Leadership OS pp 139-152 | Cite as


  • Nik Kinley
  • Shlomo Ben-Hur


In this chapter, the authors introduce the second component of clarity in their Leadership OS model—accountability. Using both their own and previous research, they describe the social and neural underpinnings of accountability and the functions it plays in a leaders’ Operating System—how it affects people’s performance. They introduce a case study (Rene Obermann at Deutsche Telekom) showing the role and importance of accountability in a leaders’ OS. They then describe practical techniques leaders can use to increase the degree to which their OS enables and supports accountability. Finally, they introduce a checklist leaders can use to test the extent people experience accountability in their OS.


  1. 1.
    P. Tetlock, “The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 331–376, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bach, B. Seymour and R. Dolan, “Neural activity associated with the passive prediction of ambiguity and risk for aversive events,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1648–1656, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Adelberg and C. Batson, “Accountability and helping: When needs exceed resources,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 343–350, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Peng, “Why and when do people hide knowledge?,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 398–415, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Campbell-Pickford, G. Joy and K. Roll, “Mutuality in business,” Said Business School, Oxford, UK, 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Fandt and G. Ferris, “The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 45, pp. 140–158, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Ferris, T. Mitchell, P. Canavan, D. Frink and H. Hopper, “Accountability in human resource systems,” in G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen and D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management, Oxford, UK, Blackwell, 1995, pp. 175–196.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Baer and G. Brown, “Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 60–71, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Long, “The effects of employee ownership on organizational identification, employee job attitudes, and organizational performance: A tentative framework and empirical findings,” Human Relations, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 29–48, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Harrisdon, P. Singh and S. Frawley, “What does employee ownership effectiveness look like? The case of a Canadian-based firm,” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 5–19, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Enzele and S. Anderson, “Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation,” Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, vol. 64, pp. 257–266, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Mayhew, N. Ashkanasy, T. Bramble and J. Gardner, “A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings,” The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 147, no. 5, pp. 477–500, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Hall, D. Frink and M. Buckley, “An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 204–224, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Lanivich, J. Brees, W. Hochwarter and G. Ferris, “PE Fit as moderator of the accountability–employee reactions relationships: Convergent results across two samples,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 425–436, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Siegel-Jacobs and J. Yates, “Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 65, pp. 1–17, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Weldon and G. Gargano, “Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort,” Personnel Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 159–171, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Slavin and A. Tanner, “Effects of cooperative reward structures and individual accountability on productivity and learning,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 294–298, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Rus, D. van Knippenberg and B. Wisse, “Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating role of accountability,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 13–26, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. van Dyne and J. Pierce, “Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior,” Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 439–459, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Yarnold, K. Mueser and J. Lyons, “Type A behavior, accountability, and work rate in small groups,” Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 353–360, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Snape, D. Thompson, F. Yan and T. Redman, “Performance appraisal and culture: Practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 841–861, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Royle, A. Hall, W. Hochwarter, P. Perrewé and G. Ferris, “The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior,” Organizational Analysis, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 53–71, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Erdogan, R. Sparrowe, R. Liden and K. Dunegan, “Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory,” Human Resource Management Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–45, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    N. McLntyre, A. Srivastava and J. Fuller, “The relationship of locus of control and motives with psychological ownership in organizations,” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 21, pp. 383–401, 2009.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Dawkins, A. Tian, A. Newman and A. Martin, “Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 163–183, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Avey, B. Avolio, C. Crossley and F. Luthans, “Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 30, pp. 173–191, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Pierce, T. Kostova and K. Dirks, “Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations,” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 298–310, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Kim and J. Lee, “Impact of competing accountability requirements on perceived work performance,” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 100–118, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nik Kinley
    • 1
  • Shlomo Ben-Hur
    • 2
  1. 1.WokingUK
  2. 2.LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations