Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the full range of choices that academic institutions presently have for attending to educational results.

The approach takes the form of a systematic comparison of the eight models currently available to colleges and universities for attending to educational results, relative to four necessary organizational purposes: individual student improvement, individual student accountability, organizational improvement, and organizational accountability.

This is a time of innovation, not of standardization. As new choices become available, the standard for accountability for educational results continues to rise.

The choices, ranging from established practices to expected alternatives to unexpected innovations, differ significantly in their capacities.

This study examines unexplored horizontal accountability types between public, private and third sector actors within a hybrid organization. The case organization was applying a novel alliance model to generate service paths for heterogeneous clientele consuming cultural, educational, health and social services. It was first to do so in Finland.

This research is on a case study that used documents and interviews to examine the design of the horizontal accountability. The descriptive analysis focused on identifying what type of formal accountability system was designed (i.e. who is the account holder, and who is accountable and for what and why).

An imbalanced accountability system was identified because accountability obligations were unevenly distributed between public, private and third sector actors. The private sector was the most accountable for performance, and the third sector (i.e. voluntary sector) was the least accountable. As account holders, the public, private and third sector actors were judging their conduct as account providers. This created a biased horizontal accountability system. The hybrid's accountability system was dynamic because the contracts made to establish the hybrid included opportunities to change horizontal accountability if future changes to the external environment affect too drastically the potential to achieve the hybrid's goals.

Three new concepts are proposed for studying dysfunctional accountability systems: dynamic, biased and horizontally imbalanced accountability.

This study aims to provide insights into the possible impact of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) on public governance and perceived levels of corruption in developing countries.

Through a multivariate analysis on panel data applied to 36 countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and sub-Saharan Africa over the period 2010–2020, the authors test the impact of IPSAS adoption on transparency, accountability and perceptions of less corruption. The authors examine the moderating role of transparency and accountability in the strength of the relationship between IPSAS and perceived corruption.

The main results show that IPSAS adoption promotes an increase in transparency and accountability and leads to the perception of less corruption. Additional tests show that transparency and accountability strengthen the effect of IPSAS adoption and experience on perceived corruption.

The first limitation may be the use of the Transparency International CPI to measure the level of perceived corruption. Probably, the CPI does not reflect the actual levels of corruption in countries while the literature argues that these two measures are related. Also, the lack of data on the status and level of adoption of IPSAS by governments may be one limitation of the sample.

The study may help public authorities in their decision to adopt IPSAS. In light of the findings, standard-setting bodies could be encouraged to strengthen the disclosure requirements of IPSAS that make governments more transparent and accountable to limit perceptions of corruption.

This study may also help citizens understand the benefits of such reforms in protecting public assets and how such standards may help improve social welfare.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the few studies that examines the impact of IPSAS on good governance by combining the dimensions of transparency, accountability and perceptions of corruption in DCs. It also provides insights into the moderating role of public governance pillars. Finally, it includes the IPSAS experience of the country, which has been little tested previously.

California enacted a standards-based accountability regime in 1999, aiming to boost achievement overall and narrow gaps among subgroups. Yet we know little about the efficacy of specific accountability practices and reform tools observed by teachers and principals. The loose-coupling critique of school organizations, positing that local educators steadily buffer interventions mounted by state actors, is challenged by a selective-coupling representation where school-level actors do experience rules and incentives that encourages compliance with state advanced curricular standards, pedagogical practices, and standardized testing. After surveying educators across a band of similar elementary schools, we can account for sizeable shares of the variance in mean Academic Performance Index (API) scores among schools and in the size of achievement gaps within schools. We found that achievement levels are higher when principals report a stronger district focus on a unified curriculum and their teachers share high expectations for learning. Gaps between white and Latino students are smaller when teachers report steady attention to meeting accountability targets. Latino achievement is more sensitive to these accountability practices, compared with the performance of white students. Even after sampling schools with similar student populations, the social-class background of students continued to heavily influence achievement levels, explaining greater shares of the variance than accountability practices.

Responsibility and accountability are central to much of what managers do, but in the literature these complex social science concepts are confused. The paper aims to bring theoretical rigour, structure, consistency and parsimony to this field, using as an example the subcategories of responsibility referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and global responsibility.

This conceptual paper analyses and identifies overlaps, redundancies, gaps, limitations and flaws in current constructs of responsibility and accountability. Using this as a base, we propose a responsibility and accountability matrix comprised of eight constructs, which in turn underpin a process model in which responsibility precedes accountability.

The eight constructs are shown to be sufficient and necessary to explain: the nature of the obligation that one party has to another (role, legal, ethical and moral responsibility); the responsibilities and accountabilities that arise from decisions, actions and behaviours (causal, judged and felt responsibility; external and felt accountability); and how these responsibilities differ from constructs that define the ambit of responsibility (personal, team, corporate, social and global responsibility). This then forms the basis of a proposed generic process model of responsibility and accountability that shows how the discrete and sequential stages of the process typically unfold, and how the responsibility and accountability constructs proposed above relate to each other and to the various process stages. It argues that concepts of CSR and global responsibility, poorly defined both in practice and in the literature, can be better understood when these eight constructs are applied to them.

To underscore the practical implications of the theory, it shows, by reference to the model, how CSR and global responsibility can play out in the case of banks. However, being a generic model, it extends to many other applications in management and the social sciences.

The proposed model is highly original, clarifying, augmenting, categorising and integrating concepts of accountability and responsibility. The paper is also original in providing a framework for reducing CSR and global responsibility to their constituent first‐order constructs.

Accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response, this chapter sets forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. The meso model presented integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this is a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and non-traditional conceptualizations of workplace phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research.

By contributing to the burgeoning debate regarding “for what” nonprofit organizations should be accountable, this article aims to develop and present an Integrated Accountability Model (IAM) that considers three dimensions of accountability.

After highlighting the limits of conventional accounting for NPOs and reframing the role of profit within them, the article presents a complete literature review on “to whom” and “for what” NPOs have to be accountable while further developing the IAM of integrated accountability.

The integrated accountability model developed in this article proposes three categories of NPO accountability: (i) the economic and financial dimension or the capability/ability to be economically sustainable in the long term; (ii) the mission-related dimension or the raison d’être of an NPO, that is, the purpose for which the NPO has been set up, its mission; and (iii) the social-related dimension or the relationship with the stakeholders, that is the impact of NPO activities on its stakeholders in terms of the social contract between them.

Broadly, this article makes a contribution to the literature on accountability for NPOs. In particular it sheds light on two points: the importance of separating the mission-related dimension from the social-related one and the potential to open avenues for expansion of the IAM model to for-profit organizations.

With the aim of shedding light on issues surrounding the development and evaluation of report, this paper offers a theory for facilitating and legitimizing an accountability‐based discourse and disclosure in the public health sector. The project adopts Laughlin’s (1995) vision of middle range theory and an accountability perspective to justify the form and normative perspective which shapes the skeletal model to follow. Formulated in part from an analysis of the health management and public sector accounting literatures, the model is now empirically supported from the preferences of health sector accountees in New Zealand. The result is a conceptual construct which is both considerate of and challenging to the standard financial accounting model. The skeletal model consists of five conceptual categories, their interrelationships and properties. The theoretical model considers and mandates illumination of political incentives, incorporates the assumption that accounting can be constitutive as well as reflective and is sympathetic to a wide range of interests and contextual distinctions.

Combining early and untested accountability perspectives with stress research, the authors examined the degree to which employees perceive workplace accountabilities as either worthy challenges to be overcome or potential threats to be avoided.

The authors utilized structural equation modeling to evaluate our hypotheses and tested them across two data samples, using two different sampling techniques collected four years apart.

Employees' individual differences of attribution style, negative affectivity and core self-evaluations influenced how subjects approached accountability pressures in their workplace, which in turn, was associated with job satisfaction and turnover intentions.

By examining how employees evaluate accountability pressures, this investigation advances existing research by exploring the different ways in which employees perceive workplace accountabilities.

This paper aims to examine the accountability practices of large United Kingdom (UK) charities through public discourse.

Based on the ethical model of stakeholder theory, the paper develops a framework for classifying not‐for‐profit (NFP) accountability and analyzes the content of the annual reports and annual reviews of a sample of large UK charities using this framework.

The results suggest that contrary to the ethical model of stakeholder theory, the sample charities' accountability practices are motivated by a desire to legitimize their activities and present their organizations' activities in a positive light. These results contradict the raison d'être of NFP organizations (NFPOs) and the values that they espouse.

Understanding the nature of accountability reporting in NFPOs has important implications for preparers and policy makers involved in furthering the NFP agenda. New research needs to examine shifts in accountability practices over time and assess the impact of the recent self‐regulation developed to enhance sector accountability.

This paper contributes to the NFP accountability literature by: first, developing a framework of NFP accountability through public discourse using the ethical model of stakeholder theory; and second, advancing the understanding of the accountability practices of large UK charities.