Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures

Abstract

In this article, we advance a cultural perspective on accountability in organizations. We seek to demonstrate that societal culture forces for accountability are found at multiple levels in organizations—from the individual, to the interpersonal and group context, and to the organization at large, which collectively form a loosely coupled accountability web or system [Frink & Klimoski Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manage. 16 (1998) 1]. We first describe fundamental elements of accountability webs that are found in any social system or are universal (or etic). We then discuss three aspects of culture, namely, individualism–collectivism, cultural tightness–looseness, and hierarchy–egalitarianism (power distance), and their specific linkages to the components of accountability webs. We argue that these three cultural components, in combination, produce unique cultural configurations of accountability in organizations that vary considerably in the nature and consequences. We then describe four specific cultural accountability webs and their manifestations at different levels of analysis in organizations. Theoretical and practical implications of this perspective are discussed.

Introduction

Dating to ancient times, scholars and practitioners alike have noted the importance of accountability for the survival of social systems. For example, Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Zeno, discussed accountability in the context of justice, punishment, and social control (Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994). In modern science, accountability has been the subject of discussions in numerous disciplines including law (Stenning, 1995), politics (Anderson, 1981), education (Beneviste, 1985), health care (Emanuel & Emanuel, 1996), and psychology and organizational behavior Frink & Klimoski, 1998, Schlenker et al., 1994, Tetlock, 1992. Indeed, within the study of organizations, accountability has been linked to numerous phenomena including judgment and decision-making (Simonson & Nye, 1992, Tetlock, 1992), performance appraisal Klimoski & Inks, 1990, Mero & Motowidlo, 1995, Wayne & Kacmar, 1991, negotiation Adams, 1976, Benton & Druckman, 1973, Carnevale, 1985, Gelfand & Realo, 1999, human resource management (Ferris, Hochwater, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999), influence tactics (Ferris et al., 1997), risk taking (Weigold & Schlenker, 1991), safety (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), and motivation (Schoenrade et al., 1986, Tetlock et al., 1989). The central link of accountability to the effective functioning of organizations is perhaps not surprising. As noted by Katz and Kahn (1966), “much of the energy of organizations must be fed into devices of control to reduce the variability of human behavior and to produce stable patterns of activity” (p. 38). As such, the burgeoning amount of research on accountability in organizations is consistent with organizational realities.

What is perhaps surprising, however, is the limited attention that has been paid to the sociocultural basis of accountability in organizations. To date, much of the theory and research has been focused almost exclusively on the individual level of analysis (see Frink & Klimoski, 1998, for a notable exception) and has been conducted almost exclusively in Western contexts such as the United States and Western Europe (Gelfand & Realo, 1999). We believe that a cultural perspective on accountability in organizations is critical for both theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, as described below, we argue that one of the basic ways in which cultures vary is the nature of their accountability systems. Thus, a cultural perspective on accountability both illuminates basic aspects of culture and, at the same time, illustrates the culture-specific aspects of organizational functioning. Second, a cultural perspective on accountability is important in this increasing era of globalization, wherein there is a great deal of interdependence between organizations and individuals from different cultures. In this respect, illuminating cultural differences in accountability can help those who are traversing cultural boundaries, such as expatriates, diplomats, and even travelers, to understand the unique cultural configurations of accountability to which they must adapt.

In this paper, we advance a cultural perspective on accountability in organizations. We seek to demonstrate that cultural forces for accountability are found at multiple levels in organizations—from the individual, to the interpersonal and group context, and to the organization at large, which collectively form a loosely coupled accountability web or system (cf. Frink & Klimoski, 1998). In what follows, we first introduce the fundamental elements and the logic of accountability webs that we believe are basic to any social system and, thus, are universal (or etic.) We then discuss three aspects of culture, namely, individualism–collectivism, cultural tightness–looseness, and hierarchy–egalitarianism (power distance), and their specific linkages to the components of accountability webs. We argue that in combination, these three cultural components produce unique cultural configurations of accountability webs that vary considerably in the nature and consequences of accountability. We then describe a number of prototypical accountability webs that are found in different cultural systems and discuss their proposed manifestations at multiple levels of analysis in organizations. Lastly, we note some theoretical and practical implications of our theory.