedingground for entitlement (p. 4).

The anxietythat resultsfrom attemptingtoescape(negative)accountabilityforces people

to look forcertainty. There is an attempt to follow specific ways

of

doing things in order to transfer blame to "the system" or others (inducing Scott's [2002] accountability shuffle) who

designed how things should be done faultlessly. Koestenbaum and Block see _{anxiety, real or}

Tetlock's _(1992a) theory

of

political intuition and its emphasis on members' attempts to align their thoughtsandactions in accordancewith their organization.

Cumming and Anton (1999) recognize the corrosive potential of the mechanistic

orientationandoffersuggestionsfurinviting newcasescenarios, yetthey propose thateffective accountabilitysystems thatinclude:

1. Clarity ofthe expectations,

2. A person to whom oneisaccountable,

3. Circumstances ofthe_{accountability,}

4. Credibility of the act,

5. _{Proximity(whether itmay}occur_{today or the end of the year),}

6. Significance oftherewardorpunishmentinvolvedfor doing whatisaccountable 7. Expectancyofbeingrewardedorpunished (pp. 274-280).

To propose that expectations, circumstances and who whom one is accountable can be specifically clear and understandable (#1 above) suggesting alimitingscenarioofperformance,

stifling innovation and _{creativity outside of one's own area}of_{accountability. Ericson (1995)} also limits accounts to one's own area

of

responsibility, agreeing with Cummings and Anton (1999), stating,

Accountabilityentailsanobligation to giveanaccountofactivitieswithinone'sambit of responsibility... Accountable also means capable

of

being accounted foror subject to

explanation. Such_capabilityentailsanarrative orrecordofevents andan_{explanation of}

events-legitimate causes, justifications, excuses, blame, and remedies-that

demonstrate onehasacted inacredible_{manner (p. 136).}

HiebertandKlatt (2000) havea_{person-focused view of what accountability "is" in}organizations

-(1) Accountability isastatementof_{personalpromise.}

(2) Tobeaccountable means youareanswerableforresults, notjustactivities.

(3) To be accountable for results, you must have the opportunity for judgment and decision-making.

(4) Your accountability is yours alone, without _{qualification. It} is neither shared nor conditional.

(5) Accountabilityis meaninglesswithout significantconsequences.

(6) Finally, and very importantly, every member ofthe organization is accountable for

the organization asawhole (p. 200).

Thesesix principles are the hallmarks

of

control inthe mechanistic era. As noted by the date of the publication, year 2000, these principles are still alive, well and promoted in organizationalpractices today. There is afull focus on individual performance and significant

consequenceswithout acknowledgement ofthemutualityofperformance. Theinfluence, efforts andeffectiveness added _by others _{largely gounrecognized and ignored.} The above _principles

also contributetocompetition for resources: "If I don't get them someone else will and I'll be lost" and "Withnobenefitfor_supportingand_{contributing to}theefforts

of

others,why bother?"

Although HeibertandKlatt'sfinal principlestresses thatallmembersareaccountable for the organization as a whole, information flow and openness within this scenario may be

hampered. Focusing on the one-person-being-accountable establishes "turf," potentially eliminating the willingness

of

others to participate to the benefit

of all-including the

organization.

Culbert andUllmen(2001) state, 'The core _problem is One-Sided_{Accountability"-as} appliedinhierarchical relationships" (p.34,italics in text). Theyseeone-sidedaccountability as

achieving corporate ends (p. 12) with the chairman in command and anorganizational chart to designate who is responsible for taking what action (p. 13). Culbert and Ullmen propose a process

of

two-sWed _{accountabili(Y} partnering which "conveys the image

of

goodwill reciprocie leading tostraightforward communications,aboveboardpolitics,authentic teamwork,

esprit de corps, and the type

of

accountability that produces high-quality corporate results" (p. 15). They add,

Two-sided cues people to consider a reciprocal obligation to help one another in the pursuit

of

company goals... Accountability cues people to constrain self-interested

pursuits that others might see coming at theirexpense. _Partneringindicates a mutuality of interests that sets the stage for effective dialogue and interactive problem solving" (emphasis and bold in text, p. 15).

I agree withthe suggestion

of

accountabilitybeingapartnership (Seiling, 1997) and theintent of what they term"two-sided accountability." Lookingmoreclosely,_{however, they}still discuss a

hierarchical underpinning, a lack of flexibility, the placing of the "boss" at the center of the relationship. They say that there must be a stand-and-be-counted approach to two-sides

accountable _{relationships (p. 84, emphasis from} text). These two-sides-accountable

relationships are entered into with the general expectation that the parties

will

cooperate, act

supportively andbe_{sociallypleasant (p. 82).}

Two-sided accountability, like constructive accountability, is a face-to-face _activity,

acknowledging the need to talk to and communicate with "subordinates." Yet the term

two-sided isproblematic: the language suggests that the participants areon opposite sides and must

In many organizations, because

of

differences in rankand status,choices are made as to what information is shared. _Feelings

of

_{safety and security may be} aconstantconcern. The

subordinatewill look for"signals"

of

safety that heightenordiminish feelings

of

discomfort. He or she willalso attempt toidentifythelevel

of

approachability the bossis Willingto_{allow (after}

all, bosses have long memories). The boss/subordinate relationship continues todominate the

exchange. CulbertandUllmencontinuebysaying,

Two-sided accountability is possible once two or more parties recognize that their individual interestsoverlap, believe that theother party's self-interested pursuits can be conducted in a waythat furthers mutual objectives, and are able to articulate a way of workingtogether that eachbelieves tobereciprocallyadvantageous becausethepolitical

processsupports it (p. 81).

I agree with this statement, yetachieving this element ofapositive political climate, for some,

will

be difficult. Changing the political

climate is a

high level challenge if the mental

environment includes feelings

of

threat and vulnerability. Also, moving to two-sided accountabilityrequiresarelaxing ofthedesire to be seenascredible, ahallmark of what is seen as performing as "thegood leader," (Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Kelley, 1988). Thisjeopardizes theleader's desire to be seenas "knowing." AccordingtoKelley (1988), inorder to be seen as credible,"Weshould haveapositivereasontothink_{[the person] is competent}andobjective. At

thevery least, we must not haveanyevidence that [the person] is incompetentor nonobjective" (p. 118). "Knowing" is the pathtocredibility inthetraditionallyaccountableworld.

In their analysis of accountability, Lebow and Spitzer (2002) "pass through" instead of placingan emphasis on relationships. Again, there is afocus on individualized accountability.

The authors state, "Accountability is the

issue! If you can't find a way to

get people to be

They define accountabilityas "takingpersonal responsibility for one's own choices and for the

results

of

those choicestooneself and toothers" (p.241). Theiremphasis, aswithKoestenbaum

and Block (2001) above, is on freedom and responsibility. Their thinking is exemplified by noting that in the control-based workplace leadership is based on 10 percent coaching and mentoring and, in the freedom-based environment, it is 60 percent coaching and mentoring (Lebow and Spitzer, p. 173). "Freedom-based," according to Lebow and Spitzer, suggests,

"Peopleworkbetter whenthey're free to doittheir way" (p. 19). A visionaryleader is required

as a "wise counsel" who focuses on values while protecting the organization's long-term financial health and looking for ways to help people make the freedom-based philosophy successful (p. 186). The leader shifts the focus from performance appraisals to personal

developmentplans that theindividualcreates (p. 209). Throughout the book, Lebowand Spitzer

discuss ten ofthebiggest control-basedinitiativesthat destroyaccountability: 1. Incentiveprograms andpay-for-performanceplans

2. _{Internal competition} 3. Performancereviews

4. Forced_{rankingsystems} 5. Personal_{improvementplans} 6. _{Managingpeople}

7. _{Restrictive policies}and_procedures

8. Traditional_jobdescription

9. _{Employeerecognitionprograms} 10.Missions, visionsandvaluesstatements

This is a startling list

of

initiatives that destroy accountability, suggesting that leaders and

or tied to internal initiatives that invite competition. Lebow and Spitzer also say, "It is in choosing thatwe becometruly accountable both toourselves and tothecommunity we live and work in" (p. 64). Ofcourse, choicesareinfluenced by the way in whichpeoplearegoverned and

"motivated."

Frink and Ferris (1998) state that the knowledge base regarding accountability is

remarkably scant. They also say, "Research has _{included accountability as a} social influence variablewithincreasingfrequency." Theysuggest that the basic concept is thataccountability is

the perceived potential

of

being _{evaluated by someone, and being answerable} fordecisions or actions. As such, accountability for performance is a _{fundamental principle}

of

organizational theory. They note thatMitchell,Canavan,Frinkand Hopper(1995) define accountability as an external (to the person) or internal perspective: "Accountability _{(a) emphasizes} a system of review

of

_{behavior by} some _{constituency, and (b)} includes _having salient rewards or

punishments contingent upon the review." In their study, Frink and Ferris suggest that the

degree towhichapersonanticipatesanaccountingisrelated totheamount

of

attentiveness he or

she will pay toan activity. They alsosee defensibility (the needto defend) as a factor in the

amount

of

attentiveness given to an activity, as well as the specific criteria one perceives as being the basis

of

evaluation (either formal or informal).

Conners and Smith (1999) work extensively in organizations creating Cultures of Accountability (italics throughout the text). Connors and Smith are tightly tied to individual

they also focus on the individual being solely _accountable, skimming over the relational processes that are instrumental to a culture

of

accountability. Leaders are in

control of

transitioning to the new culture, de-emphasizing the role ofthe members as the designers and

drivers

of

cultural realities. Their writings offerclear and definitive "steps to accountability" (See it! Own it! Solve it! And Do it!). They say, "We say thesecomponents 'work together'

because experiences foster beliefs, beliefs drive actions, and actions produce results" (p. 13, italics in text). They outline waystoshiftaculture toaresultsorientation.

In a recent articlein ExecutiveEdge, Connors and Smith (2004) define accountability as "apersonalchoice torise aboveyourcircumstances and demonstratetheownership necessary to achieve desired_{results." They add,}'Thisdefinitionincludesamindsetofasking, 'what else can I do torise above mycircumstances and achieve the desired results?"'

(p. 10).

My

concern is

thatthis philosophy can bring competition to the forefront when efforts are not understood as relationship-based.

Finally, Redding₍₂₀₀₄₎ writesabout the need to holdoneselfaccountable. Hestates, "It

seemsthatholdingourselvesaccountable appears to be a key step tohelpingothers do the same"

(p. 63). He suggests that it is"a shift from holdingsomeoneaccountable tohelping people hold

themselves accountable, which includes holdingourselvesaccountable" (p. 64). He notes that

holding people accountable includes each of us responding to what we are told to do, finding

problems and mistakes, following up with interrogations, punishing non-performance and rewardingperformance. Thisplacesaccountabilityfirmly inacommand andcontrol orientation.

In amoreencouragingstance, Redding goes on to say thatholdingourselves accountable

to ask for help as well; and it is to appreciateeach other'sskills and contributions. Although

suggesting the relational aspects

of

accountability, he focuses on the individualized, internal

aspectsofaccountability.

This limited review

of

traditionally based accountability writings largely demonstrates

the mechanistic form

of

management atwork,justifyingthestance oftheknowingleader as the

one who must know and who is there to hold the members accountable for doing what is

expected. This approach to leadership is, unfortunately, perpetuated in many of our current

teaching/learningpractices

of

business schools.

Perpetuating

Current

Practices

of

_{Accountability}

ThroughBusinessEducationalSystems

WhentheHarvard legal-case-basedapproach came todefinethediscipline

of

management as a science, the"founding fathers" laid claimtomodern assumptions

of

rationality, universality and objectivity. Gergen and Thatchenkery (1996) suggest that, "Most contemporary theory and

practice in organization science isstillconducted with a_{modernist framework" (p. 362). Some} academics are_{now suggesting it is time to}revise the boundaries setforth incurrent management education and_{learning (Clegg}and_{Ross-Smith, 2003, p. 85).}

In my view,thiscommitment toamodernist, mechanistic conception oftheorganization

continues to influence academic teachings in business. They both sustain the top-down accountability orientation and impede the development of a constructive, collaborative alternative (Donaldson, 2002). Recently, in theAcademyOfManagement_{News, Mitroff (2004)} called for the elimination ofseveral fallacies that have been allowed to "infect our business degree programs," (p._{7) suggesting that the}veryprograms that teachorganizationalscience are themselvestoxicbynature.

Mitroff

notes that theydemonstrate:

2. A narrow, outdated, and repudiatednotion

of

ethics;

3. Anarrowdefinition of the role

of

_managementin humanaffairs;

"

4. An overly reified conception ofthe_{"sub-disciplines;}

5. A senseof_{learned helplessness}and_{hopelessnessamongfaculties" (p. 7).}

Mitroff

suggested these fallacies permeate the cultures of educational institutions in general. These fallacies may also be prevalent in the teachings that result from the cultures

of

these

institutions. Roberts (1996) also sees business education as a vehicle _{for underpinning} rationalizationin organizations. Hestates,

The business school can be seen as one of the vehicles of what Weber saw as the

progressive rationalization of the social world. In disseminating "best practice" to

successive generations

of

students there is a usuallyimplicit belief in the possibility of

the progressiverationalization

of

action;areadyembrace ofthe modernistassumption of

the progressive andcumulativecharacter

of

knowledge (p. 55, in CleggandRoss-Smith,

2003, p. 86).

Becausetheoriesareoftendesigned throughthemodernist eyes, it is time torevisitthe accepted

theories of thepaststilltaught in universities. Amongthe current theories thataddsupport and

credibilitytotraditional "rational"practices

of

individual accountability arethefollowing: AgencyTheory

The_{prevalentdescription}

of

_{Americans for the past}onehundred and

fifty

years has been

and remains that theyareindividualisticandachievement-oriented. Theyplace ahigh value on

personal success and on the assumption that all people first act through self-interest. Agency theoryjustifiesthisthinking.

1976). Mitroff(2004) suggests it is one oftheprominenttheories that "assume that humans are ruthless,motivated solely bygreed,opportunism andselfishness" (p. 7-8)

Agency theory emphasizes the economic exchange relationship, which places little

emphasis on trust. Whitener,Bro(it,Korsgaard

&

Werner(1998)state

Anagencytheorylenshighlightstheformal economiccontext andself-interestmotive, as

well asthebehavioral consequences. It also delineates factors thatcontribute to the risk of opportunism and identifies how the exchange relationship can be structured to minimize this risk (p. 515).

Agency theory also offers an _explanation for managerial activities such as _{monitoring and}

control (Whitener et al, 1998, p. 514). In the traditional mode

of

monitoringand _{control, the}

theory limits individual activities through micromanagement practices, limiting innovative thinking on the part

of

those doing the work. In focusing on who-specifically-does-what, the

theory alsolimitscollaborativeaction.

Institutional Theory

InstitutionalTheorystatesthat organizationsconformtointernalnorms held about sound

organizing (Donaldson, 2002, p. 101). It describes forcesleading toa tendency to "sameness" across firms (Colbert, 2004, p. 344). It "binds participants together with a common set of

understandings about the organizational way

of

doing things" (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 303). Such thinking, as withagency theory,emphasizespredictabilityand callsformaximizingcontrol. It

suggests suppression ofvariance, minimizes innovative action and ensures_{conformity. It may} also beabarrier tothe acceptance and expansion

of

out-of-the-norm action while strengthening the needforindividual accountability.

theory itself is a prescription for rigid normalcy. In today's workplace, members are seeking

opportunities toinvest themselves in their work. A more flexible, ongoing, relationship-based

model

of

sensemaking and a new, more opentranslation

of

institutional theoryarecalled for in today's workplace.

The Resource-BasedView Theory

The Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory, focuses onexplaining competitiveadvantage as

an outcome ofthe _developmentand_deployment of valuable_{organizational} resources _(physical and human). However, interpersonal resources, according tothe theory, areunique, vague and not_{fullyunderstandable; theydefyidentity}and_replication. Colbert (2004) says,

Constructive, sociallyembedded resourcesarehighlystrategically important (inthe sense

that theyareinscrutable tocompetitors)because

of

their inherent complexity, but they are

difficult

todeliberatelybuildforprecisely the samereason" (p. 347).

In this thinking, sociallyembedded resources maybeperceived asapersonalway-of-working, a

result of luck or related toacontext. _(Anexamplemight beJackWelch, former CEO

of

General

Electric.) Forthis reason, interpersonal approaches are not seen as retrievable, transferable or

repeatable(Teece, 1998, p. 67).

This view mayextinguish attempts to identify,expand and incorporate what is seen as unique approaches to working together. Consequently, this view might see practices of constructive accountability as based in the personalities and relationships

of

certain people or

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) theory (Bateman andOrgan, 1983) suggests that "extra-role" contributions (working beyond the call of duty) are unique and beneficial.

These activities arenotable because

of

theirnot-usually-seen-here character and, as such, they

are not expected in everyday activities on the job. The difference between organizational citizenship behavior and activities of constructive accountability is located in (1) the "occasionalness" ofOCB (Bolinoand Turnley, 2003, p. 69) andthe "ongoingness" of CA, (2)

theindividual focus of OCB andthe"we-ness" nature of CA, and (3) 0CB seesthepotential of neglecting assigned worktoperform praiseworthy OCB activities where thefocus in CA is on

theseactivitiesbeing part

of

normal work.

WithinOCB there is an implication

of

demonstrating loyalty through thewillingness to "step up"when needed. Although OCBis encouraged, it is not expected that onewould perform

these activities on an ongoing basis-nor are the activities seen as needed atall times. Also, 0CB does not suggest that the people performing the extra-role activities are continually involved or contributivetodecision-making, as in CA.

The CA approach does not suggest ignoring OCB. It does suggest that many of the practices seen as "stepping up" in OCB are characteristic to CA as an ongoing part of the workplaceprocessofrelatingand_{accomplishingtogether.}

Leader-Member_{ExchangeTheory}

develop between employees and their leaders are predictive

of

performance-related and attitudinal_joboutcomes,especially forthe_{employees" (p.}371). Campbell (2002) notes,

Theseemployees form a core

_of

individuals on whom the supervisorcountsheavily and

whosecommitment tothe leader andto work-unitgoalsfarexceedsthatrequired by the formal workcontract. They become extensions ofthe manager and take responsibility for many of the work unit's critical functions (p. 53).

This suggests thatthefavored fewaredepended onwhileother employeesareplaced in the role of "less than dependable" and "less than committed." Potentially, the "less-than" members experience lessinteraction andconnection with the leader and opportunitiestocollaborate and contributein_{meaningful ways are alsopotentially limited.}

Clearly, the tendency in this theory is for more rigorous accounting practices for those

expected notto perform as well. Instead ofactively invitingall members into theprocess of contribution,theleader anticipatesfewer contributivepracticesfromthoseoutside ofthefavored

few. Thisis contrary to therelationalelements of CA that invite all memberstocontributetheir

talents in interactive ways.

The focusand propagation

of

theseandotherdeficit-basedtheories all workagainst open, genuine,collaborativepractices. Such management theories weredeveloped in the206 century when managers alone were expected to plan, organize,direct andcontrol. These theories-seen-as-factcontinue in the 21St century to focus on the deficiencies of organizational members. They subtly call for command and control of the less favored instead

of

calling for real and deep

involvementandrelational participationbetweenandacrossstatus and role.

Yet, according to Gergen and Thatchenkery (1996), there is a ray of hope. "However,

that includes appreciation, relatedness, co-construction, relational responsibility. Harvey and Buckley(2002) argue, "Wemustdelete some ofthebasicwisdom of the20thcentury and, at the sametime, update thefoundationconceptsin management, as we enter the 2ls,century" (p. 368). They add that looking through current textbooks "gives one the impression that current organizations still are concerned with old _concepts, e.g., span-of-control, line/staff differentiation,andchain-of-command (many are not)" (p. 368).

A new appreciation of

organizational

members and the use of

collaborative transformational approaches, such as Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987),

are igniting positivechangein organizations andcannotbe ignored. Management theories are

also moving to a moreopenmodel

of

exchange. Leader-member-exchangetheory (LMX) is, for

example,beginning to seek involvementand openness ofthe leader, leading to more extended

input by all members instead ofthe favored few. George Graen, the originator of the LMX

theory, noted thisas"Stage IV" ofLMXtheory(personal_{conversation, 1997).}

Unfortunately, many organizations, with the help ofacademics, "visionary leaders" and consultants, arejustreframing traditional accountability intomore"politicallycorrect"language.

For example, the words"two-wayaccountability,"asapplied betweenbossesand subordinates, espousedby CulbertandUlman(2001). Stringent hierarchicalandbureaucratic_{relationships are}

disguisedbutremaininplace,simply converting traditional concepts into anew language. Toward Reconstruction: Constructive Accountability

For many, the term "constructive" appears to be paradoxical to today's traditional form of

accountability. How can something so often _experienced as _{demeaning and painful be}

constructive? Missing in thecurrent definitionsand practices

of

accountability is theimplicit

Each person isworking inpartnership _{with others, even when it is} notobvious in the moment.

Co-construction is so very apparent in theorganizational context, whether itis strength-based or

weakness-focused, and yet itgoes"undiscovered"and

ignored-specially in

the application of accountability. It is in this respect that I introduce the concept

of

constructive accountability. As offered ewlier, I define it as an ongoing process of relationship that contributes to a

mutuality of sensemaking and its outcomes, bringing a heightened willingness to be

collaboratively contributive and responsible in the workplace.

A new understanding of accountability, as a _{positive, mutually constructive and} responsible process, encouragespeople to say, "I am here and

I'm

going to work with others to make

it

matter." Whenaccountability isconstructive, the role

of

organizational members at all levels is to work collaborativelyandproductively withothers on anongoing basis. In my view,

when awareness ofthe constructive form

of

accountability is the norm, knowledge exchange, support and resource sharingare_{present. Collaborative learning opportunities aremore possible,} suggesting that accountability is not "performed by those above." Accountability that is constructive is part

of

collaborative practice, spreading the role

of

making suggestions and

offerings that positively impactthe mutually constructed work

of

others; accountabilityexists

inside relationships with others.

Figure 1.1: The Dimensions

of

_{Accountability}

Traditional

andCurrent Accountabilitv Constructive Accountabilitv

Activities_{performed after}theincident Anongoingprocess

Oftenaone-sideddiscussion Co-authorship

of

outcomes

Focusondeficits (or deficiencies) Focuseson_strengths

Activationbasedon_authority Occurrencesacrossstatusandtitle Demanding, giving,taking _Offering,exchanging,advancing

Potentially loweroutcomes Stronger outcomes

Identification and punishment of the one _{Learning/growth}benefits_{for participants}

who isatfault

Focuses on "Don't doit_again" Focuses on "What can we do?"

Borders aroundknowledge-sharing Open learningand sharingofknowledge

Focusesoncorrections Focuses on relations, responsibility,

support,informingand_coaching

Lower participation, higheravoidance Involvementandcollaboration

Based on fear and threat A sharingofaccountability inrelationship

This study focuses on thepossibilitythatorganizational tactics can be used toaffect the use of

talents, skillsand positive relationships inside organizations throughthe understanding that the movement

of

accountability into the mutuality of work is foundational and functional across member levels and title. The case for more attention to accountability and how it can be constructiveis based on therecognition thata relational, ongoing process of workchanges the

"activity" of "being accountable." Such aprocess_{incorporates accountability into participants'}

ongoing activities. Thus, constructive accountability exists in a contextofshared _knowledge,

mutual synergy, open communication, the development

of

relational connections and

partnerships, shared _sensemaking and decision-making.

It is facilitated by a new

How an organization functions, its effectiveness and its responses to its external

environment, are all tied into

the interactive performances of its people. Constructive accountability, as a relational process, calls for the co-construction

of

accomplishment and

consequences making integrative performance possible. Within CA, members have and give permission to actively bring others "into their work." There is an appearance

of

being individuallyresponsible, yet there iscommon,accepted, co-constructedknowledgeand practice that recognizes action and outcomes are mutually generated. One calls others to engage in interactive sensemaking and action as needed. Seeking the resources, strengths, skills and knowledge

of

others is seen as part ofa process that leads tobest performance, decisions and practices. When a "bad" decision is made, all who have contributed (or have chosen not to contribute) have been part ofthe process whether they are directly aware

of

doing so or not. Recognizing and educating what CA

"is"

establishes the "we-ness" ofsensemaking, decision-makingandaction-even_{when acting}"alone."

Examples of the practice

of

constructive accountability as an ongoing process of interactionincludethe_following:

• Casual, even accidental, meetings of co-members: _{walking down the} hall, seeing a

colleague, andasking how he or she isdoing ona_projectofmutual interest.

• Calling

acolleague on the telephone and asking about pastexperience with afrustrating

issueandasking aboutor brainstorming waysto approachtheissue.

• Participating atameaningful level inthe strategicdesign ofaprocess and planning.

• Reflecting withothersoverlunch aboutwhatcould be done to make better sense of a past

orcurrentsituation.

• Casually exchanging funny and relevant stories and metaphors that shape feelings of

• Purposely contacting another department, group or person regarding how one's own department's anticipated activities ornew thinking might impactthe other department's work or how thetwoareascouldworktogether to solvearecurring situation.

• Offeringencouragement, input andsupport to others (including one's supervisor) when

he or sheis_workingunderchallengingcircumstances.

• Advocating thebestefforts

of

fellowmembersto others.

• Attendingandcontributingto meetings thataredirectlyandindirectlyconnected to one's

own work.

• Listeningto learnat_{everyopportunity.}

• Beingalert to resources, bothknown (seminars,journals, magazines, etc.) andunknown (accidental learnings andofferings

of

others) notcurrently obviouswithinandoutside the company thatmightcreatenew alternatives,awarenessesandconclusions.

• Noticingand hearing"somethingdifferent"andasking questions thatclarify,explain and

educate.

• Noticingand hearing"somethingconfirming"and doing the same.

Constructive accountability improves the effectiveness of positive, contributive, interlocked

behaviors. According to Weick (1969), "Interlocked behaviors are the basic elements that constitute any organization. They consist

of

repetitive, reciprocal, contingent behaviors that develop andare maintainedbetween two ormore actors" (p. 91). It isthrough the recognition that participants' work isinterrelated, co-constructed and essential to the achievement

of

others thatinterlockedbehaviors 'broaden andbuild' opportunitiesto succeed for the members and the

organization.

As interlocked behaviors

of

relationship, CA also improves the effectiveness of "constructive arguing." Researchers know that conflict is natural and even necessary to

together" (p. 172). Toleration

of

non-constructiveconflictcannotbeignored. Ignoringproblems that need attention or not getting involved when attention is called for suggests negative

behaviorsare_appropriate.

CA is not a one time "why-did-you-do-that"conversationorreactiveconfrontation. It is

also not participating in win/lose activities. It is an ongoing, mutually valued _{process of} exchange in everyday work life that helps participants achieve through continuous,

co-assessmentandexpansion

of

workplace strengths. CAis essential tomaking sense of what can and cannot be done and to theexpansion ofthedesire toworktogethereffectively. Constructive accountability is about cooperation and _{collaboration, learning} and _{serving, agreeing and} disagreeing,andmakingsensethroughafoundation

of

valuingrelationships.

Suggesting CA AsaSocial_{Constructionist Approach}to_{Accountability}

Freedman and Combs (1996) say, "Using the metaphor

of

social construction leads us to

consider the ways in which every person's _social, interpersonal reality has been constructed

through interaction with other beings and human institutions..." (p.1). It is within these sensemakingprovisions

of

socialconstruction that Ihaveentered intothisstudy, thusinfluencing

both my perceptions and the frame I put around the thought

of

moving from individual to constructive accountability. Inthis light,Gergen offersa series

of

criteriahecalls"A Family of Criteria for Social Constructionist Practices" (1996, Appendix A). These _{criteria (as seen}

whileusing the traditionsto broaden,buildand create. In thecontext of CA,socialconstruction is an invitation to converse andcontinue inconversation about the "realities"and relationships that encourage conversations in organizations. We are invited to explore new possibilities of relationship intheworkplace and inother venues ofour liveswhere_{accountability}is_continually

present. It is movement toward a _{future building} of _positively accountable action and relationship.

The Present Study

The purpose ofthis dissertation is tointroduce, develop and support a conceptofconstructive accountability thatis practicableandpractical inthe workplace. It is toshift theconception of accountabilityasconstructive, moving

it

forward into theprocess of work. The following are

myparticular objectives:

(1) To developaconception

of

accountability that isbothconstructiveandcollaborative,

and to illuminate a range

of

organizational practices that would realize this

conceptioninaction.

(2) To explorethepotential

of

constructive accountabilityforincreasingtheinvolvement and contribution

of

members to the organization, andultimatelythe efficacy of the organization.

(3) To develop andexpand the idea that constructive accountability, when understood, appreciated and activated, can contributeto personal and group well-being and to a positive organizational culture.

(4) To expand,even change, the perception andthinking instrumental tothepractice and experienceofaccountability.

This thesis proposesare-construction and reframing of this well-recognizedanddreaded word, accountability, as a _{relational,strength-basedbroadening and buildingprocess}within everyday