This article challenges a normative assumption about accountability in organizations: that more accountability is necessarily better. More specifically, it examines two forms of “myopia” that characterize conceptions of accountability among service-oriented nonprofit organizations: (a) accountability as a set of unconnected binary relationships rather than as a system of relations and (b) accountability as short-term and rule-following behavior rather than as a means to longer-term social change. The article explores the effects of these myopias on a central mechanism of accountability in organizations—evaluation—and proposes a broader view of accountability that includes organizational learning. Future directions for research and practice are elaborated.
AccountAbility. (1999). Accountability 1000 (AA 1000) framework: Standard, guidelines and professional qualification. London: Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability.
2.
ActionAid. (2000). ALPS: Accountability, learning and planning system. London: Author.
3.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Bardach, E., & Lessor, C. (1996). Accountability in human service collaboratives—For what? and to whom?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 197-224.
5.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29-40.
6.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
Boris, E. T. (1999). Nonprofit organizations in a democracy: Varied roles and responsibilities. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 3-29). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
8.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Buckmaster, N. (1999). Associations between outcome measurement, accountability and learning for non-profit organisations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(2), 186-197.
12.
Chambers, R. (1994). All power deceives. IDS Bulletin, 25(2), 14-26.
13.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
14.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
15.
Cornwall, A., Lucas, H., & Pasteur, K. (2000). Introduction: Accountability through participation: Developing workable partnership models in the health sector. IDS Bulletin, 31(1), 1-13.
16.
D’Aunno, T. (1992). The effectiveness of human service organizations: A comparison of models. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (pp. 341-361). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Denton, J. (1998). Organizational learning and effectiveness. London: Routledge.
18.
Dobel, J. P. (1999). Public integrity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
Drabek, A. G. (1987). Development alternatives: The challenge for NGOs—An overview of the issues. World Development, 15(Suppl.), ix-xv.
20.
Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 85-113.
21.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813-829.
22.
Edwards, M. (1994). NGOs in the age of information. IDS Bulletin, 25(2), 117-124.
23.
Edwards, M. (2002). Organizational learning in non-governmental organizations: What have we learned? In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), The Earthscan reader on NGO management (pp. 331-346). London: Earthscan.
24.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961-973.
25.
Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1988). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. In J. G. March (Ed.), Decisions and organizations (pp. 410-428). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
26.
Fine, A. H., Thayer, C. E., & Coghlan, A. T. (2000). Program evaluation practice in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(3), 331-339.
27.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
28.
Fisher, J. (1998). Nongovernments: NGOs and the political development of the Third World. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
29.
Fowler, A. (1996). Assessing NGO performance: Difficulties, dilemmas, and a way ahead. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 169-186). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
30.
Fowler, A. (2002). An NGDO strategy: Learning for leverage. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), The Earthscan reader on NGO management (pp. 353-360). London: Earthscan.
31.
Fox, J. A., & Brown, L. D. (Eds.). (1998). The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and grassroots movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
33.
Fry, R. E. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: Problem or opportunity for nonprofits?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 181-195.
34.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.
35.
Gawthrop, L. C. (1998). Public service and democracy: Ethical imperatives for the 21st century. New York: Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges Press.
36.
Glasrud, B. (2001). The muddle of outcome measurement: Be careful how you measure programs. Nonprofit World, 19(6), 35-37.
37.
Gundlach, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: Asocial information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107-123.
38.
Halal, W. E. (2001). The collaborative enterprise: A stakeholder model uniting profitability and responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2), 27-42.
39.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Hernández, G., & Visher, M. G. (2001). Creating a culture of inquiry: Changing methods—and minds— on the use of evaluation in nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: James Irvine Foundation.
41.
Hill, P. T., Lake, R. J., & Celio, W. M. B. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42.
Hodson, R. (1997). Elephant loose in the jungle: The World Bank and NGOs in Sri Lanka. In D. Hulme & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? (pp. 168-187). New York: St. Martin’s Press in association with The Save the Children Fund.
43.
Hoefer, R. (2000). Accountability in action? Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 167-177.
44.
Hudock, A. (1999). NGOs and civil society: Democracy by proxy?Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
45.
Hummels, H. (1998). Organizing ethics: A stakeholder debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1403-1419.
46.
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414.
47.
Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Kovach, H., Neligan, C., & Burall, S. (2003). The global accountability report 1: Power without accountability?London: Global Accountability Project, The One World Trust.
49.
Ladd, H. F. (Ed.).(1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
50.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275.
51.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.
52.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
53.
Lindenberg, M., & Bryant, C. (2001). Going global: Transforming relief and development NGOs. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
54.
Mahar, C., Harker, R., & Wilkes, C. (1990). The basic theoretical position. In R. Harker, C. Mahar, & C. Wilkes (Eds.), An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory (pp. 1-25). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
55.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
56.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1988). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. In J.G. March (Ed.), Decisions and organizations (pp. 335-358). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
57.
Markman, K. D., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). ‘I couldn’t have known’: Accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 313-325.
58.
Meyer, C. A. (1999). The economics and politics of NGOs in Latin America. Westport, CT: Praeger.
59.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
60.
Morley, E., Vinson, E., & Hatry, H. P. (2001). Outcome measurement in nonprofit organizations: Current practices and recommendations. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
61.
Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14, 339-353.
62.
Perera, J. (1997). In unequal dialogue with donors: The experience of the Sarvodaya Shramadana movement. In D. Hulme & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? (pp. 156-167). New York: St. Martin’s Press in association with The Save the Children Fund.
63.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of the university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135-151.
64.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
65.
Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Riddell, R. C. (1999). Evaluating NGO development interventions. In D. Lewis (Ed.), International perspectives on voluntary action: Reshaping the third sector (pp. 222-241). London: Earthscan.
67.
Robinson, M. (1994). Governance, democracy and conditionality: NGOs and the new policy agenda. In A. Clayton (Ed.), Governance, democracy and conditionality: What role for NGOs?Oxford, UK: INTRAC.
68.
Roche, C. (1999). Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change. Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB.
69.
Saegert, S., Benitez, L., Eizenberg, E., Hsieh, T.-s., & Lamb, M. (2004). Participatory evaluation: How it can enhance effectiveness and credibility of nonprofit work. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 11(1), 54-60.
70.
Salamon, L. M. (1992). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: Foundation Center.
71.
Schultz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.
72.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
73.
Smillie, I. (1996). Painting Canadian roses red. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 187-197). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
74.
Smillie, I., & Hailey, J. (2001). Managing for change: Leadership, strategy and management in Asian NGOs. London: Earthscan.
75.
Smith, S. R. (1999). Government financing of nonprofit activity. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 177-210). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
76.
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
Soule, E. (2002). Managerial moral strategies—In search of a few good principles. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 114-124.
78.
Tassie, B., Murray, V., & Cutt, J. (1998). Evaluating social service agencies: Fuzzy pictures of organizational effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(1), 59-79.
79.
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632-640.
80.
Torjman, S. (1999). Are outcomes the best outcome?Ottawa, Canada: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
81.
United Way of America. (2000). Agency experiences with outcome measurement: Survey findings (Report 0196). Alexandria, VA: Author.
82.
United Way of America. (2002). Outcome measurement resource network [Web site]. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/resources/mpo/why.cfm
83.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77-97.
84.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: The body shop blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman Publishing.
85.
Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 475-497.
86.
Wolch, J. R. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: Foundation Center.
87.
Zadek, S., Pruzan, P., & Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability. London: Earthscan.
