This Special Issue solicits papers related to how accountability plays a role in the changing nature of work specifically for under-studied employees. In this Special Issue we aim to advance scholarship in which employee populations are examined that, while significant in their size and scope, have failed to receive significant attention from either accountability researchers or organizational scholars broadly (Hall, Hickox, Kuan, & Sung, 2017). A key part of inclusive research requires that scholars conduct research that focuses on not only traditionally studied majority groups, but also those who historically have not been the subject of academic inquiry. These populations include minoritized or marginalized workers (e.g., Black, female, immigrant, low-income, employees with disabilities, contingent and other precarious workers).
Why Accountability? Accountability has been described as a major driver of human behavior (Hall, Frink, & Buckley, 2017) and Tetlock (1985, 1992) called accountability the "basic social contingency." In the organizational sciences, interest in accountability has increased steadily since the 1990s. Much of this research centers around the work of Tetlock, (1985, 1992), Frink and Klimoski (1998), and Hall and colleagues (2017) and centers around felt accountability, which adopts a phenomenological approach in which an individual's subjective perceptions of their accountabilities, as perception, not an objective reality, are key to shaping their behavior (Lewin, 1936). Specifically, when individuals feel accountable for their own behaviors – that is, they believe that they might be called on to justify or explain their actions or decisions – the manner in which they think, feel, respond, and behave are often affected (Tetlock, 1985, 1992).
Accounting for Unaccounted for and Under-Studied Employees. The past year has brought the issues of inequality, systemic racism, diversity, and inclusion to the forefront of public and scholarly discourse. The current pandemic and social issues such as those involving policing practices and immigration have brought to the mainstream public consciousness topics that had never received much attention: the income disparity of front-line and essential workers, systemic racism, and the additional burden traditionally marginalized groups face at work and in society. The current body of accountability literature rests heavily on assumptions and data based on middle class, Western, Caucasian, white-collar workers and college students (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005; Hall et al., 2017). While basic elements of accountability should exist across all employees, there are aspects of accountability that traditionally marginalized employees face that have not received the appropriate attention from researchers (Okazaki & Sue, 2016). We welcome papers that make theoretical and empirical contributions on this topic.
Link to Full Call:
Submission Deadline: June 30th, 2022 (extended)
Please feel free to direct any questions and initial ideas for papers to Dr. Angela Hall (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 16 (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204-224.
Hall, A., Hickox, S., Kuan, J., & Sung, C. (2017). Barriers to Employment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know?. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 763-784.
Okazaki, S., & Sue, S. (2016). Methodological issues in assessment research with ethnic minorities. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (p. 235–247). American Psychological Association.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 227-236.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 331-76.