Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning

Abstract

This article challenges a normative assumption about accountability in organizations: that more accountability is necessarily better. More specifically, it examines two forms of “myopia” that characterize conceptions of accountability among service-oriented nonprofit organizations: (a) accountability as a set of unconnected binary relationships rather than as a system of relations and (b) accountability as short-term and rule-following behavior rather than as a means to longer-term social change. The article explores the effects of these myopias on a central mechanism of accountability in organizations—evaluation—and proposes a broader view of accountability that includes organizational learning. Future directions for research and practice are elaborated.

Social Impact Measurement and Non-profit Organisations: Compliance, Resistance, and Promotion

“…Social auditing and accountability controlled by outside stakeholders (Ebrahim, 2003(Ebrahim, , 2005, and conducted with the purpose of managing and mediating competition in the field of care and social mission, is causing discomfort (Turco, 2012). There is also fear that the auditing process, with ensuing performance management, has detrimental effects on organisational culture and staff morale (Christensen & Ebrahim, 2006;Hwang & Powell, 2004;Townley, 2011).…”

Reporting on sustainable operations by third sector organizations: A signalling approach

“…The new NGO supplement 3 of the GRI -Global Reporting Initiative 4 -Guidelines is an example of the reporting and accountability needs of these organizations. As Ebrahim (2005) alerts to accountability myopia, accountability should not be only towards donors, but instead to a larger set of stakeholders.…”

Evaluation Logics in the Third Sector

“…Similarly, evaluation can involve generating knowledge to learn and change behavior, whereby evaluation systems help to improve programs by examining and sharing successes as well as failures through engagement with stakeholders at all levels (Ebrahim, 2005). Aspects of the MSC approach are focused squarely on belief revision, such as the emphasis on identifying unexpected changes that result from projects, and an explicit concern with analyzing how the MSC process itself could be revised.…”

“…Performance measurement and evaluation is also used for a variety of purposes, such as demonstrating accountability to donors and beneficiaries, analyzing areas of good and bad performance, and promoting the work of third sector organizations to potential funders and a wider public audience (Ebrahim, 2005;Barman, 2007;Roche, 1999;Fine et al, 2000;Hoefer et al, 2000;Campos et al, 2011). This wide range of purposes can result in a field that is often cluttered with new ideas, novel approaches and the latest toolkits (Jacobs et al, 2010).…”

“…This is critical because evaluations provide an important basis from which third sector organizations seek to establish and maintain their legitimacy in the eyes of different stakeholders (Ebrahim, 2002;2005;Enjolras, 2009). As such, claims of 'illegitimacy' regarding particular evaluation approaches may be explained, at least in part, by an analysis of conflicting logics of evaluation.…”