Crowd-Based Accountability: Examining How Social Media Commentary Reconfigures Organizational Accountability

Organizational accountability is considered critical to organizations’ sustained performance and survival. Prior research examines the structural and rhetorical responses that organizations use to manage accountability pressures from different constituents. With the emergence of social media, accountability pressures shift from the relatively clear and well-specified demands of identifiable stakeholders to the unclear and unspecified concerns of a pseudonymous crowd. This is further exacerbated by the public visibility of social media, materializing as a stream of online commentary for a distributed audience. In such conditions, the established structural and rhetorical responses of organizations become less effective for addressing accountability pressures. We conducted a multisite comparative study to examine how organizations in two service sectors (emergency response and hospitality) respond to accountability pressures manifesting as social media commentary on two platforms (Twitter and TripAdvisor). We find organizations responding online to social media commentary while also enacting changes to their practices that recalibrate risk, redeploy resources, and redefine service. These changes produce a diffractive reactivity that reconfigures the meanings, activities, relations, and outcomes of service work as well as the boundaries of organizational accountability. We synthesize these findings in a model of crowd-based accountability and discuss the contributions of this study to research on accountability and organizing in the social media era.

In service of the truth? An evaluation of the Danish Independent Police Complaints Authority

The article discusses police oversight systems. In the Nordic countries, the primary focus of external oversight is on individual accountability, and the article reports on results from an evaluation of the Danish Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA), established in 2011. Results show that the vast majority of complaints are not upheld, and that most complainants are dissatisfied with their experience with the system. They find the case processing time too long, they think the Authority is prejudiced in favour of the police, and they do not understand the reasoning behind the decisions. The article argues that disappointment is related to the fact that the IPCA focuses almost exclusively on individual wrongdoing (rarely finding sufficient evidence to take action), whereas complainants seek recognition and wish to hold the police organization accountable. It is suggested that the complaints system should be redirected towards mediation between officers and citizens and include a focus on organizational accountability.

Error and Accountability

In this chapter we will explore the issues related to individual and organizational accountability for error, particularly when a patient suffers harm that is attributable to physician error. We will review the blameless culture and “just culture” models, as well as related issues of peer-review, regulatory compliance, medicolegal, and ethical aspects of error in this context. We will discuss the ethical duty to provide open disclosure of all errors and lapses directly to patients and their families, regardless of cause (and separated from the issue of blame) and in some circumstances coupled with financial or other compensation for any harm done.

Organizational accountability relations: de facto or de jure?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to bring the concept of “meeting the gaze of the other” into conversation with the organizational accountability literature. This is done by integrating “the gaze” phenomenon with Darwall’s (2006) distinction between de jure and de facto authority. In the context of accountability, only de jure accountability entails meeting the gaze of the stakeholder, in that it requires organizations to grant stakeholders the moral authority to hold them to account. Drawing on this work, this paper aims to critically examine the distinction between de jure and de facto in current organizational accountability theorizing and in practice. Design/methodology/approach – A content analysis of the “letters to the stakeholders” from the Global 100 firms’ accountability/social responsibility reports. Specifically, this paper examines the frequency with which leading companies acknowledge de facto vs de jure accountability, the nature of these statements and toward which stakeholder group they are directed. Findings – Most firms acknowledge de facto accountability, but few grant de jure standing, making it more likely that firms will ignore claimants they prefer not to morally engage. De jure relationships that are acknowledged tend to be restricted to certain stakeholders such as employees, customers and shareholders. In addition, there are differences in the granting of de jure accountability across industry sectors. Social implications – This work highlights the importance of acknowledging de jure accountability when engaging with stakeholders, and importantly, it highlights how to integrate consideration for de jure accountability into theorizing on organizational accountability. This analysis suggests that acknowledging de jure accountability vis-a-vis stakeholders can lead to more positive ethical decision-making and stronger relationships. Organizations are encouraged to strengthen their ethical decision-making by granting moral standing to their stakeholders. Originality/value – Organizational accountability is typically treated as a single construct, yet de jure accountability (vs simply de facto accountability) has been linked to particularly powerful moral effects. This paper examines the critical distinction between de facto and de jure accountability. It makes a compelling case for the importance of acknowledging the gaze of organizational stakeholders.