No abstract

No abstract

The authors tested the effects of holding raters accountable for their performance ratings on the accuracy and the favorability of those ratings. Undergraduate research participants (N = 247) completed an inbasket exercise and observed a videotaped simulation during 2 sessions over a 2-week period. The simulation presented performance information on 4 simulated subordinates portrayed through videotaped vignettes. True performance scores were manipulated by varying the proportion of positive and negative performance vignettes presented for each subordinate. Participants who were made to feel accountable by having to justify their ratings to the experimenter in writing rated their simulated subordinates more accurately. In another experimental condition, accountable raters who were told their subordinates' previous performance ratings were too low rated their subordinates more favorably than did raters in the same experimental condition who were not accountable.

Building on theoretical and empirical work considering the implications of accountability on individual behavior, the authors explored the antecedents and consequences of individual perceptions of accountability for job performance. Using data from two field samples, the authors considered whether the manager’s monitoring behavior thought to enhance perceptions of accountability for behaviors and outcomes predicted greater perceived accountability for task performance and interpersonal facilitation performance. They also explored whether perceived accountability mediated the relationship between monitoring behavior and subsequent performance. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that subordinates of managers whose monitoring behavior reinforced perceptions of accountability perceived greater accountability for performance and that this perception mediated the relationship between managerial monitoring behavior and performance. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.