Affiliation:
1. Regent University, USA
2. Trevecca Nazarene University, USA
Abstract
Wood and Winston defined leader accountability as the leader's response to (1) his/her willing acceptance of the responsibilities inherent in the leadership position to serve the well-being of the organization; (2) the implicit or explicit expectation that he/she will be publicly linked to his/her actions, words, or reactions; and (3) the expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to constituents. They developed three scales—the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales—to form the Leader Accountability Index (LAI). Use of the scales in subsequent research has suggested the possibility of combining the three to form a single factor instrument to measure leader accountability. This chapter updates the literature on leader accountability since the LAI was first published, reviews the data collection and factor analyses involved in creating the new Leader Accountability Scale (LAS), and discusses implications of the new scale's usefulness in leadership research and organizational practice.
Reference38 articles.
1. Newcastle City Council and the grassroots: accountability and budgeting under austerity
2. Constructing accountability in inter-organisational collaboration
3. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.;B. M.Bass;Public Administration Quarterly,1993
4. Blackmon, V. Y. (2008). Strategic planning and organizational performance: An investigation using the balanced scorecard in non-profit organizations (Publication No. 3311386) [Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
5. Bodenmiller, J. J. (2015). A Quantitative relational analysis of leadership style and leader accountability in non-profit organizations (Publication No. 3714860) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Phoenix]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献