St. Martin de Porres High School (SMdP) faces many challenges, which hinder its efficiency in teaching students and being a good and desirable place for them. Its personnel, teachers, and administration are not motivated to change anything or work efficiently, and students are not motivated to study and behave appropriately. Violence between students is prevalent, tensions between them and teachers are high, and the administration pretends not to notice anything. Odiotti and Seiberlich, new administrative leaders of SMdP, are eager to change the situation. They should do hard work to work out a plan for changing the school’s organizational culture and implement empowerment and accountability in it.
St. Martin de Porres High School’s Current Culture
SMdP’s organizational culture is currently highly ineffective: students, teachers, and administrations, three critical components of a school, are mostly dissatisfied with it, and the school’s reputation among other schools is terrible. Students are not motivated to learn, their behavior is mostly wrong, and school violence, such as bullying and fights between teens, is common. Administration and teachers feel alienated from students and each other (Howard et al., 2017). They fear to change anything, and according to surveys, most think that students are safe and happy, which is certainly not the case.
Therefore, while SMdP problems are present at all levels, they all result from bad school culture. Organizational culture is the most crucial element of any organization: when it is well-developed, the company becomes self-organized and works efficiently without coercion (Warrick, 2017). Conversely, when the culture is low, coercion and violence become the only way to make the organization work (Katic et al., 2020). Along with it, people on all levels, from administration to students, tend to deny the problem and refuse to change the system. Students and teachers lose their trust in each other, and tension and even violence between them rise (Gregory & Ripski, 2008).
Students’ expectations from the school do not meet; they lose their value in it and depreciate the school, which leads to a severe worsening of their behavior (Thoonen et al., 2010). As one can see, all mentioned problems have a single root, weak organizational culture. Thus, by changing it, Odiotti and Seiberlich may significantly improve the situation on all levels, eventually increasing the school’s reputation.
Solutions to Change the Culture
Empowerment and accountability are necessary organizational qualities for schools, as they indicate the ability of students and teachers to self-organize. Empowerment means the students’ ability to regulate their behavior and motivation to learn and engage in school life (Cleary et al., 2008). Accountability includes quantitative indicators, such as grades, which show the efficiency of the high school in teaching students; in a broad sense, it also includes teachers’ responsibility for students’ education (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Empowered students understand that they will obtain satisfaction by learning and participating in school life and all necessary help, while their wrong behavior will be immediately discouraged.
A new SMdP culture should include strong principles of empowerment and accountability, as it will ensure that both teachers and students will be responsible for their actions. In addition, cooperation should be promoted on all levels: between students, teachers, and teacher-student interactions. Only strong trustful relationships, not an authoritarian disciplinary approach, may ensure that students listen to their teacher and be motivated to learn (Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Thoonen et al., 2010). Lastly, school violence should be eliminated using all recent studies about this topic: its victims should obtain free psychological support and protection (Katic et al., 2020).
Abusers should be closely watched and limited in their possibilities, despite expelling them is not a good idea. New leaders should work in three stages to change the organizational culture in SMdP and improve the situation. These are developing a clear plan of changes, implementing it by communicating it on all levels, from students to teachers, and monitoring the implementation precisely by appointing the administration.
New Management Strategies toward Students, Teachers, and Administration
Teachers’ main issue is denying responsibility for their actions, blaming students, and refusing to cooperate. Motivated people are not encouraged but rather repressed by a collective that does not want any changes (Howard et al., 2017). Conversely, motivated teachers should be promoted and protected, while those who discourage them should be ordered not to do this. Another component is the development of mutual trust between teachers and students, which can be reached through conversations and searching for mutual interests (Gregory & Ripski, 2008).
Restorative justice can decrease violence: it means supporting and protecting all victims via conversations and mediation, removing prerequisites for violence (Katic et al., 2020). Students’ academic performance may be improved by showing what students will reach in the future by learning and increasing their interest in solving learning tasks (Thoonen et al., 2010). Lastly, school administration should be appointed to watch for the implementation of those strategies, encourage the changes, and be in constant contact with leaders.
Conclusion
As one can see, while the SMdP’s situation is terrible, it is not irresolvable. New school leaders, Odiotti and Seiberlich, should develop a clear plan to communicate with all three school actors: teachers, administration, and students, to create a new organizational culture. Accountability principles should be developed among teachers: they should be motivated to establish trustful relationships with students and be free to create efficient educational programs.
Students should be empowered by developing their responsibility for their education and engaging in school events, interesting for them. School violence should be eliminated by removing all its prerequisites, protecting victims, and discouraging abusers. Lastly, the school administration’s main task is monitoring the implementation of the mentioned changes, reporting them to school leaders, and motivating teachers and students to develop accountability and empowerment.
References
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 70–107. Web.
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School Accountability. In the Handbook of the Economics of Education (pp. 383–421). Web.
Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337–353. Web.
Howard, L. L., Waikar, S., & Berger, G. (2017). Creating a culture of empowerment and accountability at St. Martin de Porres High School (A). Kellogg School of Management Cases, 1(1), 1–7. Web.
Katic, B., Alba, L. A., & Johnson, A. H. (2020). A systematic evaluation of restorative justice practices: School violence prevention and response. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 1–15. Web.
Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Oort, F. J. (2010). Can teachers motivate students to learn? Educational Studies, 37(3), 345–360. Web.
Liability and accountability are a vital requirement for any profession in order to ensure that activities are done in a required manner, and that people can be held accountable in cases whereby such activities are not done in a required manner. Specifically, liability implies that an individual should rightly incur the costs associated with adverse effects of his/her actions on other people.
Most of the technical risks and failures are caused by lack of proper responsibility assignment (Hartman, 2010). This implies that liability and accountability can be used to establish an approach for the responsibility of actions undertaken by individuals. In addition, liability and accountability should vary in accordance to the effects associated with actions and decisions of professionals.
The assignment of liability and accountability should vary in different professions. This is because of the variations of the subjects of their decisions and actions that they undertake.
For instance, owing to the fact that a mistake done by a healthcare personnel can result to the death of a patient implies that they require high standards of legal responsibility and accountability (Gaylin & Bruce, 2000). This helps in ensuring that professionals who handle delicate matters such as human life exercise extreme care in order to avoid unnecessary losses that cannot be recovered.
On the other hand, professionals such as magazine reporters do not require higher standards of legal accountability and responsibility due to the fact that the mistakes that they commit cannot impose adverse effects on the society and human life, and that they can be easily rectified.
Variations in the levels of legal accountability and responsibility have various advantages and disadvantages depending on the nature of the risks and vulnerability of actions and decisions undertaken by the professional. One of the most significant advantages of this is that it ensures that professionals exercise extreme care when undertaking their actions and decisions. In addition, it gives the victims a better opportunity for reclaiming the costs associated with damages imposed by professionals.
The fundamental argument is that assigning higher standards of responsibility and accountability ensures the professional meets the costs that are worth the damage. A significant disadvantage of this approach is that some effects may have intangible adverse effects on the victims, and since they have low accountability and responsibility, experts in such professionals are bound to exercise less care during their actions and decisions (Bovins, 1998).
For example, a mistake done by a magazine reporter can go along way to affect the reputation of a company, which may in turn affect its profitability and ultimately the company’s shut down. Another disadvantage of this approach is that it eliminates the possibility of other causation factors of faults and the circumstances that compelled an individual to undertake a given action or decision.
Other professionals that require high accountability include engineers, public health, laboratory personnel and inspectorate personnel. This is because a single mistake undertaken by the named professionals can cost human life and invaluable damage than cannot be easily reclaimed (Gaylin & Bruce, 2000). For instance, an engineer that ignores some design requirements may result to a collapse of a house in the near future, which is somewhat considered to be a disaster.
The mistakes undertaken by public health and inspectorate officials can result to damages that cannot be recovered. Professionals such as teaching and journalism do not require higher levels of liability and accountability because adverse effects of actions and decisions can be reversed in a timely manner, thereby reducing any potential of risks and vulnerabilities (Hartman, 2010).
Discussion Board Peer Post Review and Reply
According to a post by Diangelo Wilson, liability and accountability should vary according to professions, as such, people holding higher professions require higher accountability. This is absolutely correct because with great jobs comes more responsibility, and care has to be exercised when handling delicate issues that can result to adverse effects due to mistakes undertaken by the professionals.
You explained the professions that require high accountability although you did not highlight the reasons why such high standards of accountability are required. In addition, you did not highlight the various professions that do not need high standards of accountability and the reasons why they do not need.
With respect to this posting, you should clarify more regarding why certain professions should be accorded high levels of accountability compared to others. Basically, the posting highlighted the significance of liability in career development; as such, it will help me in the development of my career through being help accountable and liable for any mistakes in my actions and decisions in the course of my career.
In Lisa Fondel post, certain professions should have higher standards of accountability than others. However, you need to clarify more on the reasons why you believe some professionals like doctors and police officers must be accorded higher standards of accountability compared to others.
In the posting, you did not differentiate between the advantages and disadvantages of allocating higher accountability standards to certain professionals. The basic inference from the posting is that every professional should be accountable to some degree depending on the nature of the job and the outcome of mistakes in actions and wrong decision making. This posting was helpful in facilitating my understanding of professional accountability, which is vital in career development.
References
Bovins, B. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility, Accountability and Citizenship in Large Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaylin, W., & Bruce, J. (2000). The Perversion of Autonomy: The Proper Uses of Coercion and Constraints in a Liberal Society . New York: The Free Press.
Hartman, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. New York: McGraw Hill.
Measures taken to facilitate the accountability process in the Kerara local government
Accountability can be described as a state of responsibility. In this state, members are required to take responsibility of their actions and inactions by giving appropriate explanation. All public officers serving in pubic institutions must exercise accountability by accepting to take responsibility.
They have to account for their actions and inactions while discharging their duties. The only way to ensure accountability in local government is to set up mechanisms that will hold all local government actors accountable for their actions. Accountability ensures good governance (Levy, 2008).
To enhance accountability, the local government of Kerara has enforced and strengthened all its laws and regulations that relate to the governance of the local authorities. The laws require all public officials in the local government to account for their actions and inactions after a specified period of time.
With enhancement of these rules and regulations, all the local government agencies and other actors in the local government are expected to give an account of how they discharge their duties. This helps to avoid misappropriation of resources and holds all local government officials accountable for their actions. The laws also create an environment that renders all the law breakers on notice. This might lead to their dismissal or arraignment in court for failure to account for their actions (Levy, 2008).
The local government has also intensified its inspection, evaluation and monitoring of all local government work assigned to various departments and officials. Strengthening and intensifying the inspection, monitoring and evaluation structures enhances accountability by making sure that all public officials in the local government are inspected, monitored and evaluated. Any faults that are realized in the process of monitoring, inspection and evaluation must be accounted for by the actors in charge (Levy, 2008).
The local government has put measures in place that facilitate and encourage wider information dissemination. Any information regarding the operation and services rendered by the local government has been widely disseminated to the public. Wider dissemination of information to the public facilitates the feedback process and promotes traceability (follow up).
This mechanism holds the local government officials accountable to the public for their actions. Various suggestion boxes have been opened in various local government offices to be able to access grievances from the citizens and ensure that the grievances are appropriately addressed (Levy, 2008).
The local government has enhanced its auditing processes and periods. Auditing is now done on time by more that one auditing firm to enhance comparison of the outcomes and implementation of the best outcomes. A follow up structure has also been put in place to ensure that the recommendations are implemented for accountability facilitation (Levy, 2008).
Motivation has also been used by the local government to enhance accountability. The local government has set minimum accountability standards that have to be met by all public officials. Those who consistently meet the standards are rewarded to keep them motivated. However, those who fail to comply with the rules are subjected to various penalties. This helps to keep the actors on track towards enhancement of accountability (Levy, 2008).
The local government also trains its officials (especially the new officials) on their duties and responsibilities. The training enhances service delivery and accountability of the actors while delivering the services. The actors are trained on how to account for their actions in local governance.
Among the areas trained are public accountability and transparency measures. Civic education for citizens has also put them in a position where they can demand for local government actors to account for their actions (Levy, 2008).
Lastly, the local government has enhanced communication channels that allow free interaction between the public and the local government officials as a means to easily exercise accountability. The proper communication channels have ensured that all officers engaging in corruption or any form of office abuse are held accountable (Levy, 2008).
Reference
Levy, H. (2008). How the state of Kerara ensured accountability in local governance. Accountability Review journal, 6 (2), 46-59.
Sporting activities are a multibillion industry. Image is one of the most important aspects of sports. Sponsorship deals account for a sizeable percentage of sports revenue. In addition, television rights also account for a significant percentage of sports revenue. This necessitates parties that are involved in sports management to have a high level of accountability.
Accountability would help in maintaining the image of sports. One of the major features of sports is unpredictability. It is vital for relevant organizations to ensure that they maintain the unpredictability of sports. Accountability helps in improving the governance of sports. One of the major advantages of sports is the fact that it brings people and countries in a manner that is impossible using other means.
Despite the fact that sporting activities are not inherently a business in economic terms, its activities have huge implications on business activities. Football is the most popular sport. The World, which takes place every four years, is the most watched sports event. Therefore, it is vital for FIFA, the international organization that manages global football, to have a high level of accountability. Accountability of FIFA would help in improving the management of football. This would have great benefits to various football stakeholders.
Review of Article
Roger Pielke’s article, ‘how can FIFA be held accountable?’ discusses the accountability issues that FIFA faces. FIFA is the international organization that oversees football (soccer). The organization also has jurisdiction over various international football competitions. Various parties have accused FIFA of engaging in corruption.
In addition, various stakeholders have accused FIFA of lack of transparency and accountability. This has necessitated FIFA to implement various initiatives to clear its name. In 2011, FIFA implemented process that strived to improve its governance. This initiative would end on May 2013. This article uses literature on international relations to determine whether FIFA is accountable and how various stakeholders may ensure the accountability of FIFA.
According to the article, it is not easy to hold FIFA accountable. This is due to the various complex factors that are involved in management of football. The experience from reforming the International Olympic Committee over the last decade may provide a template on how to reform FIFA.
However, it is clear that for any accountability measure to be effective, it must use various methods of accountability simultaneously (Pielke, 2013). This article may help in understanding the mechanisms that various stakeholders may use to ensure the accountability of large international organizations.
Personal Analysis and Reflection
Accountability is one of the most important issues in global governance. Governance refers to the making and implementing rules that help in the efficient running of a certain entity. Global governance is governance in a global scale (Rosner & Shropshire, 2011). Therefore, good governance and accountability are synonymous.
Accountability helps in improving the management of sports organizations. However, it is difficult for global organizations to enforce accountability. This is because there are various global politics that are inherent in global organizations. In addition, global organizations have various incompatible systems that may make it difficult for global organizations to make decisions that would improve accountability.
As of 2013, FIFA has 209 member associations. Most of these member associations are from sovereign countries. FIFA organized the associations into 6 regional confederations to ease the management of the associations (Pielke, 2013). The member associations have different operating environments.
This makes it difficult for FIFA to manage them. In addition, governments may provide various supporting structures to the member associations. FIFA opposes government interference in management of football. However, in most instances it is impossible for the member associations to function effectively without government interference. This is one poses several problems to FIFA. Government interference and different operating environments make it difficult for FIFA to manage the associations effectively.
The complex nature of global football makes it difficult to implement initiatives that strive to improve accountability. The complex nature of football hinders hierarchy accountability in football. FIFA strive to ensure that there is hierarchy accountability in management of football.
According to FIFA’s governance structure, the president and members of the executive committee are the highest authority in the organization. They do not report to any higher authority. On the other hand, the heads of various member associations should report to the head of the regional confederations. In addition, the heads of the member associations should also be accountable to the government departments that control sports.
This is because the departments may provide structures to facilitate the development of football in the country. In addition, the government departments may also provide funding to the associations. In some instances, this may create a conflict of interest between FIFA and governments. However, FIFA prohibits government interference in management of football. FIFA has banned several associations in the past due to the government interference in management of football.
Corporate sponsors help in funding various sports. They account for a sizeable percentage of the revenue of sports organizations. Therefore, it is vital for sports organizations to have market accountability. The World Cup is the major global football showcase. It takes place every four years.
FIFA has various corporate sponsors in every World Cup. These corporate sponsors benefit from the publicity of the World Cup, which reaches billions of people across the globe (Kang, Lee, Goo, 2012). Adidas’ significant increase in revenue due to the 2010 World Cup is a clear illustration of the benefits that corporate sponsors get from the World Cup. In 2010, revenue of Adidas due to the sale of football and jerseys was more than $2 billion (Pielke, 2013). Therefore, it is vital for FIFA to ensure that there is accountable in football.
Corruption threatens to tarnish the image of the sport. Match fixing and doping are some of the activities that threaten to tarnish the image of football (Thornton, Champion & Ruddell, 2011). Match fixing scandals involving several teams in the Italian premier league (Serie A) in one of the most recent corrupt activities that threaten to tarnish the image of football.
After the revelations of corruption, various sponsors issued statements condemning the activity. Corruption threatens to derail the gains made in sports. This is because it tarnishes the image of sports. This may reduce the support that sports get from various parties.
Therefore, it is vital for relevant authorities to ensure that they formulate policies that would help in reducing corruption. This would help in safeguarding the integrity of sports (Bodin & Sempe, 2011). Endemic corruption in sports would derail the gain made in sports management. This would pose high risks to sports since in sports perception is everything.
References
Bodin, D. & Sempe, G. (2011). Ethics and sport in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Kang, S., Lee, S. & Goo, K. (2012). The influence of multimedia exposure on purchase intention of sponsored products: The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(2), 153-175.
Pielke, R. (2013). How can FIFA be held accountable? Sports Management Review, 12(1), 1-13.
Rosner, S.R. & Shropshire, K.L. (2011). The business of sports. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Thornton, P., Champion, W.T. & Ruddell, L.S. (2011). Sports ethics for sports management professionals. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Organizational behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, complicating the establishment of an ideally productive environment in the workplace. Two of the more critical concepts that scholars have identified in this context are inclusivity and accountability. The effectiveness of an individual or team as well as organizational performance can often depend on each individual’s ability to take responsibility for his or her conduct and contribute meaningfully.
Inclusivity is also pertinent to productivity as it fosters trust and allows employees to exercise their skills and strengths. If an organization cannot maintain an environment where employees’ inputs are valued and they are willing to perform diligently, the organization may face serious consequences.
In one case, the University of Washington Advancement team faces a particularly challenging task, generating the need to mobilize every possible effort to manage inclusivity and accountability to produce outstanding results. In light of the theoretical and practical relevance of these concepts, the present research has undertaken an effort to explore their impact in the context of organizational behavior within UW Advancement.
Organizational Context
The UW Advancement department is a body of professionals that is aimed at raising money for a variety of activities in the realms of individual and group development. Included in the organization’s values are meaningful engagement among students, alumni, and other stakeholders as well as pride, advocacy, and philanthropy (the University of Washington Advancement, n.d.). A recent Gallup (2018) engagement survey conducted among the employees of this department revealed that the team received low scores in parameters such as inclusivity (3.95/5) and accountability (3.85/5).
This assessment outlined critical problems within the UW Advancement that are having an impact on its efficiency and effectiveness. Consequently, the present research is aimed to explore factors affecting inclusivity and accountability. The study will be set within the UW Advancement organization.
Theoretical Foundations
One key goal of an enterprise is to achieve maximum profitability while incurring minimum costs. The attempt to attain this goal has fostered the emergence of many theoretical conceptions aspiring to explain and enhance business performance, which is a complex and multifaceted issue made up of multiple constituents. Among these are notions of commitment, motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, inclusion, and accountability.
The interrelations of these concepts are usually viewed under the umbrella term of organizational behavior (Miner, 2015). Organizational behavior—the set of traits, characteristics, and principles of individual interactions within a group—also targets enhancing the effectiveness of business performance. Theorists and practitioners are seeking the means to introduce factors into an organizational culture that will promote the emergence of productive behaviors in teams.
The problem of on-the-job performance can be viewed from the standpoint of multiple theories. Particularly relevant to the research question of this paper is cooperation theory as originally proposed by Tjosvold (1984), who suggested that meaningful relationships within a team are critical for productivity. In essence, cooperation theory revolves around goal attainment and cohesion. The effective achievement of goals by individuals on a team, according to Tjosvold (1984), tend to increase the effectiveness of others. Within a team, where team members proactively associate their goals with the goals of the organization, scholars have observed elevated performance and engagement rates (Tjosvold, 1984).
While the cooperation theory has been regarded as a comprehensive and reliable predictor of the performance of teams, a certain criticism of its concepts is possible. Thus, Buckley and Casson (2010) have suggested that a blanket attribution of this theory across diverse settings leads to a violation of internal team dynamics and, therefore, lowers organizational performance. Indeed, the current variety of teams and organizational settings lends itself to models that allow the implementation of both competition-based and cooperation-based paradigms without a drop in performance. Thus, among theorists, an understanding of the necessity to focus on standalone elements of organizational behavior has emerged (Buckley & Casson, 2010).
Motivational theory can also be a solid framework for the work’s topic. For example, Vroom has identified several motivational variables that affect proactive organizational behavior such as instrumentality, valence, and expectancy (as cited in Lloyd & Mertens, 2018).
Within the scope of inclusivity and accountability, instrumentality appears to be the most pertinent domain. This quality is understood as reward-based performance orientation, where the individual expects to receive a benefit for work well done. The absence of clear leadership in the ranks of UW Advancement and the motivational problems stemming from a vague rewards scheme make the motivation theory relevant to the current study.
Gaps in achieving positive instrumentality seem to pose a risk of valence, as a measure of corporate outcome importance, being low. Following such considerations, it appears that a review of the concepts of inclusion and accountability as constituents of organizational behavior that affect cooperation and motivation would be pertinent to the discussion at hand. These frameworks, despite their intrinsic diversity of processes and group mechanics, are also dependent on the factors of inclusivity and accountability.
Inclusion
In an increasingly globalized world, the diversity of the workforce becomes problematic in certain ways. As such, common to human nature is the individual’s craving for validation and affinity that is often connected to a simultaneous desire to demonstrate uniqueness (Sabharwal, 2014). Inclusion in the business environment involves, as defined by Sabharwal (2014), recognition and non-isolation of people who represent minorities or have different cultural, social, and knowledge backgrounds, along with those having disabilities or differing sexual orientation.
Thus, inclusive organizational behavior implies the ability to treat other members of the group fairly and equally. In the United States, the diversity of the workforce poses a strict requirement for inclusive practice not only due to ethical concerns but also as it relates to issues of performance. Low group cohesion appears to have a significant effect on the quality of team outcomes.
Thus, Sabharwal (2014) has found that racial, ethnic, or other inclusion-related tensions significantly undermine team productivity. Among key concerns, she mentioned incongruence in the availability of opportunities for diverse individuals within groups as well as indirect negativity and passive aggression toward “outsiders” or “non-conformers.” The existence of individual tensions between the members of a group does not favor cooperation, specifically in group-oriented tasks, inspiring the need for solutions in the sphere.
Another domain of inclusion is input recognition. The value of employee opinions was found to be significantly relevant to self-esteem and employee commitment. A precursor to that was the organizational policy that encouraged employees to add value in any possible and convenient way (Sabharwal, 2014). Besides, Sabharwal (2014) noted that firms that introduced alternative work arrangements and flexible payment schemes increased inclusion, resulting in higher individual and group performance. Given such findings, it is reasonable to believe that inclusive practices in an environment with a diverse workforce make a company more competitive in the market.
On the other hand, evidence also shows that workforce diversity with or without proper management can be an impediment to productivity or has no effect on it. These results were found to stem from low decision-making speed in heterogeneous teams, which led them to be less productive as understanding between them was lower (Potts, Vella, Dale, & Sipe, 2016). Given such considerations, the literature on inclusion seems to have produced conflicting results, which calls for further studies. Overall, the concept appears pertinent to organizational behavior, yet its nature within certain organizational contexts remains to be explored.
Accountability
Another prominent concept within organizational behavior theory is accountability. Accountability, as defined by Hall, Frink, and Buckley (2017), is a feeling of responsibility for one’s performance and an inclination to deliver the quality of work that is expected. In certain studies, accountability has been used interchangeably with responsibility, yet Hall et al. (2017) have suggested a significant difference in terms of the presence of an external audience in the case of accountability.
Also, the authors noted that responsibility as an often unconditioned and internalized inclination to perform is an important component of accountability as a term, substantiating a part-whole kind of relationship. For the most part, the scholars regarded the presence of accountability in an employee as a positive trait, directly relevant to his or her performance. Indeed, individuals imbued with a sense of liability may exercise stronger control of their efforts and thus contribute to the outcomes of the team.
Generally implied when accountability is viewed within an organizational context is the presence or possibility of evaluation or assessment. Besides, felt accountability is also conditioned by the existence of a reward or punishment based both on quality and delivery. Accountability is an important constituent of organizational behavior as businesses tend to value this quality in team members and leaders, thus extending the theoretical belief in the importance and inherently positive connotation of accountability.
At a deeper level of analysis, researchers have tended to identify the difference between process accountability and results in accountability. The former is positively associated with high-quality decision-making and proactive organizational behavior. The latter, on the other hand, has been accompanied by work-related stress and has decreased the quality of outcomes. One lack in the literature covering the accountability concept is that it appears to be rare compared to the standpoints of staff and higher executives. Given its major effect on performance, this parameter should be explored from a variety of perspectives, which the current study will address.
In summary, organizational behavior theorists have found many significant links among motivation, performance, and cooperation, which inclusivity and accountability directly influence. The significance of the latter two concepts and the gaps in the literature about the insufficient coverage of a worker-executive view of them establishes a solid theoretical foundation for the present study.
Research Methods and Quality
To address the goal of this research, mixed-methods design was chosen. Implementing elements from both quantitative and qualitative assessment allows for a more balanced evaluation. Quantitative surveys, while providing breadth and generalizability of the results of a study, impose limitations in terms of depth (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). Qualitative studies, on the other hand, while often in-depth and insightful are also time-consuming and provide unique but narrow results.
Combining both techniques provides mutual complementarity and enhances the clarity of results. Besides, the strength and value of findings will also increase (Saunders et al., 2015). In this particular case, a mixed-method also provided the benefit of testing and proving the initial qualitative data with quantitative results gained from a survey.
The initial phase of research presupposed qualitative data collection through the means of independent interviews with upper management in different branches of UW Advancement. The selection of candidates for the interview was guided by non-probability sampling to ensure generalizability. Thus, three participants occupying managerial roles from the departments of Gift Officers, Donor Relations, and Marketing/Communications were chosen to reflect their understanding of accountability and inclusivity so that the findings should cover all major structures of the organization and provide a perspective from the executive side of the question.
The interview questions were designed with support from the professional literature including Gallup (2018), Saunders et al. (2015), and Christensen and Lægreid (2015). The interview questions were designed in a manner to shield the interviewee from researcher bias and question-framing, thus establishing the quality of the assessment. The interviews focused on each participant’s view of accountability and inclusivity through capturing his or her definition, factors, and implementation of each concept in the individual’s workplace as well as measures for improvement.
Consistent with the psychology literature, one of the best ways to measure the depth of conceptual understanding is through assessing an individual’s definition (Ones, Anderson, Viswesvaran, & Sinangil, 2017). The data were manually analyzed with the implementation of thematic analysis that allowed for capturing recurrent themes.
The second, quantitative phase of the study was aimed at capturing UW Advancement employees’ perception and understanding of accountability and inclusivity as well as their ranking of related factors. To accomplish this goal, a 28-item survey was sent to all workers.
In this case, probability sampling was used to capture the opinions of all possible groups represented within the organization. The items were crafted using a variety of approaches including multiple-choice, 5- and 7-point Likert scales, and open-ended questions. According to Saunders et al. (2015), the employment of various answer modes facilitates a greater depth and versatility of assessment, which is often lacking in quantitative surveys.
A total of 14 email invitations were sent, yielding eight participants who completed the questionnaire. Data analysis was also manual, which was warranted by the small sample. The latter was a major limitation because, even though the majority of the organization’s employees were able to participate, a sufficient number remained whose opinions were unassessed. This limitation will be addressed in a follow-up administration of the survey to the team members that will cover the rest of the UW Advancement staff. The professional analysis of the data is supported by the fact that the captured results were consistent with other researchers’ findings, such as Steinbauer, Renn, Taylor, and Njoroge (2014) and Barak, Findler, and Wind (2016).
Research Results
As a result of the interviews, it was possible to identify several sources of problems regarding the understanding of accountability and inclusivity. The latter, as also suggested by Barak et al. (2016), was found to be confused with diversity, even though the nature and direction of the concepts are dissimilar. Two out of three people used “embracing differences” or “togetherness” as major defining criteria of inclusivity. This might be perceived as a knowledge gap that constitutes the majority of inclusivity issues faced by UW Advancement such as the lack of input recognition and fairness of judgment.
Another major finding from the qualitative phase was a lack of connection between the goals and the everyday assignments of UW Advancement’s departments. As employees tended to focus on their own department’s goals, the overall cohesion of the organization staff was low, as found by Gallup (2018). Where accountability was concerned, interviewees tended to agree that the overall disconnectedness of departments prevented the formation of uniform goals and a vision that would be shared by all workers. Table 1 shows the recurrent themes that the managers mentioned.
Table 1. Core Recurrent Themes Identified During Interviews (self-generated).
Inclusivity Definition
Togetherness
Openness
Diversity
Factors Affecting Inclusivity
Homogeneity/heterogeneity of staff
Organizational policies/practices
Leadership
Possible Interventions for Increased inclusivity
Inclusive training
Staff training
Hiring practices change
Accountability Definition
Trust, strong communication, follow-through
Factors Affecting Accountability
Honesty
Organizational policies/practices
Leadership, work environment
Possible Interventions for Increased Accountability
As the survey demonstrated, the employees’ reports reflected no apparent consensus on the issues of accountability as the results varied from neutrality to strong agreement concerning the presence of clear and unambiguous subordination. On the other hand, 65% of employees agreed on the presence of and need for personal accountability for one’s work (see Figure 1). Moreover, 24% of the sample agreed that responsibilities keep shifting depending on the task, creating certain ambiguity.
Indeed, the lack of definitive roles, as noted by Steinbauer et al. (2014), seems to be indicative of vague accountability and, consequently, decreased motivation. Overall, the results demonstrate the need for intervention based on awareness because both quantitative and qualitative assessments revealed confusion regarding concepts and ambiguity among executives and employees.
Solution
The issues with accountability and inclusivity evidenced at UW Advancement require a systematic approach that will tackle the problems related to ambiguity and awareness. Among the measures proposed by workers and managers were staff training, the creation of a supportive work environment, inclusive hiring policies, outreach, and other initiatives. In any case, a unanimity of efforts that come from all departments and upper management for the initiatives to be integrated into an effective complex of measures appears to be needed.
From the standpoint of motivation theory, because an intervention should also be considered beneficial, it is important to emphasize in any training interventions the individual implications of inclusivity and accountability. In the planning of such an intervention, it could also be reasonable to introduce SMART Goals to further amplify the effectiveness of adopted measures as well as employees’ adherence to them.
Conclusion
In all, the problem of inclusivity and accountability in UW Advancement is pertinent due to the implications related to performance and motivation that could undermine the effectiveness of the whole organization. Following the results of the study, the main reasons for low inclusivity and accountability scores included ambiguity of terms and disconnectedness of departments, intensified by shifting tasks and an absence of common values and goals. To address these issues, a possible solution would be to initiate educational and training measures based on strong leadership and unanimity of response from the upper management.
References
Barak, M. E. M., Findler, L., & Wind, L. H. (2016). Diversity, inclusion, and commitment in organizations: International empirical explorations. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2(2), 813-834.
Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (2010). A theory of cooperation in international business. In P. J. Buckley & M. Casson (Eds.), The multinational enterprise revisited: The essential Buckley and Casson (pp. 41-67). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2015). Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, 15(2), 207-225.
Gallup (2018). UA employee engagement survey. New York, NY: Gallup.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204-224.
Liang, H. Y., Shih, H. A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2015). Team diversity and team helping behavior: The mediating roles of team cooperation and team cohesion. European Management Journal, 33(1), 48-59.
Lloyd, R., & Mertens, D. (2018). Expecting more out of expectancy theory: History urges inclusion of the social context. International Management Review, 14(1), 24-66.
Miner, J. B. (2015). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. London, UK: Routledge.
Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. K. (2017). The handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology. (2nd ed., Vol. 1-3). London, UK: Sage.
Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., & Sipe, N. (2016). Evaluating governance arrangements and decision making for natural resource management planning: An empirical application of the Governance Systems Analysis Framework. Society & Natural Resources, 29(11), 1325-1341.
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Taylor, R. R., & Njoroge, P. K. (2014). Ethical leadership and followers’ moral judgment: The role of followers’ perceived accountability and self-leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 381-392.
Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations, 37(9), 743-767.
University of Washington Advancement. (n.d.). University advancement. Web.
Through the present Code of Ethics, the Organization expresses its commitment to achieving a safe, positive, and supportive work environment. The necessary prerequisite for meeting the said goal is ensuring ethical, dignified, courteous, and respectful conduct among the professionals. The Organization acknowledges the worth of people and sees creating an atmosphere where every person is treated fairly as its top priority. The present document seeks to encourage trust, responsibility, and accountability in every colleague and stakeholder and compel them to collaborate and exchange views and opinions in an open dialogue.
Diversity
The Organization sees strength in diversity and does not discriminate against gender, race, ethnic background, and sexual orientation. It is important that every person sees his or her colleagues as complex human beings and abstains from putting a label on them based on their origins and personal traits. The Organization’s staff comes from a variety of backgrounds, which ensures unique and versatile experiences.
They allow each member to bring in fresh ideas and make a valuable contribution. However, the Organization emphasizes the need for colleagues and stakeholders to adhere to the outlined ethical principles, putting them above their beliefs, opinions, preferences, and habits. To make sure that conduct in the workplace is compliant with the present Code of Ethics, both staff and the managing board members are assigned distinct roles.
The Role of the Staff
The Code of Ethics prescribes each staff member to treat all people with courtesy and respect. If a conflict is to arise, all colleagues should retain their professionalism and try to reach a compromise without being offensive. Self-reflection is seen by the Organization as a vital part of fostering a respectful work atmosphere. With this being said, staff members are encouraged to be mindful and observant. If someone’s rights are violated, or he or she is subjected to disrespectful behavior, a person who witnesses this problematic situation is to intervene and appeal to a manager if necessary. The Organization is well-aware that staff members are at the top of their performance when they do not have to handle unfair treatment, conflicts, and negative emotions.
The Role of the Managing Board
The managers of the Organization are responsible for setting the tone and acting as role models for others. Since the members of the managing board have to handle difficult situations more often than the staff, it is essential that they remain courteous, impartial, and respectful at all times. The Organization does not encourage making top-down decisions and demanding immediate reinforcement without consulting the staff first.
This especially applies to the situations when actions were undertaken by the managing board affect the employees directly. The Organization supports the idea of open dialogue, during which the managing staff communicates candidly and credibly, asks for feedback, and ensures clarity and transparency. Lastly, the managers must promote the staff’s professional growth and provide access to job and education opportunities if employees show outstanding results and demonstrate their worth.
Disrespect
The Organization defines disrespect as a type of behavior that lacks courtesy, dignity, and civility. Being disrespectful means conducting oneself in such a way that insults, diminishes, denigrates, or humiliates others. The present Code of Ethics acknowledges the fact that disrespect may take many forms, such as:
spreading rumors or distorted facts, thus, hurting a victim’s reputation;
raising one’s voice without reason, shouting;
criticizing a person’s work or ability unconstructively, ridiculing and diminishing their accomplishments;
humiliating a person in front of others;
swearing and insulting others;
taking credit for others’ achievements;
assuming a domineering position without an instruction to do so;
interrupting others in a meeting or making negative comments while they are giving a speech.
Favoritism
The Organization denounces favoritism and prescribes both staff and managing board members to abstain from acting upon their personal preferences and inclinations, which may lead to unequal treatment. The present Code of Ethics prohibits all forms of discrimination in the workplace. No person should be deprived of or given extra opportunities based on his or her gender, race, ethnic and social background, age, marital status, health status, religion, and sexuality. The Organization prevents the staff from hiring family members as such decisions are considered unprofessional and a form of favoritism. Exchanging sexual acts for work advancements/ promotion opportunities even when both parties consent is completely unacceptable.
Abuse of Authority
The Organization disapproves of the abuse of power and authority, which the present Code of Ethics defines as inappropriate use of one’s position of influence for personal benefits or imposing dominance over others. Below are some examples of this form of misconduct:
Using one’s leverage to skew employment opportunities, for instance, by demanding payment for work contract renewal;
Offensive and hostile behavior that includes intimidation, disruption, blackmail, threats, and use of force;
Supervisors asking subordinates to run their personal errands during their working hours, thus, preventing them from advancing the Organization;
They are using corporate vehicles to drive personal acquaintances.
Training Program
The Code of Ethics implies the organization of training sessions to make sure that the staff is not only familiar with the policies but is also aware of how they are reinforced. For new employees, work ethics training is part of their general training where they are getting acquainted with the workplace and refine their hard skills. Existing employees enroll in a separate program where they are made aware of changes and/ or expand their knowledge of ethical and respectful conduct. The main difference between work ethics training programs for new and existing staff is the introductory part on the Organization’s values and mission for those who just joined it. Otherwise, the programs entail similar elements, which include but are not limited to:
Ethics dilemma discussion when participants are given a situation that requires making a difficult decision;
Roleplay of challenging situations and sensitive conversations;
Real cases analysis;
Ethical dilemma generation and solution.
Training takes place every two months and is separated into two sessions, each of which lasts two hours. The training supervisor team includes one person from an outside organization with experience in human resource development and one manager from the Organization who is familiar with the trainees. The programs may take place within one department, or employees from different departments can be mixed, which would stimulate networking and reinforce friendly bonds.
Monitoring & Reporting Misconduct
During training sessions, it is explained that the staff should hold each other accountable and help with monitoring and reporting misconduct. The managers should reassure the trainees that they will face no retaliation for speaking out about a violation of the Organization’s ethical policies. If a person witnesses disrespect, harassment, or abuse of authority, he or she can:
Submit a report anonymously through email or in the written form;
Request a private meeting with their supervisor;
Share during a scheduled training session in a respectful manner.
In the report or face-to-face interaction with a supervisor, it is important to be specific, give clear examples of disrespectful and unethical behavior as well as include the date, time, and location where an incident took place. Apart from these actions, staff members are encouraged to participate in anonymous surveys conducted every week where they can evaluate the atmosphere in the workplace, file a complaint, or suggest a readjustment.
The Organization expects staff members to respect the ethical guidelines and make an effort to adhere to them, and compel others to be compliant. If an employee violates the Code, he or she is given a warning in private, which can be accompanied by a conversation clarifying the main ethical principles. After two violations, an employee will have to face a penalty. Some offenses, however, are seen by the Organization as particularly severe. If a person is physically or sexually violent, abuses substances, and causes damage to corporate property, he or she will be dismissed.
Measurement Tools
The effectiveness of the ethics program is evaluated based on managers’ and employees’ feedback. The primary method of assessment is weekly, monthly, and yearly surveys in which staff members are encouraged to share how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with the workplace. The volume of misconduct reports may be a valid measurement tool. However, managers should approach it with caution as an increase in the number of reports might only mean that employees are becoming more outspoken and proactive (Kaptein, 2015).
The results of the surveys are processed by the managers with the help of the human resource development specialists, and growth areas are outlined. Changes are communicated during bi-monthly training sessions in the form of presentations and discussions. If a change is incremental, it is to be added to the Code of Ethics.
References
Kaptein, M. (2015). The effectiveness of ethics programs: The role of scope, composition, and sequence. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 415-431.
This article covers a study on arrangements that apply to accountability. The author, Thomas Schillemans is an expert on accountability and he has made numerous literary contributions on this subject. The article uses the situation in Netherlands to describe how horizontal accountability could be applied in the administration of agencies. Nevertheless, the author of this article makes a clear distinction between horizontal and hierarchical accountability. One of the most radical views in this article is that horizontal accountability often operates in the shadows of a hierarchy. The article also offers several explanations and definitions of relevant terms and concepts. This essay is a critical review of the article titled “Accountability in the shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies”.
One of the most prominent concepts in this article is horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy. The author did a good job when explaining this point. From the article’s context, the main idea is that quality of accountability is influenced by much more than just reporting. Therefore, the shadow of hierarchy as described by the author is in reference to an entire mechanism of accountability. This is a farfetched concept in the study of accountability but the author does a good job in breaking it down. According to the article, horizontal accountability is not a ‘one phase undertaking’, but it involves three distinct phases. These phases are the information phase, the debating phase, and the consequences phase (Schillemans, 2008, p. 180). This hypothesis makes a lot of sense as opposed to the traditional horizontal accountability, which only concerns itself with the consequences. Through this model, the element of hierarchical shadows is exemplified through the exchange of information between partners, their subsequent deliberations, and the manner in which they are accountable to their decisions. The concept of horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy provides new insights in the nature of accountability as it applies to agencies.
The article has also added on the overall understanding of how partners should be held into account in agency settings. According to the author, the parties who are part of the hierarchical shadow of horizontal accountability should be held to account for their various forms of input. Therefore, partners who take part in providing the necessary input, delivering on promises, and achieving projected results should all be accountable. Furthermore, Schillemans argues that partners should also be accountable for how responsive or unresponsive their services are to recipients, maintenance of quality-standards, proper use of power, and fulfillment of partnership goals.
The author’s overall definition of horizontal accountability is not as straightforward as the article puts it. After going through the entire article, the most viable definition of horizontal accountability is ‘what is not hierarchical’. In the article, this definition can be drawn for the statement that says, “Horizontal accountability then in contrast refers to forms of accountability where the accountee is not hierarchically superior to the accountor” (Schillemans, 2008, p. 179). Consequently, this statement reiterates the simplification of horizontal accountability in this article to: ‘what is not hierarchical’.
Schillemans’ article is an insightful account on horizontal marketing and the shadowy elements that come with hierarchical connotations. The author is also quite successful in his juxtaposition of the concepts of horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy. Through the article, it is also possible to decipher how accountability should be distributed within a partnership. There is also the possibility of simplifying the overall definition in this article after gaining a full understanding of the subject matter.
Reference
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review 8: 175-194.
The article by Schillemans (2008) addresses the emergence of the phenomenon of horizontal accountability in response to the accountability deficit of agencies. The author aims at differentiating between the different types of horizontal accountability forms, determining its contribution to the accountability of the agencies, and, most importantly, providing the means for evaluation of its influence on the agencies’ accountability regime.
The article features a number of important definitions that are used as a framework for the study. Accountability is broadly defined as the interaction between an accountor and an accountee in which the actions of the former are subject to evaluation by the latter (Schillemans, 2008). However, such definition contains an apparent presence of the hierarchy in that the accountor is likely superior to the accountee in a certain sense. For this reason, the author provides the definition of horizontal, or non-hierarchical, accountability based on the review of the literature. According to Schillemans (2008), it can be viewed as a result of the situation where different accountees demand accountability and the resulting sum of accountability arrangements forms a complementary regime that exists independently from the ministerial responsibility.
Based on these definitions, the author formulates the range of criteria pertinent to a subset of Dutch agencies. The criteria include the existence of informal and social aspects of accountability, independence from ministry, and the formalization of relationships between the stakeholders. The results suggest that while horizontal accountability is a necessary component of the contemporary agencies characterized by the increased complexity and autonomy, it cannot serve as a substitute for the ministerial responsibility.
The information presented in the article is important for several reasons. First, the author offers a comprehensive review of the phenomenon of horizontal hierarchy and provides a set of criteria for the definition. This information can be utilized in further research on the topic as well as related fields of public service administration. Next, Schillemans (2008) offers convincing arguments in favor of adopting the studied concept by other agencies and outlines the benefits of its usage. Each stage of accountability process is exhaustively studied and supplied with relevant examples in order to enhance the understanding of the concept. Third, and, perhaps, most importantly, it adds to the knowledge base on the effects of horizontal accountability for the agencies that adopt it. Specifically, Schillemans (2008) suggests that the richness of information created by additional mechanisms at the initial phase of the process stimulates the agencies’ learning capacity. This assertion allows us to reframe accountability as a source of data that triggers the improvement of the agency rather than a mere instrument of control. The complex social underpinnings of horizontal accountability serve as a starting point for internal improvement and provide information that may be used for self-reflection. Finally, it should be pointed out that the structure of horizontal accountability opens up the opportunity to gain access to priorities and interests that differ from those of the ministry. Therefore, the article may be viewed as both the source of arguments in favor of the horizontal hierarchy adoption and the tool for evaluation of the chosen structure.
Overall, the article contains no knowledge that is fundamentally new. Therefore, it should not be viewed as a reason to review the existing frame of reference. Instead, the author successfully decreases the ambiguity surrounding the relatively non-traditional concept and outlines several ways of applying the studied issue into practice. Thus, the goals set out by the author can be described as both fulfilled and useful for a broad range of applications in the public service sector.
Reference
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175-194.
Accountability is defined as an act of person(s), organization/ institutions being responsible of the tasks assigned. Accountability is therefore, a culture that is critical in determining the success in institutions in their mandate to deliver on the assigned tasks. Health sector in this regard is mandated with the welfare of citizens’ health. For this sector to succeed in taking care of the people health, accountability has to prevalent. However, this is not the case, as the sector has failed to achieve its objectives due to lack of accountability. Below we shall look at accountability in health industry.
Importance of accountability in a health industry
In almost all aspects of life, accountability is very essential, although in some sensitive areas like a health facility it can save a life. In a health facility, everything carries a cost starting from doctor’s time, the prescriptions, patients’ beds, office expenses, and the staff salaries among others (Scott, 2003). In the health facilities, if any commodity is wasted, misused or may be stolen there is someone who will carry that burden, and that is either the consumer or the insurance company that is offering the cover.
If everyone becomes accountable for what he or she is using, the operating costs of the overall institution would be low. In addition, the accountability is very crucial in a healthy facility, because a slight error especially by the doctor or the patient may cost someone’s life. Slight errors in a healthy facility should be reported as quickly as possible especially errors concerning the medicines and other prescriptions. The fear of being embarrassed or denying an error in a healthy facility should never be an issue as everyone can make a mistake.
Measuring the employees accountability
The employees’ accountability is seen in a healthy care industry through his or her working procedures. For instance if an employee can start a project with a certain patient and he or she fails to follow that project until the end, this is a show of lack of accountability of that patient (Savage, 2010). For any employee who is accountable to his or her actions, there is a regular feedback of the course of actions between him and the supervisor. The work of a committed employee has some set objectives and he or she ensures that the objectives are accomplished and the report made to the supervisor. There are those employees in healthy facilities who like delegating most of their duties to others, not knowing that their duties are very sensitive, as they are dealing with people lives. Such employees who are very fond of delegating show a quality of a person who runs away from his or her own accountabilities. In a healthy facility, there is no need of any employee to do something he or she is not sure of, as mistakes be turn to be very expensive, the employees who are held accountable and very aware always seek for clarification from the relevant people before they perform such actions.
Checks and balance process
In any successful organization, there must be a reliable process for performing checks and balances. The first process is by establishing measurable goals. If for instance is a healthy facility where the management has established a coding compliance program, the reasons of establishing that program are made available to the users. The organization should ensure that the employees are aware of the reasons like improving the quality of coding, and easy documentation (Dekker, 2007). The organization should also set some measurable objectives such that beginning with the status and setting the level of expectations. The next step is for the management to choose the right team to work with.
This process will involve the employees and the top management. As the employees perform their duties at the ground level, the top management should be waiting for the results of all the performances. The third step is to have a layered approach, for instance a healthy facility may have to put some extra efforts to ensure there is a coding manager who is an expert to be ensuring that all the coders records are accurate and perfect. The fourth step is to define the audit especially during the times when there are some new team officials whether they are experienced or not. When a new team member is working, he or she may not be able to point out the differences. The auditor should be ready to work on a coder-by-coder basis. The fifth step is for the management to equip its employees with the right tools that will enable them to perform, and after which the management should do some follow ups and educate the team (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010). After achieving the set goals, the management should widen the goals for more improvements within the organization.
Affection of the organization culture by accountability
The accountability affects the culture of the organization greatly because some employees’ attributes keep of recurring. In history, there are some companies where unless there is some threats and intimidation no actions of delivering results may happen. In addition, some employees only act through the presence of the supervisor and with much pressure (Savage, 2010). Therefore, the accountability or failure of the employees sometimes becomes the culture of the organization. In some cases, there are some organizations where employees have a culture of timely and perfect deliveries, and this becomes the culture of the organization.
Maintaining a positive culture
A positive company culture can be through selection of facilities, creation of communication channels, and the general way of how employees treat one another on daily basis (Scott, 2003). The management should concentrate on how to improve the relationship among the employees, and how they fell about one another. An organization can improve a positive culture by making the employees happy, energetic, secured and friendly. Through participating in the activities of the employees, the management would define their general mood. If the management realizes that the culture of the organization is not pleasing, it should work on improving it towards the positive side.
Conclusion
Accountability is therefore key to success in any given institution. As seen in the health sector, the employees and the management should embrace the culture of accountability. This will in turn translate in to better service delivery to the patients due increased efficiency.
References
Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture. London: Ashgate.
Ledlow, G., & Coppola, N. (2010). Leadership for Health professionals: Theory, Skills, and Application. New York: Jones & Barlett Learning.
Savage, G. (2010). Strategic Human Resource Management in Health Care. New York: Emerald Group Publishing.
Scott, T. (2003). Healthcare performance and organisational culture. New York: Radcliffe.
The significance that social, political, and economic systems have in how businesses and governments function and acquire authority is the subject of institutional theory. These regulations apply to both formal and informal entities, such as the government, the corporate sector, and households. The institutional theory describes how and why change happens in organizations, as well as why some organizational methods and structures persist.
According to such theory, governments’ objective is to serve their citizens and voters and put their interests first. On the other hand, as per traditional systems and structures, corporations have to serve their customers and prioritize the interests of their clients and stakeholders. In this sense, both firms and governments have their obligations to either customers or citizens, and without certain accountability mechanisms, such priorities can shift, focusing on more corrupt, self-centered, and inefficient systems.
First, there are systems and mechanisms that monitor and regulate the activities of political and economic forces, which promote accountability. By developing systems of control, motivation, and responsibility that compel organizations and the people, they serve to achieve ever-higher standards of performance at the workplace, in the classroom, in the playing area, as well as in their personal relationships.
In contemporary societies, authorities should be re-elected if they boost expansion and enhance infrastructure (Brett, 2009). Businesses must only continue to thrive if they offer reasonably priced goods, and civic organizations and nongovernmental organizations should only keep their donations and participants if they deliver better public services than potential competitors (Brett, 2009). Lastly, partners should only remain together if they appreciate each other’s wishes and requirements.
When it comes to the extent of control, political evolution entails a shift from command-and-control to consensus-based systems of government. This has organizational and geographic ramifications since it necessitates authority structures that function at the local, national, and international levels, as well as those that enable independent interconnectedness between individuals and organizations (Brett, 2009).
Liberal nations, such as the U.S. or European nations, do this by creating institutions that hold people and authorities responsible through democratic marketplaces, require them to recognize the independence of commercial entrepreneurs and their own authorities and expose them to the legal system (Brett, 2009). In turn, a business is made up of the network of connections that develops when an entrepreneur is required to allocate resources (Coase, 1937). The extent of control of such an entity is limited due to competitive markets. In this sense, businesses can control prices and customers to a certain extent in the view of competition.
However, in order for accountability mechanisms to work, there have to be certain circumstances. For example, the greatest way to control accountability and allocate resources, according to liberal theorists, is through completely competitive markets since they increase autonomy, effectiveness, fairness, and interdependence by providing individuals the freedom to make their own decisions and so be an independent generator of activity (Brett, 2009). Unlimited access to all marketplaces eradicates monopolies and lowers costs and prices, while the public nature of exchanges inside a competitive industry omits the requirement for power structure and the potential for exploitation (Brett, 2009). Participants can also make rational decisions about how to use their own assets and prevent being taken advantage of by others owing to sufficient data.
In turn, for governments, liberal democratic institutions are necessary for the establishment of robust accountability mechanisms. The goal of liberal political philosophy is to develop solutions to balance the necessity for national sovereignty with the right of individuals to liberty (Brett, 2009). Liberal institutions can only be realized in specific traditionally formed circumstances in which the required standards have been created by a long and still developing process that includes social experimenting, scientific study, and competitive markets (Brett, 2009). This is because liberal institutions’ assertions to achieve maximum freedom and efficiency can be empirically justified. Without liberal democratic institutions, the government system will be susceptible to issues that will inhibit prioritizing the interests of the nation.
Still, it is noteworthy that accountability mechanisms change depending on the institutional environment of the country. For example, in Viacha, a powerful Cervecería Boliviana Nacional operated as a monopolistic financier of the regional party system, which stifled political rivalry, eventually discouraging people from casting their ballots (Faguet, 2009). A split of civil society, consisting of traditional and contemporary peasant groups as well as urban and rural groups, was ill-equipped to combat this destructive effect (Faguet, 2009). Local governance thus became corrupt, ineffectual, and unaccountable.
Contrarily, in Charagua, diverse cattle farmers made up a competitive private market that fostered competition and entrepreneurship in politics (Faguet, 2009). This resulted in political responsibility and, as a result, reactive, egalitarian policies, which were themselves supported by organized, civilized society (Faguet, 2009). As can be seen from the examples, under weak institutional structures, the organizations had several options, and yet while one city managed to have a decentralized system and competitive market, another one became a corrupt municipality.
Hence, both businesses and governments have responsibilities to their constituents, and without certain accountability measures, these obligations might change, concentrating on more dishonest, selfish, and ineffective processes. First, there are oversight and control systems for political and economic forces that encourage responsibility. These systems of command, incentive and accountability serve as the foundation for these processes. Political development involves a change from command-and-control to consensus-based forms of governance in terms of the degree of control. The network of relationships that forms when an entrepreneur must distribute resources, in turn, makes up a firm. However, certain conditions must exist for accountability systems to function, such as competitive markets for businesses and liberal democratic institutions for governments.
References
Brett, E.A. (2009). Reconstructing development theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Faguet, J.P. (2009). Governance from below in Bolivia: A theory of government with two empirical tests. Latin American politics and society, 51(4), 29–68. Web.
