The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and

Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt

Accountability

Irene A. Josephine

, Corina Deborah Riantoputra

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Jawa Barat Indonesia, 16424

Keywords: Felt Accountability, Managerial Monitoring Behavior, Empowering Leadership Climate, Leadership,

Organizational

Abstract: Felt accountability is an imperative element within a society, as well as an organization. Without

accountability, one would disregard the consequences that their actions may cost another individual. However,

the number of empirical studies predicting factors of felt accountability is lacking. This correlational study is

aimed to examine the relationship between felt accountabilityand managerial monitoring (for task and for

interpersonal facilitation) behavior and empowering leadership climate. To reduce common method bias, data

were obtained from multiple sources: 85 pairs of managers and their subordinates in Indonesia, with an

appropriate amount of time-lag given for data obtained from the same source. All the measuring instruments

for the purposes of this research exhibit a relatively good internal consistency, with the reliability coefficients

ranging from 0.7-0.9. Analyses show (a) no correlation between managerial monitoring behavior for task and

empowering leadership climate with felt accountabilityand (b) a significant positive effect of managerial

monitoring for interpersonal facilitation on felt accountability. The discussion explains the result of the study

from the point of view of the reciprocity theory and the collectivist culture of Indonesians.

1 INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of bankruptcy of Barings Bank in

1995 and inadequate local government financial

statements indicate the importance of accountability.

Barings Bank, the oldest bank in Britain, went

bankrupt because one of the bank's officials made a

number of illegal transactions (Titcomb, 2015). A

review of local government financial reports in

Indonesia demonstrates that many local government

officials do not produce financial reports on time, and

some public officers cannot complete financial

reports that adhere to accounting standards (Basri and

Nabiha, 2014). Both examples of the phenomenon are

related to felt accountability. Felt accountability is

defined as an individual's perception that his or her

decisions or actions will be evaluated by an important

audience and that later, he or she will be given

sanctions or rewards from those evaluations (Hall and

Ferris, 2011). Previous studies have shown that felt

accountability is positively related to job satisfaction

(Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter and Ferris 2009;

Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Zinko and Ferris,

2009; Wallace, Johnson, Mathe and Paul, 2011;

Wikhamn and Hall, 2014), performance (Wallace,

Johnson, Mathe and Paul, 2011; Hochwarter, Ellen

and Ferris, 2014), decision quality (Langhe, Van

Osselaer and Wierenga, 2011; Pitesa and Thau,

2013), and organizational citizenship behavior (Hall,

Zinko, Perryman and Ferris, 2009). In addition to

positive impacts, perceptions of accountability have

also been shown to lead to a negative impact on work

tension (Hochwarter, Ferris, Gavin, Perrewe, Hall

and Frink, 2007; Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Zinko

and Ferris 2009; Zellars, Hochwarter, Lanivich,

Perrewé and Ferris, 2011), depressed mood at work

(Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Zinko and Ferris

2009; Lanivich, Brees, Hochwarter and Ferris, 2010),

and stress (Goodman and Frazier, 2015). Even though

there is an increase in the number of research about

the impact of felt accountability, studies on the factors

that affect accountability remain scarce, except for

past research conducted by (Chen, Yuan, Cheng and

Seifert, 2015; Mero, Guidice and Werner, 2014;

Rutkowski and Steelman, 2005).

Josephine, I. and Riantoputra, C.

The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt Accountability.

DOI: 10.5220/0010000300002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 68-74

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

This study is intended to examine the roles of

managerial monitoring behavior and empowering

leadership climate as predictors of felt accountability.

The assumption that these two variables can affect

felt accountability is based on the social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964). Theorists agree that social

exchange involves a series of interactions that

generate obligations (Emerson, 1976). With social

exchange, these interactions are usually seen as

interdependent and contingent on the actions of

another person (Blau, 1964). In social exchange

theory, reciprocity is one of the rules and norms of

exchange. Therefore, in this study, managerial

monitoring behavior and empowering leadership

climate are assumed to be the costs or efforts provided

by the organization, and reciprocally, it is expected

that employees will perform their responsibilities and

roles accountably.

The reason managerial monitoring behavior was

chosen as a predictor variable of felt accountability is

because through managerial monitoring behavior,

managers provide important cues to their employees

that clarify tasks and reinforce personal obligation

and control of important organizational behaviors and

outcomes. This style of supervision can be effective

because the manager communicates directly to his

subordinates (Mero, Guidice and Werner, 2014).

Managerial monitoring behavior is a form of direct

supervision that considers the extent to which

managers perform administrative behaviors that

strengthen the perceptions of accountability within

the employees (Mero, Guidice and Werner, 2014).

The behavior focuses on two perceptions about work

activities and outcomes important to the

organization’s success: the perceived importance of

task performance (managerial monitoring behavior

for task) and the perceived importance of being

helpful and cooperative with other organizational

employees (managerial monitoring behavior for

interpersonal facilitation). A previous study

examining the relationship between managerial

monitoring behavior and felt accountability was

conducted by Mero (2014), in which two samples

were used. The first sample consisted of 198 staff and

managers, and the second consisted of 107

technicians and managers. The results showed that an

improvement in supervision style with managerial

supervision behavior tends to increase employees' felt

accountability in task performance (individual

subordinate task performance) and also interpersonal

facilitation (performance of subordinates in

interpersonal relationships that they build).

In the pyramid of accountability by Schlenker et

al (1994), signals given by managers to subordinates

are useful for communicating what the managers

expect from employees, how employees are expected

to contribute to achieving goals, and what the

benchmark of success will be when performance is

assessed. When the employees’ identity or image in

the organization is considered contingent on their job

performance in relation to publicized goals,

employees are also expected to look for cues on the

preferences of those who will pass judgment on their

character and/or evaluate their performance so that

they will be better able to respond accordingly to

maintain a positive identity or image in the

organization. Such preferences are then

communicated through the manager’s monitoring

behavior. A supervisory style in which

communication becomes crucial is expected to

increase employee accountability.

H1: Managerial Monitoring Behavior for task

positively affects employees’ felt

accountability.

H2: Managerial Monitoring Behavior for

interpersonal facilitation positively affects

employees’ felt accountability.

Another factor that is considered to influence felt

accountability comes from the organizational level.

Organizational level variables need to be investigated

because the concept of accountability is fundamental

to the organization, yet little attention to this matter

has been given by academics (Frink and Klimoski,

2004). Therefore, this research is interested in

examining the role of empowering leadership climate

(Wallace, Johnson, Mathe and Paul, 2011) that is

formed from leadership-based empowerment

(Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp, 2005). This leadership

style emphasizes the importance of job significance,

allows subordinates to participate in decision making,

convinces subordinates to maximize performance,

and seeks to remove bureaucratic obstacles. The said

construct was chosen because such leadership will

build employees’ psychological empowerment

(Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Psychological

empowerment is defined as an individual's experience

of intrinsic motivation based on self-cognition

associated with work. Psychological empowerment is

a constellation of experienced cognitions manifested

as sense of meaning, competence, impact, and self-

determination (Spreitzer, 1995). Meaning is

congruence between an individual’s values and

values associated with a task or work-unit in an

organization. Competence is the belief that work

activities can be carried out skillfully and

successfully. Self-determination is the belief that one

is free to choose how to perform work activities.

The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt Accountability

Impact reflects one’s capacity to influence strategic,

administrative, and operational decisions within the

organization or work unit. Therefore, organizations

should consider making their employees feel

empowered because empowerment can affect work

performance. Psychological empowerment likely

develops from a leadership style that empowers

employees (leadership-based empowerment)

(Menon, 2001) by providing the necessary conditions

for feeling empowered. The empowering leader

implements policies, practices, and procedures with

the objective of empowering collective members,

which results in members sharing a perception of

being empowered.

Previous research has found a positive

relationship between leadership-based empowerment

climate and task performance (Tuuli and Rowlinson,

2009). The result of the research demonstrates that

empowerment climate is positively related not only

directly to both task and contextual performance

behaviors, but also partially through both individual

and team empowerments. At the team-level,

empowerment climate is also positively and directly

related to task work and teamwork behaviors, as well

as partially through team empowerment. The results

suggest that empowerment climate and psychological

empowerment play complementary roles in

engendering individual and team performance

behaviors and are therefore not mutually exclusive.

The findings are also evident of convergence in

management practices across cultures as well as

different work contexts, and they further provide

concrete targets of manipulation by organizations and

leaders desirous of empowering individuals and

teams in the project context.

Learning from the aforementioned research the

current research argues that an empowering

leadership climate will also empower employees as

evidenced by increased felt accountability. This is

achieved when empowered leaders apply policies,

practices, and procedures with the aim of

empowering collective members.

H3: Empowering, leadership climate positively

affects employees’ felt accountability

2 METHOD

2.1 Sample and Procedure

Respondents were 85 pairs of managers or

supervisors and their subordinates who conducted

direct report in private companies. Specifically, the

subordinates who participated in this research were

43 women (50.6%) and 41 men (48.2%). Their age

range varied between 23 and 50 years, with the

majority of respondents in the category of 23-30 years

(43.5%). The length of work in the organization

ranged from 7-267 months, with the highest

percentage working for 7-25 months (22.5%). With

regard to their level of education, most respondents

had bachelor’s degrees (82.4%). 61.2% of

respondents were married and 34.1% were

unmarried. Respondents in this study came from three

different business lines, with the majority of

respondents coming from the telecommunication

business (69.4%).

2.2 Measurement

All the instruments used in the present study were

based on those of previous studies. Following their

original application, the questionnaires were then

translated into Bahasa Indonesia, and the translated

versions were then verified using a back translation

method to ensure identical meaning. All the variables

were measured with a 6-point Likert-type scale,

ranging from 1 indicating "strongly unsuitable" to 6

indicating "strongly suitable".A 6-point Like rt scale

was selected to avoid a middle value and a neutral

answer (Chomeya, 2010).Before the implementation

of the field study, a pilot study was conducted to make

sure that all scales are reliable.

In this study, several methods were carried out to

avoid common method bias. Richardson (Richardson,

Simmering and Sturman, 2009) defines common

method bias as systematic error variance shared by a

function of the same method and/or source. Common

method bias can potentially be a problem in

behavioral research (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and

Podsakoff, 2003) and can inflate the observed

relationship between variables by up to 32% (Doty

and Glick, 1998). Therefore, our research used

several methods to avoid common method bias, one

of which was done by obtaining data from two

different sources. In particular, managerial

monitoring behavior questionnaire was given to the

managers, while felt accountability and empowering

leadership behavior questionnaire was given to

subordinates. Furthermore, a 2-week separation

(time-lag) between data collections was introduced

for data that were collected from the same source (i.e.,

for felt accountability and empowering leadership

climate instrument).

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Felt Accountability

A nine-item scale (α = 0.78) to measure felt

accountability was adapted from Hochwarter (as cited

in Hall, Zinko, Perryman and Ferris, 2009). The items

were made up of statements such as “I am responsible

for my actions at work”and“The organization's

leaders ask me to take responsibility for the decisions

I make at work”.

Managerial Monitoring Behavior

Managerial monitoring behavior was measured with

managerial monitoring behavior questionnaire

constructed by Mero (2014). Managerial monitoring

behavior for task (α = 0.78) consisted of five items,

including “My direct report frequently inquires

subordinates to explain their task activities”.

Managerial

monitoring behavior for interpersonal

facilitation (α= 0.71) consisted of four items,

including “My direct report frequently asks his/her

subordinates to explain their activities related to

helping and cooperating with others at work”.

Empowering Leadership Climate

Empowering leadership climate was measured with

leadership-based empowerment inventory developed

by Ahearne (Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp, 2005). The

instrument is comprised of a 12-item scale as

manifested in four dimensions of 3 items each:

enhancing the meaningfulness of work (i.e., “My

manager helps me understand how my objective and

goals relate to that of the company”), fostering

participation in decision making (i.e., “My manager

makes many decisions together with me”), expressing

confidence in high performance (i.e., “My manager

believes in my ability to improve even when I make a

mistake”), and providing autonomy from

bureaucratic constraints (i.e., “My manager allows

me to do my job my way”).

3 RESULTS

All hypotheses were tested using SPSS. First,

descriptive statistical analysis was used to see the

general description of respondent characteristics in

the forms of age, gender, education level, marital

status, and length of work. To answer the research

question, Pearson Product-Moment correlation was

used (see Table 1). Table 1 shows that managerial

monitoring behavior for task has no significant

positive correlation with felt accountability (r = 0.21,

p> 0.05) and that empowering leadership climate has

no significant negative relationship with perceptions

of accountability (r = -0.04; p> 0.05). Second, the

managerial monitoring for interpersonal facilitation

has a significant positive relationship with felt

accountability (r = 0.22; p <0.05). A significant

relationship between managerial monitoring behavior

for task and managerial monitoring behavior for

interpersonal facilitation (r = 0.80; p<0.001) was also

found. Based on the above explanation, it can be

concluded that the results do not provide support for

H1 and H3, while H2 is supported.

4 DISCUSSION

This research has attempted to answer specific

research questions and contributed to the

understanding of felt accountability. First, the

relationship between managerial monitoring behavior

and employees’ felt accountability can be explained

by the reciprocity theory (Price and Van Vugt, 2014).

This theory assumes that when an individual makes

an effort to provide benefits to others, the individual

should also receive benefits from others, as a form of

compensation for the effort that has been made (Price

and Van Vugt, 2014). This reciprocal relationship is

a form of social exchange, or the voluntary actions of

individuals that are motivated by the returns they are

expected to bring and typically do indeed bring from

others (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In this

situation, the relationship between manager and

employees is a reciprocal relationship. When a

manager exhibits managerial monitoring behavior,

the employees reciprocate by giving greater

perceptions of accountability.

The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt Accountability

Table 1: Bi-Correlations.

Variabel M SD 123456 7 89

1 A

e 52.25 70.36 1

2 Gende

28.02 6.72 0.61

3 Education - - 0.15 -0.10 1

4 Marital Status - - 0.66

0.14 0.18 1

5 Length of Work in

anization

- - 0.91

-0.20

0.66 0.51

6 Managerial

Monitoring Behavior

Tas

0.13

-0.10

0.40 0.15 0.36 1

7 Managerial

Monitoring Behavior

For Interpersonal

Facilitation

4.37 0.66 0.15

-0.01

0.14 0.15 0.00

0.80

8 Empowering

eadershi

Climate

4.60 0.53 -0.00 -0.06

-0.03 -0.01 0.05 0.10 0.01 1

9 Felt

ccountabilit

3.14 0.84 0.05 0.10 -0.17 0.13 0.03 0.21 0.22

-0.04 1

** Significant, p<.01

* Significant, p<.05

However, this study found that only managerial

monitoring behavior for interpersonal relationship

significantly affects employees’ felt accountability.

This might be explained by Hofstede’s cultural

dimension theory (Hofstede, 1980), which focuses on

individualism vs collectivism dimension. The

collectivist culture of Indonesia is determined by its

social framework, where individuals are expected to

adjust to the expectations of communities and groups

from where they come (Insights, 2017). Likewise, in

organizations, there are expectations and regulations

that are built to achieve organizational goals.

Employees are expected to work together and help

each other in achieving organizational goals. That is,

when the organization has certain expectations for

employees, employees will tend to be aware of their

roles and responsibilities as a form of adjustment to

the expectations of managers. This may explain why

only managerial monitoring for interpersonal

facilitation was found to affect employees’ felt

accountability.

Second, there is no correlation between

empowering leadership climate and employees’ felt

accountability. This shows that the impact of an

empowering organizational climate is only applicable

in general terms, such as in making employees feel

empowered or with regard to their performance. Yet

such a climate cannot specifically improve

employees’ felt accountability. Individual factors

seem to have a greater impact on felt accountability

than organizational factors. This is in line with

previous studies showing that personality has a

significant effect on felt accountability. For example,

Frink and Ferris (Ferris, Hochwarter, Buckley,

Harrell-Cook and Frink, 1999) found that

conscientiousness tends to be positively associated

with felt accountability. The strength of individual

factor influences is also seen in Hall, Frink, Ferris,

Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Bowen's (Ferris,

Hochwarter, Buckle, Harrell-Cook and Frink, 1999)

study, which shows that affective disposition affects

felt accountability.

This research is expected to enrich the literature

on felt accountability by elaborating on some of the

antecedents of felt accountability, whose research is

still scarce, while encouraging future research in this

area. This study also advances the social exchange

theory (reciprocity) by demonstrating that managerial

monitoring behavior for interpersonal facilitation is

one factor that can affect the improvement of

employees’ felt accountability, more so than

managerial monitoring behavior for task. That is,

employees will show greater felt accountability if the

manager shows managerial monitoring for

interpersonal facilitation. Therefore, managers can

consider focusing more on interpersonal facilitation

as a trigger for employees’ greater perception of

accountability. From the standpoint of its practical

implication, this research is expected to demonstrate

to companies or governments the importance of

applying a sense of accountability at work, for both

leaders and subordinates. This is expected to prevent

failures of accountability such as that inflicted in the

bankruptcy case of Barings Bank (Titcomb, 2015)

and in the common failure to create financial reports

that comply with accounting standards in Indonesia

(Basri and Nabiha, 2014).

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Although this research is limited by its cross-

sectional design (Hall, Frink, Ferris, Hochwarter,

Kacmar and Bowen, 2003), its strength lies in its

careful attention on data collection, which was

implemented by applying a strict method to avoid

common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee

and Podsakoff, 2003). That is, a pairing method was

used to collect data obtained from two different

sources (staff members and their direct report), and a

two-time data collection (with 2 weeks time-lag) was

used to collect data that came from the same source.

4.1 Conclusion

The overall results of this study are able to answer the

research questions and develop an understanding of

construct-related perceptions of accountability in the

realm of the organization. Managerial monitoring

behavior for interpersonal facilitation has a positive

relationship with felt accountability. This means that

interpersonal managerial monitoring behavior is an

important contextual component for the work

environment because it can improve employees’ felt

accountability. The result of this study also advances

the social exchange theory (reciprocity), particularly

by demonstrating that managerial monitoring

behavior for interpersonal facilitation is one factor

that affects the improvement of employees’ felt

accountability, rather than managerial monitoring

behavior for task. This is possibly attributable to the

collectivist culture in Indonesia that creates social

expectations to form within individuals. In this case,

organizational expectations for employees lead

employees to try to run and adapt according to the

expectations and rules in the organization, one of

which is to be able to work with all members of the

organization to achieve organizational goals.

This research is expected to contribute to

promoting one of the world’s sustainable

development goals, namely the 8

goal of decent

work and economic growth (United Nations

Development Programme). This particular goal has

the aim of promoting inclusive and sustainable

economic growth, full and productive work, and

decent work for all. This study shows the importance

of managerial monitoring behavior as a supervision

style that may affect employees’ felt accountability.

If the employees’ felt accountability increases, it is

expected to improve full and proactive employment

to reach higher levels of productivity. Therefore, this

research enhances our understanding on factors that

affect employees’ felt accountability. Managerial

monitoring behavior for interpersonal facilitation is

found to be the key to improving employees’ felt

accountability.

REFERENCES

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005) ‘To empower

or not to empower your sales force? An empirical

examination of the influence of leadership

empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and

performance’, J Appl Psychol, vol. 90, pp. 945–55.

Basri, H. and Nabiha, S.A. (2014) ‘Accountability of local

government: the case of Aceh province, Indonesia’,

Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance.

Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New

York: John Wiley.

Breaux, D.M., Munyon, T.P., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris,

G.R. (2009) ‘Politics as a moderator of the

accountability—job satisfaction relationship: evidence

across three studies’, J Manage, 35(2), pp. 307–26.

Chen, C.V., Yuan, M., Cheng, J. and Seifert, R. (2015)

‘Linking transformational leadership and core self-

evaluation to job performance: the mediating role of felt

accountability’, North American Journal of Economics

and Finance, pp. 1–13.

Chomeya, R. (2010) ‘Quality of psychology test between

Likert scale 5 and 6 points’ Journal of Social Sciences,

6(3), pp. 399–403.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005) ‘Social exchange

theory An interdisciplinary review’, J Manage, 31(6),

pp. 874-900.

Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1998) ‘Common methods bias

Does common methods variance really bias results’.

Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), pp. 374-406.

doi: 10.1177/109442819814002

Emerson, R.M. (1976) ‘Social exchange theory’, Annual

Review of Sociology, vol. 2, pp. 335-362

Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell-

Cook, G. and Frink, D.D. (1999) ‘Human resources

management: some new directions’, J Manage, 25(3),

pp. 385–415.

Frink, D.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (2004) ‘Advancing

accountability theory and practice Introduction to the

human resource management review special edition’,

Human resource management review, 14(1), pp. 1-17.

Goodman, R.D. and Frazier, K.N. (2015) ‘Traumatic stress

and educational hegemony: a multi-level model to

promote wellness and achievement among socially

marginalized students’, The Practitioner Scholar:

Journal of Counseling and Professional Psychology,

4(1).

Hall, A.T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A.A. and Ferris, G.R

(2009) ‘Organizational citizenship behavior and

reputation: mediators in the relationships between

accountability and job performance and satisfaction’, J

Leadersh Org Stud, 15(4), pp. 381–92.

Hall, A.T. and Ferris, G.R. (2011) ‘Accountability and

extra-role behaviour’, Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 23(2), pp. 131–44.

The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt Accountability

Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A.,

Kacmar, C.J. and Bowen, M.G. (2003) ‘Accountability

in human resources management’, New Directions in

Human Resource Managemented. Schriesheim, C.A.

and Neider, L. (eds.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing. pp. 29-63.

Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A.,

Kacmar, C.J. and Bowen, M.G. (2003) Research

Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 4

Edition.

Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Hochwarter, W.A., Ellen, E.P. and Ferris, G.R. (2014)

‘Examining the interactive effects of accountability,

politics, and voice’, Career Development International,

vol. 19, pp. 358–80.

Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Gavin, M.B., Perrewe,

P.L., Hall, A.T. and Frink, D.D. (2007) ‘Political skill

as neutralizer of felt accountability—job tension effects

on job performance ratings: a longitudinal

investigation’.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's consequences: international

differences in work-related values. Beverley Hills, CA:

Sage.

Insights, H. (2017) Country Comparison: What about

Indonesia? [Online] Available at:

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-

comparison/indonesia/ [Accessed 15 June, 2018].

Laird, M.D., Perryman, A.A., Hochwarter, W.A., Zinko, R.

and Ferris, G.R. (2009) ‘The moderating effects of

personal reputation on accountability-strain

relationships’, Journal or Occupational Health

Psychology, 14(1), pp. 70–83.

Langhe, B.D., Van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Wierenga, B.

(2011) ‘The effects of process and outcome

accountability on judgment process and performance’,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, vol. 115, pp. 238–52.

Lanivich, S.E., Brees, J.R., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris,

G.R. (2010) ‘P-E Fit as moderator of the

accountability–employee reactions relationship:

convergent result across two samples’, J Vocat Behav,

77 (3), pp. 425–436.

Menon, S. (2001) ‘Employee empowerment: An integrative

psychological approach’, Applied Psychology, 50 (1),

pp. 153-180.

Mero, N.P., Guidice, R.M. and Werner, S. (2014) ‘A field

study of the antecedents and performance consequences

of perceived accountability’, J Manage, 40(6), pp.

1627–52.

Pitesa, M. and Thau, S. (2013) ‘Masters of the universe:

how power and accountability influence self-serving

decisions under moral hazard’, J Appl Psychol, 98(3),

p. 550.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and

Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) ‘Common method biases in

behavioral research: a critical review of the literature

and recommended remedies’, JApp Psychol, 88(5), p.

879.

Price, M.E. and Van Vugt, M. (2014) ‘The evolution of

leader–follower reciprocity: the theory of service-for-

prestige’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 8, p.

363.

Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., and Sturman, M.C.

(2009) ‘A tale of three perspective examining post goc

statistical techniques for detection and correction of

common method variance’, Organizational Research

Methods, 12(4), pp. 762-800.

Rutkowski, K.A. and Steelman, L.A. (2005) ‘Testing a path

model for antecedents of accountability’, Journal of

Management Development, 24(5), pp. 473–86.

Schlenker, B.R. Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R. and

Doherty, K. (1994) ‘The triangle model of

responsibility’, Psychological Review, vol. 101, pp.

632-652.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) ‘Psychological empowerment in the

workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation’,

Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), pp. 1442-

1465.

Titcomb, J. (2015), February 23 Barings: the collapse that

erased 232 years of history.

Tuuli, M.M. and Rowlinson, S. (2009) ‘Performance

consequences of psychological empowerment’, J

Constr Eng M, 135(12), pp. 1334-1347.

United Nations Development Programme (n.d.) Goal 8:

Decent work and economic growth [Online]. Available

at:http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustain

able-development-goals/goal-8-decent-work-and-

economic-growth.html

Wallace, J.C., Johnson, P.D., Mathe, K. and Paul, J. (2011)

‘Structural and psychological empowerment climates,

performance, and the moderating role of shared felt

accountability: a managerial perspective’ J Appl

Psychol, 96(4), p. 840.

Wikhamn, W. and Hall, A.T. (2014) ‘Accountability and

satisfaction: organizational support as a moderator’ J

Manage Psychol, 29(5), pp. 458–71.

Zellars, K.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Lanivich, S.E., Perrewé,

P.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2011) ‘Accountability for others,

perceived resources, and wellbeing: convergent

restricted non‐linear results in two samples’, J Occup

Organ Psych, 84(1), pp. 95–115.

Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010) ‘Linking empowering

leadership and employee creativity: the influence of

psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and

creative process engagement’, Academy of

Management Journal, 53(1), pp. 107–28.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference