Group Accountability: A Review and Extension of Existing Research

Abstract

The group accountability literature over the past two decades is reviewed in this article. Results are organized according to the theoretical accountability framework proposed by London, Smither, and Adsit (1997). The reviewed literature suggests that group accountability is more dynamic than current conceptualizations allow, and that the priority of accountability demands shifts over time. Building on these insights, the authors extend London et al.’s model to accommodate group accountability as a dynamic interpersonal process. Specifically, they propose that group accountability is an emergent state that derives from group interactions as well as from external sources of accountability expectations. In this extended model, both the person within the group who is held accountable as well as other group members play key roles in transforming individual accountability up to the group level. Based on the combined results of the empirical review and expanded conceptual model, the authors identify directions for studies of group accountability.

Board size and acquisition outcome: The moderating role of home country formal institutional development

“…Social psychology literature proposes that accountability limits self-interested behavior (Mackinger & Jonas, 2012), increases information exchange within the group (Liu & McLeod, 2014), and triggers socially responsible behaviors (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2009). Also, under public scrutiny, members are more accountable for their views and actions so that they will be perceived as assets to fellow group members (Pinter et al, 2007;Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Svensson, 2007) and would, therefore, generally perform well (Kou & Stewart, 2018;Mero, Guidice, & Werner, 2014 (Demirbag, Glaister, & Tatoglu, 2007;Faccio, McConnell, & Stolin, 2006) and sought at least 15% of the target shares in the focal transaction (Bradley, Desai, & Kim, 1983;Kale, Kini, & Ryan, 2003;Shenoy, 2012). Afterwards, I retained the deals for which the transaction value was available to estimate target size (Ahammad, Leone, Tarba, Glaister, & Arslan, 2017).…”

“…Social psychology literature proposes that accountability limits self‐interested behavior (Mackinger & Jonas, ), increases information exchange within the group (Liu & McLeod, ), and triggers socially responsible behaviors (De Cremer & Van Dijk, ). Also, under public scrutiny, members are more accountable for their views and actions so that they will be perceived as assets to fellow group members (Pinter et al, ; Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Svensson, ) and would, therefore, generally perform well (Kou & Stewart, ; Mero, Guidice, & Werner, ). All these arguments suggest that when board members are held accountable for their decisions, the difficulty of reaching a consensus (the bottom line of Hypothesis 1) would be reduced.…”

“…Specifically, I take the view that in home countries with better formal institutions, the accountability of board members is higher (Tsai, ). Social psychology literature suggests that in cases of higher accountability, coordination activities among group members increase (Kou & Stewart, ), making it easier for them to reach a consensus. Therefore, I hypothesize that the relationship between board size and the likelihood of deal abandonment is weaker when the home country formal institutions are more developed.…”

Sponsees matter! How collective responsibility judgments of sport sponsors affect sponsee equity

“…Conversely, all else equal, we consider sponsors' collective responsibility to have positive consequences (e.g. Adelman et al, 2019;Kou & Stewart, 2018).…”

“…entitative) and/or having a greater authority over events should be attributed greater collective responsibility than they otherwise would be. While social psychology studies mainly focus on the negative consequences of CR judgments (where, for example, blame is assigned for criminal acts), collective responsibility is also linked with positive responses (see Adelman, Yogeeswaran, & Lickel, 2019;Kou & Stewart, 2018). With respect to sport sponsorship, perceptions of concurrent sponsors' collective responsibility may in fact benefit sponsees; sponsorship is a function of an event audience's appeal (Kim & Chalip, 2004), and enhanced sponsors' responsibility perceptions generated from concurrent sponsorship contexts signal a more professionally-run and prominent event (see Authors, 2018).…”