Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2005, Vol. 11, No. 3 Toward a New Understanding of Leader Accountability: Defining a Critical Construct J. A. Wood, Jr. Bruce E. Winston Regent University This article defines leader accountability as (a) the leader���s willing acceptance of the responsibilities inherent in the leadership position to serve the well-being of the organization (b) the implicit or explicit expectation that the he/she will be publicly linked to his/her actions, words, or reactions and (c) the expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to constituents. This paper presents and defines accountability in a manner that provides greater clarity than prior literature attempts and sets the stage for future research. Leader accountability has been hailed as both a proactive step in building and sustaining a climate of trust and credible leadership (Fairholm, 2001 McClellan, 1999) and as a remedial step in restoring trust and credibility once lost by the leader (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Against the backdrop of nearly fifty years of research on leadership and its relationship to organizational trust (Jones, 1997 Korthius- Smith, 2000 Hosmer, 1995), increased reports of clergy sexual misconduct, corporate accounting scandals, and political upheaval on both a state and federal level have led to increased interest in, and demand for, systems to hold leaders accountable for their communication and behavior (Jewett, 1999 McClellan, 1999 Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Empirical understanding of organizational trust has grown significantly (Hosmer, 1995), and both scholarly and popular publications have examined transformational leader credibility extensively (cf. Kouzes & Posner, 1993). The constructs of organizational trust and leader credibility alone, however, critical as they are to organizational effectiveness (Ryan & Oestreich, 1998), are insufficient to account for the human or transformational dimensions of leadership because violated trust tends to destroy both. Tetlock (1999) asserts that no social system can function for a sustained period without accountability checks on group members. Sedikides, Herbst, Hardin, & Dardis (2002) add that accountability pressures have been indicated as a means through which a social structure or social situation can influence individual behavior, reminding them of the need to act in compliance with prevailing norms and justify conduct that deviates from those norms. In spite of the many calls for and debates over accountability, however, to this point no statistically reliable or valid methods for empirically measuring leader accountability have appeared in the growing body of literature on this subject with the notable possible exception by Stogdill and Shartle (1975) who developed an instrument to measure the factors of responsibility, authority, and delegation. A reviewer of this article pointed out that the responsibility and authority scales were highly correlated and approximated accountability. The authors of this current article believe that the responsibility and authority scales do not measure accountability as the literature defines accountability and thus the purpose of this article is to define the construct of leader accountability in order to prepare the way for future research.

Toward a New Understanding of Leader Accountability Volume 11, Number 3, 2005 85 Defining the Construct of Leader Accountability Clarifying the meaning of leader accountability from the literature involves reviewing the explicit definitions of accountability, considering synonymous metaphors, and contrasting accountability with other related, but different constructs. How Accountability is Defined Conners, Smith and Hickman (1994) note that many people mistakenly think of accountability as a concept or principle only applicable when something goes wrong or when someone else is trying to determine cause or pinpoint blame. Conners, et al. (1994) present a survey of popular press, business literature, and societal norms revealing that most people view accountability as something that happens to them or is inflicted upon them, choosing to perceive it is as a heavy burden to carry. Accountability, Conners, et al. (1994) define, is the process of ���seeing it, owning it, solving it, and doing it��� (p. 65). Accountability requires a level of ownership that includes (a) making, (b) keeping, and (c) proactively answering for personal commitments. Those three facets of accountability form the essential structure for the leader accountability construct upon which the Leader Accountability Index (LAI) is based. Chaffee (1997) defines leader accountability as ���the obligation one assumes in accepting the prerogative to lead the community in one way or another, make decisions, and act in its behalf��� (p. 7). Kraines (2001) calls attention to the leader/employee���s obligation ���to deliver all the elements of the value that he or she is being compensated for delivering, as well as the obligation to deliver on specific output commitments with no surprises��� (p. 15). Lerner and Tetlock (1999) note that accountability is not a unitary phenomenon. Various expressions include responses to (a) the mere presence of another (participants expect that another will observe their performance) (b) identifiability (participants expect that what they say or do in a study will be linked to them personally) (c) evaluation (participants expect that their performance will be assessed by another according to some normative ground rules and with some implied consequences) and (d) reason-giving (participants expect that they must give reasons for what they say or do). Lerner and Tetlock (1999) go on to define accountability as the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one's beliefs, feelings, and actions to others. Implied in this definition is that people who do not provide a satisfactory justification for their actions will suffer negative consequences ranging from disdainful looks to loss of one's livelihood, liberty, or even life. Conversely, Stenning (1995) notes that people who do provide compelling justifications will experience positive consequences ranging from mitigation of punishment to lavish rewards. Metaphors for Accountability Accountability has also been described metaphorically. Fairholm (2001) utilizes the image of the leader as steward ��� one who administers another���s property, finances, or other affairs, fully accountable to his/her principal and able to render an account when called upon. The dictionary definition of steward ��� one who administers another���s property, finances, or other affairs ��� hardly reflects the type of trust inherent in the idea of leaders as stewards today. ���The position of steward, probably present in every ancient household of distinction, was fully accountable to his principal and had to render and account when called upon��� (p. 189). Fairholm (2001) adds that stewardship involves holding in trust the well- being of some larger entity. Stewardship occurs when leader and led exist for the organization���s welfare and benefit. This means putting the organization, and service to it, on a higher priority than being in control. Peter Block (1993) agrees, calling stewardship the willingness to be accountable for the wel-being of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in conrol, of those around us. Fairholm (2001) adds: Stewardship, today, goes beyond mere financial accountability or even accountability for one���s talents. Stewardship is also concerned with the use of power. One intent of stewardship is to replace self-interest with service as the basis for holding and using power. Historically, the best leaders have flourished because they have understood how to exercise accountability