Only for washington
y513954873
Unit6AssessmentInstrumentsNotes3.docUnit 6:
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
Assessment instruments are used in training and development to determine where an organization or employees might have a need for training. That is, they are a fundamental part of conducting a needs assessment. Assessment instruments are the tools used to collect data that will then be analyzed to determine the training goals and objectives. Thus, they are a key step in the process.
When it comes to measurement it is important that measures be both reliable and valid. Reliability refers to a measures ability to perform consistently across time without error, whereas validity refers to its ability to actually measure what it is intended to measure. In the studies assigned as reading for this unit you will see that the instruments developed are tested for reliability and validity in several ways. To better familiarize you with measurement reliability and validity consult the Measurement Reliability and Measurement Validity power points, which are located in the supplemental materials for this unit.
Measurement
Reliability
Unit 6
There are numerous assessment instruments available for training and development. They vary with regard to what they examine ranging from organizational commitment to team functioning.
While many are privately held and require you to pay for their use, there are ample instruments available in the academic literature that can be accessed for no fee. See the Assessment Instrument Inventory for a sampling of some that will be relevant to communication training and development.
As the final step in this unit, read the following two example articles (PDFs linked below, double click to access) to develop a better sense of how assessment instruments are developed and how they function.
Kassing, J. K. (1998). Development and validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183-229.
Wood, J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2007). Development of three scales to measure leader accountability. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 167-185.
Once you have carefully read about these two assessment instruments complete the Assessment Instrument Overview Activity. Before completing this activity you will need to read the document below (or available under the activity tab for this unit) — How to Read a Factor Analysis. It will help you make sense of the statistical reporting used in the assessment instrument articles.
_1397912143.pdf
http://mcq.sagepub.com/
Quarterly Management Communication
http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/12/2/183 The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0893318998122002
1998 12: 183Management Communication Quarterly Jeffrey W. Kassing
Development and Validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
found at: can beManagement Communication QuarterlyAdditional services and information for
http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/12/2/183.refs.htmlCitations:
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on October 22, 2010mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved. at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on October 22, 2010mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
_1397912145.pdf
Assessment Instruments Inventory
Assessment Instruments Equity/Fairness
Equity Sensitivity Instrument Miles, E. W., & Wesley, Jr. K. C. (1994). The measurement of equity
sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142.
Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The Perceptions of
Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.
Conflict/Dispute Resolution
The Disputing Process Instrument Morrill, C., & Thomas, D. K. (1992). Organizational conflict management
and disputing process. The problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research 18, 400-428.
Test for Conflict Handling De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E., & Nauta, A. (2001).
A theory-based measure of conflict management in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645-668.
The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in
organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. Communication Yearbook, 6, 629-652.
Organizational Conflict Inventory Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict.
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
Superior/Subordinate Relationships
Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and
measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-314.
Leader Member Exchange Scale
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Develop of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Leadership Impression Management Questionnaire Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression management
strategies associated with transformational leadership at the world- class level. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 3-41.
Motivating Language Scale Mayfiled, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1995). Motivating language:
Exploring theory with scale development. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 329-344.
The Multidimensional Leader Member Exchange Scale Liden, R. C., & Masyln, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-
member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
Supervisor as Voice Manager Scale Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee
voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 241-259.
Upward Influence Scale Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and
relationship effects on subordinates’ upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 1-15.
Upward Maintenance Scale Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-
subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306.
Social Support/Mentoring/Empowerment
Mentoring and Communication Support Scale Hill, S. E. K., Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J., & Rouner, D. (1989). Mentoring
and other communication support in the academic setting. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 355-368.
Mutual Respect Audit Questionnaire Deadrick, D. L., McAffee, R. B., & Champagne, P. J. (1996). Preventing
workplace harassment: An organizational change perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 66-75.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale Smith, C., Organ, D., & Near, J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Organizational Empowerment Scale Matthews, R. A., Diaze, M., & Cole, S. G. (2002). The Organizational
Empowerment Scale. Personnel Review, 32, 297-318.
Scale of Support for Innovation Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring perceived support for
innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553-562.
Diversity
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire Larkey, L. K. (1996). The development and validation of the Workforce
Diversity Questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 296-337.
Communication Competence/Communication Style
Communication Competence Questionnaire Monge, P. R., Backman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982).
Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. Communication Yearbook 5, 505-528.
Management Communication Style Scale McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). Management communication
style, tolerance for disagreement, and innovativeness as predictors of employee satisfaction: A comparison of single-factor, two-factor, and multiple-factor approaches. Communication Yearbook, 3, 359-373.
General Communication Assessments
Organizational Communication Scale Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational
communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321-326. Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-73.
Information Load and Sensemaking
Information Overload/Underload Index O’Reilly, C. A. (1980). Individuals and information overload in
organizations: Is more necessarily better Academy of Management Journal, 23, 684-696.
Management of Meaning Scale Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we
here? Managing the meaning of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 243-263.
Job Satisfaction/Commitment/Identification
Job Diagnostic Survey Hackman, J. R., & Oldman, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job
Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire Mowday, T., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Organizational Identification Questionnaire Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational
membership: Field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342-262.
Socialization of Newcomers
Information Seeking Tactic Scale Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information
seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1-22.
Socialization Tactics Scale Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.
Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture Survey Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and
interpreting organizational culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 173-198.
Ethics Organizational Ethics Scale
Froelich, K. S., & Kottke, J. L. (1991). Measuring individual beliefs about organizational ethics. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 377-384.
Perception of Sexual Harassment Scale Booth-Butterfield, M. (1989). Perception of harassing communication as a
function of locus of control, work force participation, and gender. Communication Quarterly, 37, 262-275.
_1397912142.pdf
Development of three scales to measure leader accountability
James A. (Andy) Wood and Bruce E. Winston Regent University, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to focus on the development of three scales to measure the three dimensions of accountability presented by Wood and Winston (2005): responsibility; openness; and answerability.
Design/methodology/approach – The scale development process followed the method proposed by Spector in 1992 and DeVellis in 2003 in that each of the three constructs were defined and through a search of the literature the authors generated pools of 26, 21, and 19 items respectively. The items were submitted to a panel of six experts, who reviewed them for relevance to the construct and who made suggestions for the general improvement of the scales. The scales were then tested online by 148 participants.
Findings – Factor analyses revealed that the item pools measured one construct in each of the scales. Reliability analysis revealed Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.98 (Responsibility), 0.99 (Openness) and 0.98 (Answerability). The scales were reduced to 10 items by removing items deemed redundant or confusing. Alpha scores for the ten-item scales were 0.97 (Responsibility), 0.97 (Openness) and 0.98 (Answerability).
Research limitations/implications – The study participants were primarily Caucasian males. Further study should be done to validate the instrument in other ethnic groups.
Originality/value – The three scales may be useful for leadership selection, development, and research in overall leadership effectiveness.
Keywords Leadership, Management accountability
Paper type Research paper
Increased reports of corporate accounting scandals, clergy sexual and financial misconduct, as well as political upheaval at the federal and state level have exposed a need for systems to hold leaders accountable for their communication and behavior, as well as an apparent unwillingness of leaders to actually be accountable (Jewett, 1999; McClellan, 1999; Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). According to Sedikides et al. (2002), accountability pressures may be the means through which a social structure or social situation can influence individual behavior, reminding leaders of the need to act in compliance with prevailing norms and justify conduct that deviates from those norms. Tetlock (1999) adds that no social system can function for a sustained period without accountability checks on group members. Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that such social accountability begins with the leader. Wood and Winston define leader accountability as:
. the leader’s willing acceptance of the responsibilities inherent in the leadership position to serve the well-being of the organization;
. the implicit or explicit expectation that he/she will be publicly linked to his/her actions, words, or reactions; and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Leader accountability
167
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Vol. 28 No. 2, 2007 pp. 167-185
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730710726859
. the expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to constituents.
These three constructs form a contributing collective that shape and influence accountable-leadership. In that context, these constructs should be measurable, with identifiable differences between leaders with high levels of accountability and those with little or no accountability. In spite of the many calls for and debates over accountability to this point no statistically reliable or valid method for empirically measuring leader accountability has appeared in the growing body of literature. The focus of this present study is to construct three instruments to measure the three constructs that comprise leader accountability, using the principles for scientific scale development and psychometric testing (Spector, 1992; DeVellis, 2003).
Theory and variables Conners et al. (1994) note that the concept of accountability is more than a concept or principle only applicable when something goes wrong or when someone else is trying to determine cause or pinpoint blame. Accountability requires a level of ownership that includes:
. making;
. keeping; and
. proactively answering for personal commitments.
Such a phenomenon should, therefore, be evident and measurable, regardless of whether results are favorable or not. Lerner and Tetlock (1999) define accountability as the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings, and actions to others. Accountability has also been defined metaphorically as stewardship (Fairholm, 2001) and in the Biblical language of honor (Jewett, 1999). Leader accountability must be understood, however, in contradistinction to the constructs of obligate and responsible, which may be similar, but are not universally synonymous. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary “obligate” refers to binding legally or morally (accessed August 31, 2006 www.m-w.com/dictionary/ obligation) whereas, “responsible” involves liability to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent of a relationship or duty, or being the cause or explanation for a given result (accessed August 31, 2006 www.m-w.com/dictionary/ responsible). Accountability, on the other hand, has to do with acceptance of responsibility (Kouzes and Posner, 1993), voluntary transparency (McClellan, 1999), and answerability. Thus, while accountability may involve authority structures in organizational life, it is possible to be obligated without being accountable, and vice-versa. Moreover, it is possible for someone to be responsible without being accountable because responsibility may be assigned, enforced, or even mistakenly applied to an individual or group by an external force. The goal for developing this instrument is to measure accountability as a construct completely separate from obligation or responsibility.
Willing acceptance of responsibilities Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that accountable leaders accept the responsibilities inherent in the leadership position to serve the well-being of the organization. Bavly (1999) adds that accountability implies acceptance of responsibility, and anyone who
LODJ 28,2
168
serves as an agent or leader should be willing to be held accountable. Consistent with Chafee’s (1997) definition of accountability, leaders willingly accept the responsibility to lead the community in one way or another, make decisions, and act on the organization’s behalf. Kraines (2001) suggests that the unique role of leaders and managers in an organization makes them accountable from two perspectives – the one from above, as employees responsible to the organization itself, and the perspective from below, for meeting commitments arising from the nature of their relationships with subordinates. Conners et al. (1994) suggest that accountable leaders readily acknowledge reality, including its problems and challenges; Jinkins (1988, p. 119) calls this “be-truthed,” that is, betrothed to reality. Conners and colleagues suggest that while leaders don’t waste time or energy on matters beyond their control or influence, accountable leaders “own” their circumstances and results, regardless of their desirability. This includes the results of the organization as well (see Conners et al., 1994; Manwaring, 1997; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Kraines, 2001). Conners et al. shift the focus of accountability from the past and present to the future. Organizationally accountable leaders accept responsibility, not just for activities, circumstances, or past results, but for future direction, potential effectiveness, possibility thinking, an inspiring shared vision, and maximum contribution (Kraines, 2001; Kouzes and Posner, 2002).
Public disclosure of words and actions Accountability, according to Wood and Winston (2005), involves the leader’s response to the implicit or explicit expectation that he/she will be publicly linked to his/her actions, words, or reactions. Markman and Tetlock (2000) posit that when people believe that their decisions will be public, expectations of accountability put implicit or explicit constraints on what they do. Knowing that they will be held accountable for their actions and decisions, people seek approval and respect, either as ends in themselves, or to protect and enhance their own self-image. For this reason, observing behavior is more effective than listening to words in evaluating the degree of accountability a leader possesses (Manwaring, 1997; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Whitener et al., 1998; Petrick and Quinn, 2001). As such, items in the proposed scales should focus on observations of leader behavior, either by the leaders themselves or by constituents.
Organizational stakeholders (Fairholm, 2001) and employees (Rogers, 1995) have a right to expect leaders not only to communicate the types of behaviors that support the organization’s vision, values and effectiveness, but to publicly model those ideals as well. Conners et al. (1994) agree that accountability by its very nature provides a model for others with whom we work or associate. Bavly (1999) notes that since ancient times scholars have correlated accountability with openness and transparency. Mondale (1975) includes the concept of openness and candor as key virtues of accountability. Rogers (1995) extends the call for openness to include leaders’ thoughts and beliefs. Tetlock (1983, 1985, 1992, 1999) studied the effects of anticipated public disclosure on decision making processes and demonstrated that when employees know the views of those to whom they are accountable, the employees rely on the acceptability heuristic and simply shift their views toward the leaders to whom the employees feel accountable. In contrast, when employees do not know the views of the individual or group to whom they are accountable, the employees need to think through the issue much more carefully in order to arrive at a defensible position. Tetlock (1985) termed this process “preemptive self-criticism”. Tetlock and Kim (1987), drawing on previous
Leader accountability
169
research, offer specific identifying behaviors in this regard that will be useful to the development of the openness scale in this present study. They posit that because of the anticipation of public disclosure, accountable decision makers are more likely than unaccountable ones:
. to use cognitively complex rules in choosing among response options;
. to be more aware of the determinants of their judgments, to display greater consistency and stability of judgment;
. to process persuasive messages in detail rather than rely on their general evaluation of the message’s source; and
. to be more discriminating and responsive to evidence in evaluating others.
Answerability for beliefs, decisions, commitments, actions Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that accountable leadership involves the expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to constituents. As a steward of the organization (see Fairholm, 2001), the leader serves the organization’s goals and values more effectively by informing constituents more completely. Proactively, this includes providing detailed descriptions of past events (Giorgiov, 2002) providing reasons for what the leader says or does (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), informing constituents of the process by which actions were taken or decision made (Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996), explaining why suggested action was not taken (Manwaring, 1997), answering for prior public commitments (Conners et al., 1994; Tetlock, 1999); explaining results, progress toward results, or the lack thereof (Conners et al., 1994), revealing personal motives, beliefs, and feelings (Giorgiov, 2002; Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), or simply answering questions (Morley, 1989). By taking the initiative to explain decisions or beliefs rather than waiting until a problem or complaint arises, accountable leaders add the further benefit of engaging the commitment, support, and resources of constituents in defining team relationships and solving organizational problems. Reactively, particularly in the wake of a mistake, accountable leaders distinguish themselves by their ability to respond to poor choices in ways that restore credibility and organizational strength. Methods include responses to criticism, not as a personal attack, but as a point of conflict negotiation (Giorgiov, 2002), advancing compelling justifications for conduct that deviates from group norms (Tetlock, 1999), preemptive self-criticism or hedging of professional judgment (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), declarations of innocence (Tetlock, 1985), and admission of mistakes and apologies (Kouzes and Posner, 1993).
Scope of this study The scope of the study is limited to developing three scales:
(1) responsibility;
(2) openness; and
(3) answerability.
“Leader” in this context refers to a man or woman who occupies either a formal position of authority or an informal, but clearly-understood position of influence. Thus leader accountability, while it may share some similar characteristics with other forms of accountability (such as interpersonal accountability), is concerned specifically with the behaviors, communication, and relationships of people in leadership. Building on
LODJ 28,2
170
the leader accountability construct developed by Wood and Winston (2005), and the summated rating scale design principles of Spector (1992) and DeVellis (2003), the study sought to produce an instrument that is useful in future studies of leadership and potential leadership effectiveness.
Method Summated rating scales are widely used by social scientists to measure factors as diverse as emotional states, personal needs, personality, and description of jobs (Spector, 1992). DeVellis (2003) adds that scale development enables researchers to quantify a particular phenomenon in order to pursue researchers’ ultimate research objective(s). For this current study the leader accountability scales were developed using a combination of the steps suggested by Spector and DeVellis as follows:
. define the construct;
. generate an item pool;
. determine the format for measurement;
. have the initial item pool reviewed by experts;
. administer items to a development sample;
. evaluate the items; and
. optimize scale length.
Define the construct Clarifying exactly what a scale is intended to measure is “deceptively obvious” (DeVellis, 2003, p. 60). Spector (1992, p. 7) argues that: “This may seem to be a simple-minded requirement, but it is at this step that many scale development efforts go astray,”. DeVellis adds that constructs are more clearly defined with the aid of theory and specificity. Wood and Winston (2005) merged the theoretical streams to form the constructs comprising leader accountability. Specificity becomes critical when limiting the construct to the behavior and communication of leaders as leaders, and distinguishing leader accountability from other possibility-related, but distinct constructs, such as trust, general responsibility, and obligation.
Generate an item pool DeVellis (2003) suggests that the purpose of this step is to generate a large pool of items that are candidates for eventual inclusion in the scale. For this study the authors reviewed the literature on the three accountability dimensions developed by Wood and Winston (2005) that resulted in three pools of items: 21 items for responsibility, 26 items for openness, and 19 items for answerability. The extant presentation of the studies in the literature that undergird each item is beyond the scope of this article but is available through UMI in Woods’ (2006) dissertation.
Determine the Format for Measurement In an effort to achieve consistently reliable responses and avoid the potential problems of ambiguity and inconsistency, the response items in the instrument used a response range from zero to ten with the labels anchored at the two polar ends – zero was paired with “never” and ten was paired with “always,” thus presenting a sequential continuum. All items were stated in behavioral terms of “demonstrates,” “accepts,” “holds,” etc. Zorzi et al. (2002) suggested that numerical response choices, arrayed in a
Leader accountability
171
sequence, express quantity not only in their numerical values, but in their locations as well. They suggest that such a representation corresponds to fundamental neural processes. DeVellis (2003, p. 84), commenting on this research, suggests that it:
provides tantalizing preliminary evidence that evaluating a linear string of numbers may correspond to fundamental neural mechanisms involved in assessing quantity. If this is truly the case, then response options presented as a row of numbers may have special merit.
Have the initial item pool reviewed by experts DeVellis (2003) points out that a jury of experts:
. helps confirm or invalidate the scale developer’s definition of the phenomenon;
. helps evaluate the items’ clarity and conciseness; and
. points out ways of tapping the phenomenon that the developer has failed to include.
Six experts in the field of leader accountability and/or scale development reviewed and commented on the items for this study. The authors modified the items as the experts directed.
Tables I, II, and III show the items for the three distinct scales:
(1) the Responsibility Scale, measuring the leader’s acceptance of the inherent responsibilities incumbent in his/her role;
(2) the Openness Scale, gauging the leader’s public disclosure of communication and action; and
(3) the Answerability Scale, measuring the leader’s answerability for his/her actions and decisions following the literature review and expert review.
Item No. Item
R1 The leader demonstrates a sense of obligation to constituents when making decisions R2 The leader holds himself/herself to an accepted standard of performance R3 The leader accepts responsibility for his/her actions within the organization R4 The leader clearly defines for constituents where his/her responsibilities end and theirs begin R5 The leader provides constituents with safe ways to address grievances against him/her R6 The leader avoids making excuses for mistakes R7 The leader avoids blaming others for mistakes R8 The leader avoids communicating an attitude of personal helplessness R9 The leader realistically reckons with problems and challenges R10 The leader wants to know the truth, regardless of consequences R11 The leader is willing to face the truth, even when it does not fit his/her personal preferences R12 The leader accepts responsibility for the future direction and accomplishments of the group R13 The leader accepts ownership for the results of his/her decisions and actions R14 The leader accepts responsibility for the direction of the group he/she leads R15 The leader looks to himself/herself first when the group’s results are disappointing R16 The leader strives to contribute as much as possible to the effectiveness of the organization R17 The leader accepts responsibility for reaching organizational or team goals R18 The leader accepts responsibility for the performance of the group he/she leads
Table I. Responsibility scale item pool
LODJ 28,2
172
Item No. Item
O1 The leader fulfills the commitments he/she makes to constituents O2 The leader’s behavior is consistent from one person to the next O3 The leader delivers on his/her commitments O4 The leader lives out the values of the larger organization O5 The leader demonstrates consistency in public and private behavior O6 The leader identifies personal actions – popular or not – as his/her own O7 The leader openly listens when people offer perspectives that are different from his/her own O8 The leader chooses service above self-interest in the use of his or her power O9 The leader overlooks personal advantage for the sake of the larger organization O10 The leader avoids isolating from constituents in performing his or her duties O11 The leader “walks his/her talk” O12 The leader openly explains his/her decisions O13 The leader openly declares his/her values O14 The leader lives up to his/her stated values O15 The leader communicates what he/she expects from constituents O16 The leader openly shares information about organizational resources with constituents O17 The leader is a role model O18 The leader behaves consistently from one situation to the next O19 The leader acts tolerantly of those who disagree with him/her O20 The leader submits himself/herself to accepted evaluating/auditing processes O21 The leader interacts openly and candidly with constituents O22 The leader openly shares his/her thoughts O23 The leader explains himself/herself to constituents in clear and understandable language O24 The leader keeps records that are accessible to constituents O25 The leader considers all relevant points of view
Table II. Openness scale item pool
Item No. Item
A1 The leader openly communicates about the progress of his/her commitments to constituents A2 The leader apologizes to constituents for his/her mistakes A3 The leader explains the reasons for his/her decisions A4 The leader explains his/her beliefs to constituents A5 The leader answers questions from constituents A6 The leader provides explanations for the performance shortfalls without making excuses A7 The leader provides detailed explanations of past actions and events A8 The leader talks to constituents about the values of the larger organization A9 The leader informs constituents of the process by which he/she arrives at decisions A10 The leader explains to constituents why suggested action was not taken A11 The leader seeks regular feedback A12 The leader provides regular progress reports about personal commitments he/she has made
to constituents A13 The leader welcomes constructive feedback of his/her actions A14 The leader explains reasons for standing behind his/her decisions A15 The leader openly admits his/her mistakes to constituents A16 The leader takes quick action to deal with the consequences of a mistake
Table III. Answerability scale
item pool
Leader accountability
173
Administer items to a development sample The purpose of the development sample administration has more to do with evaluating the test items than it does evaluating the leader(s) in question. Spector (1992) notes that the development sample should be as representative as possible of the ultimate population for which the scale is intended. Scale development theorists (see Spector, 1992; DeVellis, 2003; Nunnaly, 1978) agree that the sample must be sufficiently large to eliminate subject variance as a significant concern. However, there is some disagreement regarding what constitutes an adequate number. For instance, Nunnaly suggests 300 people, while Spector maintains that 100-200 is adequate. The rule of thumb seems to be 5 to 10 subjects per item, up to 300 subjects (DeVellis, 2003). Since each of the three scales in this study was treated as a unique scale a minimum sample size was five times the number of items in the largest scale, which for this study was the 25-item openness scale. Thus, the minimum sample size is 125 participants.
Participants One hundred forty-eight people participated in the data collection. Five participants declined to provide demographic data. Of the remaining 143, the study consisted of 68 men (47.6 percent) and 75 women (52.4 percent). Participant ages ranged from 19 to 78, with a mean age of 45 and a median age of 47. The sample was overwhelmingly Caucasian (93 percent); African-American and Hispanic participants totaled only 2.8 percent each.
The population of leaders evaluated by the participants was predominately male (101, or 71 percent) with 42 leaders being female (29 percent). The positions of the leaders represented a wide variety of leadership positions, including front-line managers (20, or 14 percent), middle managers (23, or 16.1 percent), senior managers (29, or 20.3 percent), CEOs and business owners (24, or 16.8 percent), volunteer leaders (9, or 6.3 percent), pastors (36, or 25.2 percent), and others (2, or 1.4 percent). Table IV shows the comparison of leadership roles.
Participants also varied in the length of time they had a relationship with the leader. Forty-six (32.2 percent) had known the leader more than five years. Only 17 (11.9 percent) had known the leader less than one year. The remaining participants who weren’t evaluating themselves were fairly split between those who had related to the leader from one to three years (26, or 18.2 percent) and those who had known the leader from three to five years (27, 18.9 percent). Table V reflects the variety in the length of the relationship between the participants and the leaders in question.
By far, most of the participants (67, or 46.9 percent) described a relationship between themselves as employees and their immediate supervisor. Sixteen (11.2
n %
Front-line manager 20 14.0 Middle manager 23 16.1 Senior manager 29 20.3 CEO, COO, Owner, etc. 24 16.8 Volunteer leader 9 6.3 Pastor 36 25.2 Other 2 1.4 Total 143 100.0
Table IV. Leadership levels represented
LODJ 28,2
174
percent) described themselves as volunteers following a professional leader (including church leaders). A small number of participants (9, or 6.3 percent) evaluated peers or colleagues, while five (3.5 percent) described the leadership behaviors of people in a subordinate position to them. Those evaluating their own leadership behaviors comprised the second-largest group (30, 21 percent). Table VI summarizes the relationships represented in the data sample.
Evaluate the items According to Spector (1992), the purpose of item analysis is to identify those items that form an internally consistent scale and to eliminate those items that do not. Reliability testing of an instrument assesses the degree to which data collected on that instrument are reproducible. Chronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha directly measures the extent to which items cohere with their scale.
Factor analysis is another critical item-evaluation tool. DeVellis (2003) notes that factor analysis helps investigators determine how many latent variables underlie a set of items. Factor analysis is the best means of determining which groups of items, if any, constitute a unidimensional set. Spector (1992) adds that with multidimensional scales, factor analysis can be used to verify that the items empirically form the intended subscales.
Results of the responsibility scale test Eighteen items were included in the Responsibility Scale. A principal components analysis of the 148 responses revealed that only one component (factor) was extracted with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. This suggests that all the items in the responsibility scale are measuring the same factor. Moreover, since only one component was extracted, no factor rotation was possible. The Chronbach coefficient alpha score for the Responsibility Scale was remarkably high, suggesting, with a coefficient alpha score of 0.97, that the scale has a very high degree of reliability.
n %
Employee to supervisor/manager 67 46.9 Volunteer to professional leader (including church leaders) 16 11.2 Peer/colleague 9 6.3 Self 30 21.0 Employer/supervisor to lower-level manager 5 3.5 Other 16 11.2 Total 143 100.0
Table VI. Distribution of follower-leader
relationships
Frequency %
Less than one year 17 11.9 One to three years 26 18.2 Three to five years 27 18.9 Over five years 46 32.2 I AM the leader in question 27 18.2 Total 143 100.0
Table V. Length of participants’
relationship with the leader
Leader accountability
175
Table VII shows the factor loadings for the responsibility scale. The high factor loadings provided both a positive in that it shows that all the items represent a one-dimensional scale but does not give us a clear means of reducing the items. While it is typical to reduce a one-dimensional factor by selecting the highest ranking factor-loads we noticed that some of the items were similar to each other and that by excluding some of the lower ranking factor loadings we would lose some of the breadth of the items. Had the factor loadings been disparate then the loss of breadth would be acceptable in order to get a group of high-loading items but with all the items scoring so high we decided to use a qualitative approach and remove the items that we deemed to be redundant or not useful.
Table VIII lists the items that were eliminated and the primary reason(s) they were not included in the final scale. The resultant list of items for the Responsibility Scale is as follows:
The leader:
R1 Demonstrates a sense of obligation to constituents when making decisions.
R2 Accepts responsibility for his/her actions within the organization.
R3 Clearly defines for constituents where his/her responsibilities end and theirs begin.
R4 Provides constituents with safe ways to address grievances against him/her.
R5 Avoids making excuses for mistakes.
R6 Avoids blaming others for mistakes.
R7 Is willing to face the truth, even when it does not fit his/her personal preferences.
R8 Accepts responsibility for the future direction and accomplishments of the group.
Item Component 1
Q1 0.85 Q2 0.80 Q3 0.90 Q4 0.83 Q5 0.84 Q6 0.91 Q7 0.84 Q8 0.63 Q9 0.91 Q10 0.88 Q11 0.90 Q12 0.88 Q13 0.90 Q14 0.92 Q15 0.89 Q16 0.88 Q17 0.84 Q18 0.87
Table VII. Component matrix for responsibility scale items
LODJ 28,2
176
R9 Accepts ownership for the results of his/her decisions and actions.
R10 Looks to himself/herself first when the group’s results are disappointing.
The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the resultant items in the Responsibility scale that again revealed that only one factor was extracted with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0. A subsequent reliability analysis on the ten-item scale again revealed a high Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.97. This suggests that the resultant Responsibility Scale has a high degree of reliability. To establish a baseline for future research, the total scores for the Responsibility Scale ranged from 7 to 100, with a mean score of 72 and a median score of 80.
Results of the openness scale test Twenty-five items were included in the Openness Scale. A principal components analysis of the 148 responses revealed that only one component was extracted with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0. This suggests that all the items in the responsibility scale are measuring the same factor. Again, since only one component was extracted, no factor rotation was possible. The Chronbach coefficient alpha score for the Openness Scale was extremely high at 0.99, thus the scale has a very high degree of reliability.
Table IX shows the factor loadings by item and like the Responsibility scale we have a one-dimensional scale with very high factor loads. In a similar manner we used qualitative means to review the items and removed the items that seemed redundant or not useful. Table X lists the items that were eliminated and the primary reason(s) they were not included in the final scale. The resultant list of items for the Openness Scale is as follows.
Item No. Item Reason for elimination
R2 The leader holds himself/herself to an accepted standard of performance
Assumes the participants’ knowledge of the leader’s personal thoughts and standards
R8 The leader avoids communicating an attitude of personal helplessness
Had the highest “alpha if deleted” score
R9 The leader realistically reckons with problems and challenges
Similar to both R11 and R13
R10 The leader wants to know the truth, regardless of consequences
Assumes knowledge of leader’s thoughts; similar to R11
R14 The leader accepts responsibility for the direction of the group he/she leads
Similar to R12
R16 The leader strives to contribute as much as possible to the effectiveness of the organization
Presumes the participants’ knowledge of the leader’s motives
R17 The leader accepts responsibility for reaching organizational or team goals
Similar to R13
R18 The leader accepts responsibility for the performance of the group he/she leads
Similar to R13
Table VIII. Items eliminated from the responsibility scale, with
reasons for their elimination
Leader accountability
177
The leader:
O1 Behaves consistently from one person to the next.
O2 Demonstrates consistency in public and private behavior.
O3 Identifies personal actions – popular or not – as his/her own.
O4 Openly listens when people offer perspectives that are different from his/her own.
O5 Avoids isolating from constituents in performing his or her duties.
O6 Openly explains his/her decisions.
O7 Openly declares his/her values.
O8 Is a role model.
O9 Interacts openly and candidly with constituents.
O10 Keeps records that are accessible to constituents.
The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the revised 10-item Openness Scale to ascertain that all ten items loaded to one factor. The analysis of the 148 respondents confirmed that, indeed, all ten items in the scale were representative of one factor. A subsequent reliability analysis on the ten-item scale again revealed a high
Item Component 1
O1 0.86 O2 0.90 O3 0.93 O4 0.87 O5 0.89 O6 0.90 O7 0.91 O8 0.93 O9 0.90 O10 0.87 O11 0.94 O12 0.88 O13 0.78 O14 0.91 O15 0.87 O16 0.87 O17 0.94 O18 0.94 O19 0.91 O20 0.89 O21 0.93 O22 0.78 O23 0.87 O24 0.76 O25 0.92
Table IX. Component matrix for openness scale items
LODJ 28,2
178
Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.97. This suggests that the resultant Openness Scale has a high degree of reliability. To establish a baseline for future research the total scores for the Openness Scale ranged from 9 to 100, with a mean score of 72 and a median score of 78.
Results of the answerability scale test The Answerability Scale contained a pool of 16 items. Table XI shows the factor loadings for the items and like the Responsibility and Openness scales we have a one-dimensional scale with very high factor loads. In a similar manner we used qualitative means to review the items and we removed the items that seemed redundant or not useful. The Chronbach coefficient alpha score for the Answerability Scale was again remarkably high, suggesting, with a coefficient alpha score of 0.98, that the scale has a very high degree of reliability.
Item No. Item Reason for elimination
O1 The leader fulfills the commitments he/she makes to constituents
Could be compound item, if the leader never actually makes any commitments
O3 The leader delivers on his/her commitments Possible to do this without “openness”
O4 The leader lives out the values of the larger organization
Organizational values are not always known by participants
O8 The leader chooses service above self-interest in the use of his or her power
May be hard for participants to know the leader’s private choices and motives
O9 The leader overlooks personal advantage for the sake of the larger organization
Not always observable
O11 The leader “walks his/her talk” Similar to O5
O14 The leader lives up to his/her stated values. Similar to O5
O15 The leader communicates what he/she expects from constituents
Similar to item in Responsibility Scale
O16 The leader openly shares information about organizational resources with constituents
Could be a compound item if there are no organizational resources to inform constituents about
O18 The leader’s behavior is consistent from one situation to the next
Similar to O2 and O3
O19 The leader acts tolerantly of those who disagree with him/her
Can be open and intolerant
O20 The leader submits himself/herself to accepted evaluating/auditing processes
Not always easy for participants to observe this behavior
O22 The leader openly shares his/her thoughts. Similar to O22
O23 The leader explains himself/herself to constituents in clear and understandable language
Similar to O22
O25 The leader considers all relevant points of view
Can do this without being “open”
Table X. Items eliminated from the
openness scale, with reasons for their
elimination
Leader accountability
179
Table XII shows the items that were removed from the scale and the reasons for removing the items.The resultant list of items in the Answerability Scale is as follows:
A1 Apologizes to constituents for his/her mistakes.
A2 Explains the reasons for his/her decisions.
A3 Answers questions from constituents.
A4 Provides explanations for the performance shortfalls without making excuses.
A5 Informs constituents of the process by which he/she arrives at decisions.
A6 Explains to constituents why suggested action was not taken.
Item No. Item Reason for elimination
A1 The leader openly communicates about the progress of his/her commitments to constituents
Could be a compound item if the leader happens never to make commitments
A4 The leader explains his/her beliefs to constituents
Similar to A3 and A5
A7 The leader provides detailed explanations of past actions and events
Similar to A3 and A6
A8 The leader talks to constituents about the values of the larger organization
Not as relevant as other items
A11 The leader seeks regular feedback Similar to A13, but not as strong
A14 The leader explains reasons for standing behind his/her decisions
Similar to A3 and A7
Table XII. Items eliminated from the answerability scale, with reasons for their elimination
Item Component 1
A1 0.92 A2 0.91 A3 0.94 A4 0.88 A5 0.87 A6 0.91 A7 0.91 A8 0.87 A9 0.92 A10 0.90 A11 0.91 A12 0.88 A13 0.91 A14 0.91 A15 0.95 A16 0.84
Table XI. Component matrix for answerability scale items
LODJ 28,2
180
A7 Provides regular progress reports about personal commitments he/she has made to constituents.
A8 Welcomes constructive feedback of his/her actions.
A9 Openly admits his/her mistakes to constituents.
A10 Takes quick action to deal with the consequences of a mistake.
The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the revised 10-item Answerability Scale to ascertain that all ten items loaded to one factor. The analysis of the 148 respondents confirmed that, indeed, all ten items in the scale were representative of one factor. A subsequent reliability analysis on the ten-item scale again revealed a high Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.98. This suggests that the resultant Openness Scale has a high degree of reliability. To establish a baseline for future research, the total scores for the Answerability Scale ranged from 8 to 100, with a mean score of 70 and a median score of 81.
Discussion The results indicate the existence of three uni-dimensional scales, each with an extraordinarily high degree of reliability. In addition, the panel of experts indicate that face validity for the items and the scales exists. While those results are certainly encouraging, the scales should continue to be tested to confirm the results indicated here.
Limitations of the study The scales were designed for use by English-speaking people who are at least 18 years of age, with at least a high school degree. Other demographic concerns should not be a factor; demographic measures built into the pilot test were intended to insure that to be the case. Furthermore, the scales should also be useful to anyone who can observe a leader’s behavior – subordinates, peers, supervisors, or even the leaders themselves.
The number of participants in the pilot tests (148) satisfied the criterion for sample size when conducting a factor analysis. That does not necessarily mean, however, that the sample was representative of the general population. Participant gender (68 men and 75 women) and age (19 to 79, with a median of 47) reflected a meaningful balance among the participants. However, the fact that the overwhelming number of respondents was Caucasian (93 percent), and that the population of leaders being evaluated was predominantly male (71 percent) suggests the need for more research. This was most likely because the pilot test was administered online, and that the primary participants were members of an Interdenominational West Texas church, personal contacts of the primary researcher and, as a whole, most likely overwhelmingly conservative Evangelical Christians resulted in a convenient homogenous sample of conservative Christian Internet users. Further research needs to be conducted among a broader spectrum of cultural participants, should include more studies of female leaders, and should allow for other means of data collection that do not require computer or Internet expertise.
The issues of responsibility, openness, and answerability inevitably emerge in the wake of a real or apparent failure in leadership or a violation of trust. Accountability and its collective constructs are buzzwords, the stuff of scandals. As such, as Wood and Winston (2005) point out, it is subject to the dangers of becoming a passing fad, or
Leader accountability
181
of being used as a social panacea. The philosophical conviction behind this research is that leader accountability, as demonstrated in the behavior, reaction, and communication of leaders, is always important, regardless of the presence or absence of an organizational crisis. The development of scales to actually measure the presence or absence of the accountability constructs creates the possibility of moving the conversation from a reactive posture to a proactive one. It also implies the possibility of guiding organizations in the selection or promotion of accountable individuals to positions of leadership. Moreover, these instruments provide organizations a framework by which to train and develop leaders in this critical area.
The need to move from reactive accountability to proactive accountability Valid accountability measures offer hope and suggest a course of action for leaders everywhere, but especially those who labor to lead an organization to do more than damage control. This research is groundbreaking because it goes beyond the grim, but glib warning that trust, once violated, is hard to restore. The leader accountability scales are founded on the principle that proactive measures can help businesses, governments and government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and ministries identify potential danger and take corrective action before it becomes a scandal. These scales offer the potential to:
. proactively pinpoint specific strengths and weaknesses in an organization’s leader/follower relationships;
. identify specific leader habits that demonstrate accountability or a lack thereof;
. evaluate the agreement between leader and follower perceptions of accountability;
. provide a starting point for improved communication between leaders and constituents; and
. provide guidance and a means of assessing remedial steps taken following a breach of accountability or trust in order for leaders to regain lost credibility.
These tools, however, are only as useful as the willingness of organizations and their leaders to use them before they encounter society’s rush to judgment, moral outrage, and political posturing in the wake of an emergency. Is it possible that such a set of tools could have pointed to potential flaws in the televangelists of the 1980s, or the Clinton/Flowers/Lewinski problem? key players of the 1990s? Could a process of identifying the openness or answerability weaknesses of front-line or middle managers have prevented the promotion of corporate executives who were the center of the 2001-2002 accounting scandals? Only time and future use of these scales can tell. Even hindsight is useless without a means to gauge its value.
The opportunity to identify potential future leaders Another potential benefit of this research lies in the area of hiring, evaluation, and promotion practices. If the collective constructs of accountability are indeed measurable, and accountable leaders are more effective in meeting the organization’s objectives than unaccountable leaders (yet to be proven), then organizations would be better served by re-thinking the basis by which they evaluate and make hiring and promotion decisions. Organizations experience more than one kind of crisis. The
LODJ 28,2
182
frantic need for better financial performance, for example, could lead to the temptation to hire or promote someone who can drastically improve the “bottom line.” But at what cost? And by what measurement?
The use of the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales may assist organizations in identifying the deciding factor in hiring or promoting one of several apparently equally-qualified candidates. They provide the opportunity for constituents, leaders, supervisors and peers to describe and measure what the candidate actually does – not just how he or she talks about leadership and accountability.
Implications to leadership research By identifying specific behaviors, communication, and reactions to requests for justification that characterize the three constructs of leader accountability, the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales offer two facets of leadership development. First, the scales may point out areas in which current leaders can modify their behavior and improve the level of accountability they demonstrate to constituents. Perhaps as a 360-degree feedback instrument or in some other use, leaders can receive actual data that suggests areas in which they, their subordinates, their supervisors, or their peers indicated room for improvement or a need for change. Such feedback also offers the possibility of pointing out to the leader areas in which he/she demonstrates strength.
Second, the scales may provide a framework for training prospective leaders and managers to be accountable leaders. Individuals who increase in positional authority and power sometimes enter into such a position with a poor understanding of the nature of leadership and the need for accountability. This is especially true when they lack role models who demonstrate what responsible, open, and answerable leadership looks like. By using the scales and their supporting literature, organizations have the opportunity to chart an intentional course in leader development that may have long-lasting implications for the success of both the personal and performance aspects of leadership.
Implications for future research The development of the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales represent the next step in a journey of research and application. More research is needed. This includes:
. a series of convergence and discriminate studies;
. research into other expressions of accountability not measured by these scales; and
. a variety of other studies that can help explain the role that leader accountability serves in leadership theory and organizational life.
References
Bavly, D.A. (1999), Corporate Accountability and Governance: What Role for the Regulator, Director, and Auditor?, Quorum, Westport, CT.
Chaffee, P. (1997), Accountable Leadership: A Resource Guide for Sustaining Legal, Financial, and Ethical Integrity in Today’a Congregations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Leader accountability
183
Chronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Conners, R., Smith, T. and Hickman, C. (1994), The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual and Organizational Accountability, Prentice Hall, Paramus, NJ.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fairholm, G.W. (2001), Mastering Inner Leadership, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Giorgiov, A.D. (2002), “The effect of accountability on pastoral stress and burnout among select Hungarian Baptist pastors”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, UMI No. 3046675.
Jewett, R. (1999), “Confession and forgiveness in the public sphere: a Biblical evaluation”, in Fackre, G. (Ed.), Judgment Day at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring Moral Issues and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Jinkins, M. (1988), The Character of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1993), Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kraines, G.A. (2001), Accountability Leadership: How to Strengthen Productivity Through Sound Managerial Leadership, Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999), “Accounting for the effects of accountability”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, pp. 255-75.
McClellan, A. (1999), “Establishing and maintaining credibility in the ministry”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Seminary, UMI No. 9969650.
Manwaring, P.A. (1997), “Building trust in educational leadership, and a new instrument to measure subordinates’ trust: a study conducted in the church educational system”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, UMI No. 9717112.
Markman, K.D. and Tetlock, P.E. (2000), “‘I couldn’t have known’: accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, pp., Vol. 39, pp. 313-25.
Mondale, W.F. (1975), The Accountability of Power: Toward a Responsible Presidency, David McKay Company, New York, NY.
Morley, P.M. (1989), The Man in the Mirror, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Brentwood, TN.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Petrick, J.A. and Quinn, J.F. (2001), “The challenge of leadership accountability for integrity capacity as a strategic asset”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 331-44.
Rogers, R.W. (1995), “The psychological contract of trust – Part II”, Executive Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 7-15.
Sedikides, C., Herbst, K.C., Hardin, D.P. and Dardis, G.J. (2002), “Accountability as a deterrent to self-enhancement: the search for mechanisms”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 592-605.
Siegel-Jacobs, K. and Yates, J.F. (1996), “Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 1, pp. 1-17.
LODJ 28,2
184
Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated rating scale construction: an introduction, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Tetlock, P.E. (1983), “Accountability and the complexity of throught”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 74-83.
Tetlock, P.E. (1985), “Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992), “The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social contingency model”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY.
Tetlock, P.E. (1999), “Accountability theory: mixing properties of human agents with properties of social systems”, in Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mawah, NJ.
Tetlock, P.E. and Kim, J.I. (1987), “Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 700-9.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Lorsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 513-20.
Wood, J.A. (2006), “Development of three scales to measure leader accountability”, unpublished dissertation, Regent University School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.
Wood, J.A. and Winston, B.E. (2005), “Toward a new understanding of leader accountability: defining a critical construct”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 84-94.
Zorci, M., Priftis, K. and Umilita, C. (2002), “Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number line”, Nature, Vol. 417 9 May, pp. 138-9.
Further reading
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2006), available at: www.m-w.com/dictionary/
About the authors Jame A. (Andy) Wood is the founder and Senior Pastor of Turning Point. He has served as a pastor in various capacities for 28 years. Whether as senior pastor, staff pastor, consultant, teacher, author, evangelist, or seminar leader, Andy has sought to work by a philosophy he refers to as M.A.D.I.S.E.L.! – Make a Difference in Someone Else’s Life!
Bruce E. Winston, Ph.D. serves as both Dean and Associate Professor of Leadership at Regent University’s School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dr. Winston teaches, trains and consults in the areas of leadership and organizational development as well as university administration and strategic foresight. In addition, he has 13 years of experience leading organizations in the commercial printing industry and 15 years of experience leading academic units at Regent University. Dr. Winston has lectured and consulted in the United States as well as Canada, Europe, and South Africa. He also speaks and teaches in other areas including communication, quality improvement and marketing. Bruce Winston is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leader accountability
185
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
