The Relationship between Conscientiousness and Perception on

Ethical Leadership with Felt Accountability in Employee

Afiania

, Corina Deborah Riantoputra

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

Keyword: Conscientiousness, perception, ethical leadership, felt accountability, employee

Abstract: Felt accountability is one of the keys to success in organizations because it provides guidance and direction

for employees to form their role expectations and mutual obligations, and also clarifies the evaluation

criteria for their performance and behavior. Furthermore, it is associated with employees’ ethical conducts.

It is therefore important to explore the predictors of felt accountability. The purpose of this research is to

explore the effects of individual factor, conscientiousness (α = 0.87) and group factor, ethical leadership (α

= 0.83) to felt accountability (α = 0.74) in employee. A total of 140 surveys were collected using a time lag

method (2 weeks gap) in 2 different organizational structures. The results show that (1) conscientiousness

and felt accountability have a positive and significant impact, (2) no significant impact was found between

ethical leadership and felt accountability, and(3) unexpectedly, organizational structure significantly affect

felt accountability, in that organic structure shapes higher tendency for felt accountability. The impacts of

this study are further discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the business and organizational world, unethical

practices are common, such as the case of Bernhard

Madoff and Allen Standford at the international

level (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead and Ariely, 2011) or

cases of corrupting trillions of Rupiah by Sjamsul

Nursalim and Gayus Tambunan in Indonesia

(Budisatrijo, 2011; Setyawan, 2017; Perkasa, 2017).

The impacts of these cases are not only detrimental

to the organizations where they work, but also to the

economy of the country (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead

and Ariely, 2011). This worrying fact raises the

question of why individuals engage in such unethical

behavior. One key aspect related to this is felt

accountability (Ranft, Ferris and Perryman, 2007).

Felt accountability refers to individual

perceptions that every action and decision they make

is evaluated by others and also affects their rewards

or sanctions (Hall and Ferris, 2011). It is a must

have variable for employees in the world of work

because it helps to lead them in shaping their

expectations of common roles and responsibilities,

as well as clarifying performance and behavior

evaluation criteria (Wikhamn and Hall, 2014). Many

studies have found that felt accountability predicts

some positive consequences in the context of the

world of work. Nevertheless, the causes of felt

accountability have not been well studied nor well

operated (Pearson and Sutherland, 2017).

Felt accountability is influenced by internal and

external factors of individuals (Frink, Hall,

Perryman, Ranft, Hochwarter, Ferris and Royle,

2008). Specifically, the unique characteristics of

individuals and the organizations in which they work

influences the development of individual's felt

accountability (Frink, Hall, Perryman, Ranft,

Hochwarter, Ferris and Royle, 2008). Scholars have

argued that the perception of accountability can be

influenced by individual personality characteristics

to a certain extent (Hall, Frink and Buckley, 2015).

However, personality traits have not been closely

examined in terms of their relationship to felt

accountability. In organizational research, the five-

factor model (FFM) or the “big five” is widely

accepted as the unquestionable trait framework in

the history of personality psychology (Judge and

Zapata, 2015). This concept consists of five

dimensions of personality traits, such as

conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism,

extraversion, agreeableness, and openness (Judge

and Zapata, 2015).

Aﬁania, . and Riantoputra, C.

The Relationship between Conscientiousness and Perception on Ethical Leadership with Felt Accountability in Employee.

DOI: 10.5220/0009999900002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 53-58

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

Studies that specifically explore the relationship

between felt accountability and personality

characteristics have only been done by Frink and

Ferris (1999), who linked felt accountability with

conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is an element

of personality relating to the ability to control

impulses based on social standards or prevailing

social environments. It directs positive forms of

behavior such as focus in achieving tasks and goals,

such thinking before acting, delaying gratification,

following norms and rules, as well as planning,

organizing, and prioritizing tasks (John, Robins and

Pervin, 2008) . In their experimental study involving

university students in the United States, Frink and

Ferris (1999) also state that conscientiousness is

related to how individuals allocate effort between

decisions and tasks, making it highly applicable in

the organizational context. They found that under

accountable conditions, individuals with higher

levels of conscientiousness have better performance

compared to individuals with lower

conscientiousness levels (Frink and Ferris, 1999).

However, the laboratorium setting of their study still

lacks reliability in generalizing results to employees

in the real organization world (Pearson and

Sutherland, 2017; Gravetter and Forzano, 2012).

Hence, conscientiousness deserves more attention in

relation to felt accountability because it is the only

personality type that consistently leads individuals to

success in the organizational context (Baer, 2014).

According to personal sense of power,

individuals’ behavior is also directed by their

personal sense of power, whichis to what extent

individuals perceive that they have the ability to

influence others and to fulfill their own aspirations

(Anderson, John and Keltner, 2012). Keltner,

Anderson and Gruenfeld (2003) explain that

individual variables are key contributors to this

sense of power, specifically conscientiousness.

Individual variables such as conscientiousness

areable to affectindividualsocial power, which leads

them to two different social consequences: (1)

approach: attention to rewards and (2) inhibition:

attention to threats (sanctions). In other words, based

on the personal sense of power theory,

conscientiousness may influence felt accountability

becauseit shapes individual attention on rewards and

sanctions (Hall and Ferris, 2011; Anderson, John

and Keltner, 2012). Bearing this theory in mind, we

hypothesize that:

H1: Conscientiousness positively affects felt

accountability.

In addition to personality characteristics, Pearson

and Sutherland (2017) also highlight the importance

of superiors creating an ethical and accountable

organizational culture. Steinbauer, Renn, Taylor, and

Njoroge (2013) state that ethical leadership is the

ethical behavior of superiors that can affect the

actions and ethical decisions of their employees.

Ethical leadership is defined as a demonstration of

normative behavior through interpersonal actions

and relationships, and invites subordinates to

implement normative behavior through two-way

communication, reinforcement, and decision making

(Brown, Treviño and Harrison, 2005).

Therefore, it can be concluded that employees’

felt accountability depends on their perceptions on

ethical leadership. This is also supported by

Tetlock's phenomenological view, which states that

individual subjective interpretations are more

important than existing conditions because

subjective interpretations will affect their behavior

and attitudes (Park, 2016). These interpretations are

specific to employees’ perceptions towards their

superior’s leadership ethic. There are still very few

studies that discuss leadership and felt accountability

(Pearson and Sutherland, 2017), as is also the case

for studies on ethical leadership and felt

accountability. Steinbauer et al. (2013) are the only

ones who have discussed the relationship between

felt accountability and ethical leadership.

Previous studies are going in this direction.

Pearson and Sutherland (2017) found that leadership

can influence organizational culture and elicit

employees’ felt accountability; they argue that it is

important for leaders or superiors to create an ethical

and accountable organizational culture. In addition

to that, ethical leadership is an expansion

oftransformational leadership which raises

employees’ (followers) awareness about the

importance of desired outcomes and the methods of

reaching them (McCleskey, 2014). Transformational

leaders influence, motivate, and stimulate their

employees to bring about desired organizational

outcomes through them. In terms of ethical

leadership, transformational leaders demonstrate

normative behavior and invite subordinates to

implement normative behavior through two-way

communication and reinforcement (Brown, Treviño

and Harrison, 2005) . Based on these findings, we

posit that:

H2: Ethical leadership positively affects felt

accountability.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

2 METHOD

2.1 Sample and Procedure

Our sample consists of 140 employees who have

worked at their current company for at least six

months. Responses were attained with a 2-week time

lag questionnaire, applying a time lag method to

avoid common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie

and Podsakoff, 2003).

Common method bias is an

error that may occur in behavioral research that uses

the same methods of measurement for both the

predictors and outcome variables (Conway and

Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff,

2003). It may cause measurement fallacies such

asinflated reliability and biased estimated correlation

results between variables (MacKenzie and

Podsakoff, 2012). Hence, it is important to reduce

common method bias, and this study attempts to do

so by collecting data about predictors and outcome

variables at different times, which is known as

temporal separation (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and

Podsakoff, 2003). .

Respondents were employees from entry level to

management level with a direct superior. Responses

were collected from different companies in which

the organizational structures were either organic

(52%) or mechanistic (48%). Organic structure

refers to organizations with flexible coordination

that can easily adapt with environment or business

dynamics, hence individual behavior is guided by

values and shared goals (O’Neill, Beauvais and

Scholl, 2001). Mechanistic structure refers to strictly

formal coordination, with standardized and

centralized functions (O’Neill, Beauvais and Scholl,

2001). The dominant distribution of age ranged from

21-30 years (74%), followed by 31-40 years (16%).

Also, males dominated the distribution of

participants (55.7%).

2.2 Measurement

All measurementsare self-reported measures in

Bahasa Indonesia which utilized a 6-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 =

“strongly agree.” They were adapted from previous

research through the process of back-to-back

translation.After that, to ensure the advisability of all

measures, we conducted an offline based paper

pencil pilot study, and we revised unclear statements

on the results of the pilot study. This process was

conducted before conductingthe field study to ensure

the reliability of all measures used. Reliability is an

indicator of the extent to which a measurement is

consistent and trustworthy, and is an important

psychometric property (Cohen, Swerdik and

Sturman, 2013; Urbina, 2004).

2.2.1 Consciencetiousness

Consciencetiousness was measured by Goldberg’s

(Goldberg, 1992) IPIP Survey (α = 0.87).

Conscientiousness, which is an element in the Big

Five Personality, was measured through ten items,

including “I am always prepared.”

2.2.2 Ethical Leadership

Perceptions on superiors’ ethical leadership was

measured with an adapted eight-item Ethical

Leadership Scale (ELS) from Brown, Trevino, and

Harrison (2005) (α = 0.83). A sample item was

“Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical

manner.” Two items wereeliminated because of

theirredundance, which was reflected in thefeedback

ofthe pilot study and reliability checks.

2.2.3 Felt Accountability

We adapted a uni-dimensional felt accountability

scale from Hall, Zinko, Perryman, and Ferris (2009)

(α = 0.74) into a nine-item scale, including “I am

held very accountable for my actions at work.”We

added one additional item because of the qualitative

feedback in the pilot study, indicating an ambigous

statement which needed tobe split into two different

statements.

3 RESULTS

Bi-Correlation results are displayed in Table 1.

These results show that company structure (organic

or mechanistic) correlates negatively and

significantly with felt accountability (r = -0.19,

p<0.05), meaning that company structure needed to

be controlled in the next analysis. In multiple

regressions testing, the R

change obtained was 0.52

(see Table 2) indicating that 52% of the variance in

felt accountability could be explained only by

conscientiousness and ethical leadership.

Conscientiousness has a positive and significant

relationship with felt accountability (β = 0.70,

p<0.001) (H1 accepted), suggesting that employees

with higher conscientiousness have higher felt

accountability.

The Relationship between Conscientiousness and Perception on Ethical Leadership with Felt Accountability in Employee

Table 1: Bi-Correlation.

Variabel M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 A

e 28.29 6.81 -

2 Gende

- - 0.00-

3 Tenure 55.29 72.72 0.92** -0.01 -

4 Education

- - 0.15 0.05 0.09 -

5 Marital Status

- - 0.70** -0.28 0.60** 0.16 -

6 Organization

Structure

- - 0.61** -0.01 0.59** 0.05 0.52** -

7 Conscientiousness 4.71 0.77 -0.08 0.03 -0,09 -0.02 -0.05 -0.13 -

8 Ethical Leadership 4.78 0.55 0.20* -0.03 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.20* 0.14 -

9 Felt Accountability 4.56 0.57 -0.11 0.01 -0.11 -0.00 -0.00 -0.19* 0.73

0.15

Note: N=140 *p<0.05; **p<0.01.

0=Female, 1=Male.

0=Diploma, 1=Bachelor, 2=Master.

0=Single,

1=Married.

0=Organic,1=Mechanistic.

Table 2 also shows that ethical leadership is not

related to felt accountability (β = 0.08, ns) (H2 is

rejected). Finally, organizational structure

(controlled)can also predict employee's felt

accountability (β = -0.15, p <0.05), and organic

structure is shown to be a better predictor of

employees’ felt accountability.

4 DISCUSSION

This research found interesting results. First, we

found a significantly positive relationship between

conscientiousness and felt accountability. This is in

line with Frink and Ferris’ (1999) study in the

United States on students, demonstrating

consistency of research results in two different

countries and samples (students and employees).

The current study demonstrates that despite different

cultures and samples, conscientious individuals are

found to be more responsive to accountability.

Further, individuals are indeed the key for

employees to transform themselves accountably

(Pearson and Sutherland, 2017). If individuals do not

have the intrinsic ability to make themselves

accountable, contextual and externally built

mechanisms to support them in becoming

accountable will be useless (Messner, 2009).

Second, in contrast to Steinbauer et al. (2013), no

significant relationship was found between ethical

leadership and employees' felt accountability. This

may be because of the difference in research

participants; our study studies employees’

interactions with their superiors, which is different

to Steinbauer et al.’s (2013) use of mentor and

mentee relationships. In mentor and mentee

relationships, the direction, communication, and

social exchange is more important to the mentee,

and this may not necessarily true for employees.

Employees are expected to remain committed to

their job responsibilities even though such social

processes do not occur.

Third, the current study advances understanding

of felt accountability by showing that organizational

culture may be a strong influencer of felt

accountability. Organic structure was found to create

conditions that further enhance employees’ felt

accountability compared to a more rigid mechanistic

structure.

This may be because organizational structure is a

mechanism that can affect employee behavior

through shared values, norms, and goals (O’Neill,

Beauvais and Scholl, 2001). In organic

organizations, employees are interdependent due to

task uncertainty and the need to process information

quickly. This is closely related to felt accountability

because these employees become more accountable

when they feel that their performance will affect

others and the team through interdependence in their

tasks. Organic companies also have characteristics

such as informal communication networks between

employees and open opportunities for employees to

participate in decision-making processes (O’Neill,

Beauvais and Scholl, 2001). Individual employees

care about their image and status in the eyes of

others who evaluate them, hence their behavior and

decisions become more accountable (Hall, Frink and

Buckley, 2015). It is suggested that future studies

should conduct empirical comparisons between each

related company structure to felt accountability.

Bearing these three contributions in mind, this

research advances the personal sense of power

theory. Conscientiousness as a force facilitating task

and goal directed behavior may also lead to higher

effectiveness in task setting, contributing to higher

sense of power (Anderson, John and Keltner, 2012).

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Table 2: Multiple regression analysis.

Ste

1 Ste

Control Variable Control Variable, Conscientiousness, and Ethical Leadershi

Conscientiousness 0.70**

Ethical Leadership 0.08

Organization Structure -0.19* -0.15*

0.03* 0.55**

F 5.52 55.53

df1, df2 1.13 2.13

*) p < 0.05; **) p< 0.001

In other words, the current research highlights

that personal sense of power is also manifested in

the ability to satisfy one’s own desires (Keltner,

Anderson and Gruenfeld, 2003), in the form of

achieving rewardsand avoiding sanctions. This study

raises a question that needs to be investigated

further, which is to what extent personal sense of

power depends on personality (Anderson, John and

Keltner, 2012; Keltner, Anderson and Gruenfeld,

2003) and on contextual factors such as leaders and

organizational structure.

Further, this study also contributes to the

promotion the world’s Sustainable Development

Goals of the United Nations, especially the 8

goal

which promotes sustained, inclusive and sustainable

economic growth, full and productive employment

and decent work for all. This study points out the

importance of choosing suitable employees based on

their degree of conscientiousness and felt

accountability to help Indonesia and the world to

achieve full and productive employment, as well as

toreach the higher levels of productivity which is

supported by decent job creation (United Nations,

n.d). Employees with higher felt accountability and

concscientiousness are expected to be more

accountable and contribute to higher levels of

productivity.

In addition to theoretical and practical

implications, the current study raises important

questions related to methodological implications.

First, in contrastto many studies (Frink and Ferris

1999; Steinbauer, Renn, Taylor and Njoroge, 2013)

that onlyuse university students to examine the

understanding between felt accountability and its

antecedents and consequences in organizational

setting, this research involved individuals from two

different organizational structures, which arguably

provides a more representative sample. Furthermore,

this study also uses a time lag method to avoid

common method bias (Conway and Lance, 2010).

More effort was required to ensure thatthe same

individuals participated in the survey at the two

different times (two-week gap). Despite only having

140 participants, common method bias in this

research is avoided and the results are more reliable

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2003;

(Conway and Lance, 2010; MacKenzie and

Podsakoff, 2012) .

4.1 Conclusion

This study aimed to explore several expected

predictors of felt accountability in employees. The

results show (1) a significantly positive relationship

between conscientiousness and felt accountability,

(2) no significant relationship between ethical

leadership and felt accountability, meaning that

employees’ perception on their superiors’ ethical

leadership was not able to predict felt accountability,

and (3) a significant relationship between

organizational structure and felt accountability,

suggesting that employees in organic structures tend

to have higher felt accountability. Therefore, this

research enhances our understanding on factors that

affect employees’ felt accountability. Personality

and organizational structure are found to be two

important keys that can predict employees’ felt

accountability, highlighting their roles in achieving

the 8

sustainable goal of the United Nations.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C., John, O.P. and Keltner, D. (2012) ‘The

personal sense of power’, Journal of

Personality,80(2).

Baer, D. (2014) Business Insider: This personality trait

predicts success [Online]. Available at::

http://www.businessinsider.com/conscientiousness-

predicts-success-2014-4/?IR=T

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005)

‘Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for

construct development and testing’, Organizational

behavior and human decision processes, 97(2), pp.

117-134.

Budisatrijo, A. (2011) BBC News: Indonesian taxman

Gayus Tambunan jaild for corruption [Online].

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-

pacific-12224782

The Relationship between Conscientiousness and Perception on Ethical Leadership with Felt Accountability in Employee

Cohen, R.J., Swerdik, M.E. and Sturman, E.D. (2013)

Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction

to test and measurement.

Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010) ‘What reviewers

should expect from authors regarding common method

bias in organizational research’, Journal of Business

and Psychology, 25(3), pp. 325-334.

Frink, D.D. and Ferris, G.R. (1999) ‘The moderating

effects of accountability on the conscientiousness-

performance relationship’, Journal of Business and

Psychology, 13(4), pp. 515-524.

Frink, D.D., Hall, A.T., Perryman, A.A., Ranft, A.L.,

Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R. and Royle, T.M.

(2008) ‘Meso-level theory of accountability in

organizations’, Research in personnel and human

resources management. Emerald Group Publishing

Limited. pp. 177-245.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M.E., Mead, N.L. and Ariely, D.

(2011) ‘Unable to resist temptation: How self-control

depletion promotes unethical

behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 115(2), pp. 191-203.

Goldberg, L.R. (1992) ‘The development of markers for

the Big-Five factor structure’, Psychological

assessment, 4(1), p. 26.

Gravetter, F.J. and Forzano, L.B. (2012) Research

methods for behavioral sciences.

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

extra-role behavior’, Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 23(2), pp. 131-144.

Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D. and Buckley, M.R. (2015) ‘An

accountability account: A review and synthesis of the

theoretical and empirical research on felt

accountability’, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 38(2), pp. 204-224.

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

(2009) ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

Reputation: Mediators in the Relationship Between

Accountability and Job Performance and Stisfaction’

Journal of Leadership and Org. Studies, 15(4), pp.

381-392.

John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (2008)

Handbook of personality psychology theory and

research.

Judge, T.A. and Zapata, C.P. (2015) ‘The person-situation

debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait

activation on the validity of the big five personality

traits in predicting job performance’, Academy of

Management Journal, 58(4), pp. 1149-1179.

Keltner, D., Anderson, C. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2003)

‘Power, approach, and inhibition’, Psychol Review,

110(2), pp. 265-284.

MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012) ‘Common

method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and

procedural remedies’, Journal of Retailing, 88(4), pp.

524-555.

McCleskey, J.A. (2014) ‘Situational, transformational, and

transactional leadership and leadership development’,

Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 117-

130.

Messner, M. (2009) ‘The limits of

accountability’, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, 34(8), pp. 918-938.

O'Neill, J.W., Beauvais, L.L. and Scholl, R.W. (2001)

‘The Use of Organizational Culture and Structure to

Guide Strategic Behavior: An Information Processing

Perspective’, The Journal of Behavioral and Applied

Management, 2(2), pp. 131-149.

Park, S. (2016) ‘Measuring Accountability in the

Performance Appraisal Context: Rater Status and

Organization Culture as Determinants of Rater

Accountability’, Journal of Current Psychology, pp. 1-

10.

Pearson, H. and Sutherland, M.M. (2017) ‘The complexity

of the antecedents influencing accountability in

organisations’, European Business Review, 29(4).

Perkasa, A. (2017) CNN Indonesia: Mengenal Sjamsul

Nursalim, bekas tersangka skandal BLBI [Online].

Available at:

https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20170423233

154-12-209645/mengenal-sjamsul-nursalim-bekas-

tersangka-skandal-blbi/

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P.

(2003) ‘Common method biases in behavioral

research: a critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies’, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(5), p. 879.

Ranft, A.L., Ferris, G.R. and Perryman, A.A. (2007)

‘Dealing with celebrity and accountability in the top

job’, Human Resource Management, 46(4), pp. 671-

682.

Setyawan, F.A. (2017) CNN Indonesia: Kasus Sjamsul

Nursalim, KPK telusuri aset produsen GT Radial

[Online]. Available at::

https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20170425210

303-12-210084/kasus-sjamsul-nursalim-kpk-telusuri-

aset-produsen-gt-radial

Steinbauer, R., Renn, R.W., Taylor, R.R. and Njoroge,

P.K. (2013) ‘Ethical leadership and followers’ moral

judgment: The role of followers’ perceived

accountability and self-leadership’, Journal of

Business Ethics, 120(3), pp. 381-392.

United Nations (n.d) Transforming our world: the 2030

agenda for sustainable development [Online].

Available at:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docume

nts/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20

Development%20web.pdf

Urbina, S. (2004) Essential of psychological testing.

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

satisfaction: organizational support as a

moderator’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5),

pp. 458-471.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference