Skip to main content
Log in

The Dilemma of Accountability for Professionals: A Challenge for Mainstream Management Theories

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Professional institutions are increasingly confronted by fiscal constraints and political pressures to improve and increase their accountability in a competitive consumer-driven market. Accordingly, the need to ensure efficiency and accountability is of strategic importance. This article reports on a qualitative study of medical professionals that assessed the utility of financial incentives and external control methods derived from agency theory to ensure accountability of professionals. The authors argue that approaches derived from stewardship and institutional theories can extend the principal–agent perspective to sustain greater social and ethical accountability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberta Health Services (2013). Strategic Direction 2012-2015, Retrieved from http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/MissionStrategicDirection/ahs-msd-strategic-direction-2012-2015.pdf.

  • Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsop, J., & Mulcahy, L. (1996). Regulating medical work: Formal and informal controls. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. (1990). Medicine as a profession: times of change. BMJ, 301(6754), 691–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1990). The debate between traditional management theory and organizational economics: substantive differences or intergroup conflict? The Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 382–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni, M. C. (1996). Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(4/3), 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. (1991a). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. (1991b). Evidence for altruism: toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecher-Monas, E. (2003). Enron, epistemology, and accountability: Regulating in a global economy. Indiana Law Review, 37, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington: Brookings Intuition Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2006). Analysing and assessing public accountability. A conceptual framework. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), 100, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Lemesis, G. (2003). Effective employee stock option design: Reconciling stakeholder, strategic, and motivational factors. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenkert, G. G. (2004). Corporate integrity and accountability. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In Joseph C Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 1–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calnan, M. W., & Sanford, E. (2004). Public trust in health care: the system or the doctor? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(2), 92–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplowe, S. G., & Engo-Tjega, R. B. (2007). Civil society organizations and evaluation lessons from Africa. Evaluation, 13(2), 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charih, M., & Daniels, A. (1997). New Public Management and Public Administration in Canada: Toronto. ON: Institute of Public Administration of Canada/Institut d’administration publique du Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, D. (1996). Australian public sector management (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T., & Glazer, A. (1996). More monitoring can induce less effort. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30(1), 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, A., Burn, R., & Horarik, S. (1999). Patients’ complaints about medical practice. Medical Journal of Australia, 170(12), 598–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 583-613.

  • Davis, J., Schoorman, F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, P., & Klein, R. (1987). Accountability: five public services. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Dijk, E. (2009). Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). ‘The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?’The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, L. A. (2002). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting can stewardship theory fill the bill? The American Review of Public Administration, 32(4), 455–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, L., & Ott, J. (1999). Public agency accountability in human services contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(4), 502–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, L. A., & Ott, J. S. (2002). A test: can stewardship theory serve as a second conceptual foundation for accountability methods in contracted human services? International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 463–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Lynne G Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Ballinger Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. In Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Donaldson, L. (1990). A rational basis for criticisms of organizational economics: A reply to Barney. The Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 394–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (2001). Professional accountability in a changing world. British Medical Journal, 77(904), 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drago, R., & Garvey, G. (1998). Incentives for helping on the job: Theory and evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1993a). Managing for the future. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1993b). Post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance &Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M., & Yang, K. (2010). The pursuit of accountability: Promise, problems, and prospects. In Donald Menzel & Harvey White (Eds.), The State of Public Administration. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E., & Coser, L. A. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Agency- and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 488–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2004). The European Union in the age of accountability. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24(3), 495–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free, C., & Radcliffe, V. (2009). Accountability in crisis: The sponsorship scandal and the office of the comptroller general in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: on the practice of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. L. (1996). Accountability and public administration. Canadian Public Administration, 39, 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomini, M., & Cook, D. (2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA, 284, 357–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göbbels, M., & Jonker, J. (2003). AA1000 and SA8000 compared: a systematic comparison of contemporary accountability standards. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(1), 54–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, D. (2006). System failure versus personal accountability—the case for clean hands. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(2), 121–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, R. (1989). Toward a positive and practical public management organizational research supporting a fourth critical citizenship. Administration & Society, 21(2), 200–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability: making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 319–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., Blass, F. R., Ferris, G. R., & Massengale, R. (2004). Leader reputation and accountability in organizations: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 515–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., Bowen, M. G., Ferris, G. R., Royle, M. T., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (2007). The accountability lens: A new way to view management issues. Business Horizons, 50(5), 405–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham, C. (2002). The medical profession, the public, and the government. BMJ, 324(7341), 838–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, M., & Mayer, R. (1986). Organization theory for public administration. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S., & Ahmad, W. (2000). Medical Autonomy and the UK State 1975 to 2025. Sociology, 34(1), 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, V. E. (2002). The Compstat paradigm: Management accountability in policing, business and the public sector. Flushing: Looseleaf Law Publications Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickson, G., Altemeier, W., & Perrin, J. (1987). Physician reimbursement by salary or fee-for-service: effect on physician practice behavior in a randomized prospective study. Pediatrics, 80(3), 344–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. JL Econ. & Org., 7, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G., & Gordon, S. C. (2004). Accountability and coercion: Is justice blind when it runs for office? American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, D. (1997). The performance of doctors. I. Professionalism and self regulation in a changing world. BMJ, 314(7093), 1540–1542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbra, J., & Dwivedi, O. (1988). Public service accountability. Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics3(4), 305-360.

  • Jones, R. (1992). The development of conceptual frameworks of accounting for the public sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 8(4), 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jos, P. H., & Tompkins, M. E. (2004). The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention the perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Administration & Society, 36(3), 255–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, K., & Siegel, D. (1987). Public administration in Canada. Toronto: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington: Brookings Intuition Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. (2005). Balancing competing accountability requirements: Challenges in performance improvement of the nonprofit human services agency. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. (1990). The state and the profession: the politics of the double bed. BMJ, 301(6754), 700–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingenfelter, P. E. (2003). Educational accountability: Setting standards, improving performance. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 18-23.

  • Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, J. R. (1993). Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maile, S. (2006). Accountability: An essential aspect of school governance. South African journal of education, 22(4), 326–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, H. (1984). Selfishness, altruism, and rationality: A theory of social choice. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maycut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research a philosophic and practical guide. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. British Medical Journal, 320(7226), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, son, and Bourn, London.

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever expanding concept? Public administration, 78(3), 555–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance B2—Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Lenahan. (2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: The role of stakeholders in a program’s field. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. (2005). CSR after Enron: A role for the academic accounting profession? European Accounting Review, 14(2), 395–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2005). Corporate governance crisis down under: post-Enron accounting education and research inertia. European Accounting Review, 14(2), 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks, J., & Conlon, E. (1995). Compensation contracts: Do agency theory assumptions predict negotiated agreements? The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 821–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, S. (1991). Accountability in Public Services: Exit, Voice, and Capture. Washington, D.C.: Country Economics Dept., World Bank, Issue 164.

  • Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenville: Scott, Forseman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: making change in large organizations: the case of the National Health Service. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (1996). Willingness to pay and the distribution of risk and wealth. The Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 747–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. (2003). Government accountability and performance measurement. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S. (1998). Where the buck stops: Accountability in reformed public organizations. In Ingraham, Thompson and Sanders (eds), Transforming government: Lessons from the reinvention laboratories, (pp. 193-219). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1998). Accountability. International encyclopaedia of public policy and administration, 1, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S., & Johnston, J. M. (2005). State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 436–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, M. (1995). The incompetent doctor: behind closed doors. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, M. (1997). Promise and Reality: Professional Self-Regulation and ‘Problem’ Colleagues. In P. Lens & G. van der Wal (Eds.), Problem doctors: A conspiracy of silence (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. W. (2006). Pay-for-performance and accountability: related themes in improving health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(9), 695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond, & Marc F Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13–28). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedikides, C., & Herbst, K. C. (2002). How does accountability reduce self-enhancement?: The role of self-focus. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 15(3/4), 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (1997). Professional as agent: Knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange. The Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 758–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell, R. (2003). Management of Professionals (2 ed.). New York. Basel: Marcel Dekker Inc.

  • Simon, H. (1993). Altruism and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 156–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2), 219–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1989). Profile of the GMC: The day of judgment comes closer. BMJ, 298(6682), 1241–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2011). Corporate governance and accountability. West Essex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stearns, S., Wolfe, B., & Kindig, D. (1992). Physician responses to fee-for-service and capitation payment. Inquiry, 29(4), 416–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, T. (2002). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporate accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wart, M. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidovich, L., & Slee, R. (2001). Bringing universities to account? Exploring some global and local policy tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. Trans. AM Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster Press Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. P. (1999). The question of accountability in historical perspective from jackson to contemporary grassroots ecosystem management. Administration & Society, 31(4), 451–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, W. F. (2004). Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 66–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, R., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. The Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A. (1998). One nation, after all: what middle-class Americans really think about: God, country, family, racism, welfare, immigration, homosexuality, work, the right, the left, and each other. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability looking inside as well as outside. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zey, M. (1998). Rational choice theory and organizational theory: A critique. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie I. Adair Rowney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mansouri, M., Rowney, J.I.A. The Dilemma of Accountability for Professionals: A Challenge for Mainstream Management Theories. J Bus Ethics 123, 45–56 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1788-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1788-x

Keywords

Navigation