It is often assumed that a greater level of accountability will positively affect the performance of public organizations; however, this relationship has not been studied extensively in public administration. This study provides quantitative evidence regarding the impact of accountability on organizational performance in the U.S. federal government. Specifically, we examine the association between the levels of organizational performance and accountability in three functions of human resource management (HRM)—staffing, performance evaluation, and compensation—as perceived by employees of public organizations. Further, we test whether the level of autonomy perceived by the employees influences the association between accountability and performance. The findings suggest that the levels of accountability manifested in staffing, performance evaluation, and compensation all positively and significantly affect organizational performance. Moreover, employee autonomy tends to amplify the positive impact of accountability on performance in two HRM functions—staffing and compensation.
Public employees are required to manage multiple accountability requirements by investing in the relationship with those who demand accountability, making a commitment to the given tasks and anticipating what might happen. The purpose of the study is to explore how social caseworkers manage multiple accountability requirements compared to public managers. The analysis from child welfare caseworkers' interview data highlights a number of ways on how social caseworkers respond to multiple accountabilities. Although most of acts from caseworkers are exposed within the public managers' strategies, talking or discussing with coworkers and supervisors seems the caseworkers' contextual and endemic response. Discussions followed.
The external control of public organizations and their members, commonly referred to as accountability, is an enduring theme in public administration. This article shifts attention from a traditional focus on accountability as a macro-institutional matter to the psychology of accountability, that is, whether and how employees internalize accountability systems. The internalization of rules and expectations varies by individual, which, in turn, has significant consequences for accountability outcomes. We theorize that the micro-foundations of employee accountability are affected by five factors: attributability, observability, evaluability, answerability, and consequentiality. These five dimensions are conceptually distinct but interrelated, representing a deeper common psychological construct of employee accountability. Incorporating the psychological approach of accountability advances the potential of public accountability research. We conclude with a discussion of future research and practical implications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.