University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining felt accountability and uneven practice in dual organizational systems: a bioecological study toward improving organizational accountability

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining felt accountability and uneven practice in dual organizational systems: a bioecological study toward improving organizational accountability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Examining Felt Accountability and Uneven Practice in Dual Organizational Systems:
A Bioecological Study Toward Improving Organizational Accountability
by
Phillip Katich

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Phillip Katich 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Phillip Katich certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Douglas Lynch
Eric Canny
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This research adds to the current literature on felt accountability and the newly examined concept
of uneven practice by looking at union machine operators in one manufacturing setting with a
dual organizational system. For this study, a dual organization is defined as an organizational
setting with multi-foci, a company, and a union. Dual organizations require multiple
commitments with complex relationships and are psychologically more challenging for
employees. This research examines how union machine operators’ perceptions of accountability
impact and shift their accountabilities and commitments to one organizational entity or the other
and determines how internal and external factors and change initiatives affect employees’
accountability perceptions over time. The goal of this study was to provide a more meaningful
balance of formal and informal accountability mechanisms and aims to reduce uneven practice in
dual organizational settings. These misaligned systems can create cognitive confusion,
organizational conflict, and stress. Both employee well-being and organizational performance are
improved when accountability systems are balanced. Based upon the participants voices the
researcher was able to identify key themes and areas where the organization could improve felt
accountability and uneven practice. Additionally, the researcher created the triangular model of
uneven practice as an organizational analysis tool to help organizations complete a full needs
analysis of organizational accountability by examining the mechanisms out of alignment,
potential causes of these misalignments, and corrective elements to build healthier systems of
accountability by improving the balance of formal and informal mechanisms of organizational
accountability to provide improvements in employee well-being and organizational efficiencies.

v
Dedication
To my selfless supportive mother, father, and grandmother who always told me I could do
anything I wanted to do. They encouraged me to seek wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of
the physical earthly world through divine guiding principles. It is through their encouragement
and divine heavenly guidance that this educational journey and dissertation has been successfully
accomplished.

vi
Acknowledgements
I want to thank my dissertation chair, co-chair, and committee; Dr. Patricia Tobey, Dr.
Kimberly Shotwell, Dr. Douglas Lynch, and Dr. Eric Canny. These top educators have
consistently provided valuable time, critiques, and feedback, which helped me expand and refine
my educational writing and critical thinking skills beyond what I thought was mentally capable.
Additionally, the many professors in my program willingly gave their subject knowledge
expertise and consistently engaged each class in theoretical and philosophical discussions
beyond the course subject. Professors who constantly encouraged me to look inward, challenging
my personal beliefs, values, biases, stereotypes, and prejudgments to expand my often-inaccurate
paradigm of the world. These professors sought willingly to provide inclusion for the many
voices that need to be at the table.
I would also like to thank and acknowledge all of my cohort class members who provided
a wealth of diversity and knowledge, encouragement, and emotional support during this
frequently intense and emotionally challenging educational journey. Without my community of
supportive classmates, this journey would have been impossible.
There are no conflicts of interest in this study. The company agreed to allow the
researcher access to union machine operators participating in this study. The union also agreed
with the study with one stipulation: no direct questions about how union machine operators felt
about the union would be asked. The study met the union’s request. There was no funding or
financial support required for this study.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology..................................................... 9
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 12
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature......................................................................................... 16
Accountability ................................................................................................................... 18
The Nature of Felt Accountability .................................................................................... 32
Organizational Politics ...................................................................................................... 37
Organizational Support ..................................................................................................... 38
Literature Deficiencies ...................................................................................................... 39
Uneven Practice ................................................................................................................ 39
Organizational Communication ........................................................................................ 40
Organizational Commitment ............................................................................................. 42

viii
Systems Theory ................................................................................................................. 55
Biological Balance: Homeostasis ..................................................................................... 60
Organizational Change ...................................................................................................... 65
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model ................................................................................. 72
The Ecological Systems of Bronfenbrenner ..................................................................... 81
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 89
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 93
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 95
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 96
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 96
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 99
Research Setting.............................................................................................................. 101
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 102
The Researcher................................................................................................................ 103
Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 105
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 108
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 110
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................. 112
Credibility and Trustworthiness ...................................................................................... 116
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................... 122
Participating Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 124
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 127
Research Questions 1 and 2 Summary Discussion ......................................................... 154
Findings Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 155

ix
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................................... 156
Chapter 4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 163
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 164
Discussion of Chapter 5 Findings ................................................................................... 167
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 181
Study Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................. 192
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 195
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 198
References ................................................................................................................................... 199
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 220
Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix ............................................................ 225
Appendix C: Informed Consent for Research ............................................................................. 226
Appendix D: Thematic Coding ................................................................................................... 232

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Data Collection Method…………………………..…………101
Table 2: Participants’ Demographics…………………………………………………………...126
Table 3: Themes of the Qualitative Analysis Research Questions 1 and 2.……………...……..129
Table 4: Themes of the Qualitative Analysis Research Question 3…………......………...........156

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Dual Organizational Systems and Relationships ............................................................ 2
Figure 2: Model of Accountability in Human Resource Management………………………….. 35
Figure 3: Theoretical Model of Occupational Commitment……………………………………..46
Figure 4: Kotter's 8-Step Change Model………………………………………………………...68
Figure 5: Elrod and Kezar's Model for Systemic Institutional Change.…………………………70
Figure 6: The New World Kirkpatrick Model.…………………………………………………..72
Figure 7: Conceptual Framework.……………………………………………………………….92
Figure 8: Revised Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………..170
Figure 9: TPM Communication Structure………………………………….…………………..179
Figure 10: The Triangular Model of Uneven Practice……………………………………….....197

xii
Abbreviations
HPB Healthy Planet Beverage Company
ES Employee Survey

PPCT Process, Person, Context, Time

LMX Leader Member Exchange

TMX Team Member Exchange

EPC Employee Participation Climate

POS Perceived Organizational Support

TPM Total Performance Management

HRM Human Resource Management

CSE Core Self-Evaluation

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Employees felt accountability within dual organizations is affected by divergent social
and structural challenges. A dual organization is defined as an organization with multi-focal
parts (Akoto, 2014). For the purpose of this study, a dual organization examines the foci of a
company and union. Within a dual organization, employees experience simultaneous
membership between two collaborating entities. Researchers suggest that accountability in
companies and unions' formal and informal structures have historically been at odds due to
incompatible events, adversarial relationships, conflicting interests, and divided employee
loyalties (Beauvais et al., 1991; Goedekke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010; Larson & Fukami,
1984). Goedekke and Kammeyer-Mueller (2010) and Klein et al. (2012), in their work on
organizational accountability, explain that misalignment and discrepant norms between dual
organizations add to the complexities of employees balancing a second accountability construct
and that membership within interdependent dual organizations requires increasing multiple
intricate interconnecting social bonds and commitments within the dual accountability systems.
Furthermore, Goedekke and Kammeyer-Mueller (2010) argue that employee perceived
support between both the organization's and union's structural and social relationships determines
how employees enact accountability episodes while working. This means that positive working
social relationships between the company and union can create positive employee perceptions of
the organizational whole, which help improve performance and employee well-being.
Additionally, adversarial or conflicting social relationships between the company and union can
create additional tension for the organization and employees, potentially causing individual or
group uncertainty, psychological stress, confusion within duties, and divided loyalty among
employees, feeling they have to choose one entity over the other. Figure 1 shows how positive
2

dual relationships equal employee well-being and how adversarial relationships can create
tension.

Figure 1
Dual Organizational Systems and Relationships

Note: This dual organizational systems and relationships in Figure 1 created by the researcher
shows two potential relationships between the company and union. Depending on how these dual
entities manage their relationships, adversarial and positive effects may be created by a dual
organizational system and these either create organizational and employee well-being or tension
and stress within the systems environment.

3

Frink and Klimoski (2004) posit these reciprocal psychological relationships between the
company and union can affect employee role accountability behavior. Furthermore, Zalawadia
(2019) asserted that employee accountability behavior determines employee task performance
within an organization and that positive employee perceptions of task performance are essential
to maximizing organizational effectiveness. The complexities of felt accountability are examined
within the meso-level ecological system of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model, where the internal
and external system forces combine to determine an employee’s choice to accept or reject
accountabilities within a given accountability episode (Frink et al., 2008: Johnson, 2008). How
dual organizations choose to balance cooperating institutional formal and informal accountability
mechanisms impacts employee commitment and how employees balance their perceptions of felt
accountability (Wang et al., 2019). Additionally, rapid changes within internal and external
systems of markets and technologies create highly dynamic and complex organizational systems
for individual employees to navigate which challenge employee perceptions of accountability
between dual organizational structures impacting individual perceptions of their accountabilities
(Ke & Zhu, 2019).
The issue of accountability is a common rhetorical thread and hot topic within today’s
dynamic political, social, and organizational systems (Dubnick, 2014a; Hall et al., 2017; Pearson
& Sutherland, 2017; Romzek, 2015). Organizational accountability mechanisms have the ability
to contribute to good governance and the ability to facilitate corporate order; however,
breakdowns within accountability constructs are not a new phenomenon within legal, political,
educational, public, private, and non-profit organizations (Hall et al., 2003; Romzek, 2015).
Accordingly, Romzek (2015) referred to “uneven practice” (p. 6), as the breakdown of
accountability systems meant to hold people and organizations accountable. Even with an
4

effective accountability system in place, organizational leadership or supervisors may fail to hold
employees accountable. Bolman and Deal (2017) estimated that most organizational problems
are generative forces of the organizations themselves. Companies create daunting standards and
then place the blame on employees for the lack of governance. Internal organizational structural
misalignments, culture gaps, communication issues, ineffective policies and procedures,
supervisor miscues, and conflicting formal and informal accountabilities all lead to employee
psychological confusion and potential internal and external tension regarding organizational
accountability standards.
Organizations may succeed, fail, or lie somewhere in between these accountability
extremes based upon their ability to bring these structural and relational mechanisms of
accountability into balance. Within the organization, it is a constant balancing act between
internal and external forces and how the company decides to build their relationship with the
union that supports organizational accountability systems. Pearson and Sutherland (2017) argue
that each organizational goal needs to be accompanied by an accountability system built upon
mechanisms that seek to achieve maximum employee accountability levels. For without
accountability, employees would be able to act without regard for the consequences of their
behavior despite the goals of the organization (Frink & Klimoski, 2004).
Context and Background of the Problem
The subject of this research is the Healthy Planet Beverage Company (HPB, a
pseudonym).
1
The company was founded in Europe as a producer of healthy food products and

1. Information derived from organizational documents and websites not cited to protect
anonymity.
5

expanded internationally in the early 1900s. Decades of growth and innovation have built HPB
into a large dynamic international food manufacturer with many healthy food brands. This
research focused on one specific manufacturing site located in the United States, which is tied to
a local union and has an organizational goal of creating a climate of sustainable engagement.
The company and union have over a 35-year history. At times, this history has led to positive
relationships, intense negotiations, employee grievances, and organizational conflicts between
union and company leadership. This study has already identified that it is the positive or negative
relationship between the company and union that is the key identifier for union employees
positive or negative perceptions toward the organization, and their work-related well-being.
The 2019 Employee Survey1 (ES) was an organizational survey provided by HPB which
measured the ideal of organizational sustainable engagement. HPB defined sustainable
engagement as the intensity of an employee’s connection to their organization marked by a
committed effort to achieve company goals in settings that support productivity and maintain
personal well-being (HPB, 2019). According to HPB (2019) research, companies with high
sustainable engagement levels outperform organizations with low and traditional engagements.
In this study, dual organizational commitment, felt accountability, uneven practice, and
sustainable engagement appear as intertwined conceptual elements. However, the organizational
goal of sustainable engagement was the only component used from the ES survey results. No
further document analysis was completed nor is required for this study.
Dual commitment is successful when the organization’s employees are simultaneously
committed to the organization and the union equally (Wombacher & Felfe, 2017). According to
Zalawadia (2019), dual organizational commitment exists when employee commitment involves
attitudes toward a sense of company and union identification, feelings of engagement in
6

company and union stewardship duties, and feelings of accountability toward both organizational
targets. Dual organizations have distinct formal and informal accountability mechanisms that
require synergy to achieve organizational performance goals (Romzek et al., 2012).
The problem of practice for my dissertation research combines the study of felt
accountability and uneven practice within dual organizational systems. Felt accountability
explores individual employee perceptions about accountabilities within organizational
relationships. According to Romzek (2015), uneven practice describes existing accountability
systems’ failure to hold collaborating entities accountable through existent formal and informal
accountability mechanisms. Alone, single organizational accountabilities are challenging to
balance. Balancing informal and formal accountability systems between two organizational
entities, a company, and a union, is much more difficult to achieve and can tilt accountability in
the wrong direction causing organizational disruption (Romzek, 2015) rather than achieving
employee well-being and performance goals.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Understanding the employee’s perceptions of accountability becomes critical to an
organization and highlights the greater importance for studying dual organizational
accountability. Therefore, this study focused on the impact of internal and external influences on
employee perceptions of accountability, what is referred to as felt accountability. Internal
influences may include genetics, heredity, sociocultural, and relational factors in the employee’s
immediate environment. External factors may include formal accountability mechanisms, union
and company culture and climate, and external environmental forces beyond the employee’s
control. This study aimed to design a more balanced, meaningful organizational accountability
system advancing higher levels of dual commitment for union employees to elevate employee
7

well-being and reduce situations of uneven practice, which may improve the organizational goal
of sustainable engagement at HPB.
This research is a phenomenological examination into one manufacturing plant within an
international manufacturing organizational accountability climate. The study examined the
perceptions of employee accountability, felt accountability, and how employees make meaning
of and feel about accountability constructs toward dual organizations; the company and the
union. Additionally, it looked at how these perceptions of accountability can change over time
through episodic interviewing. According to Romzek (2015) uneven practice can create varying
levels of personal accountability. Accountability systems are social systems, and formal and
informal accountability mechanisms require deeper analysis within the dual organizational
framework (Dubnick, 2014a; Frink et al., 2008). It is the following research questions that have
guided this study.
1. What internal influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB inside the
immediate environment?
2. What external influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB within the distal
environment?
3. How does the culture, climate, and context of dual organizations and uneven practice
impact employee felt accountability?
Importance of the Study
Failure to foster felt accountability among employees towards both the organization and
the union can lead to suboptimal performance (Goeddeke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010).
Tenbensel et al. (2014) postulated that managing multiple accountabilities can be challenging
and potentially debilitating for employees. Goeddeke and Kammeyer-Mueller (2010) claimed
8

that when employees participate in dual organizations, they must play various roles which
creates the potential for divided loyalties between targets. The idea of divided loyalty identifies
that an employee’s attitude and commitment toward one target are likely to influence their
attitudes and commitment toward the second target. According to Goeddeke and Kammeyer-
Mueller (2010), divided loyalty is common in unionized workplaces and dual organizations.
Without employee commitment towards both targets, there may be cognitive confusion and
uncertainty in their perceptions of accountability within the organizational working relationships.
Organizational narratives about governance systems suggested that success is achieved
and sustained through individual-levels of accountability (Dubnick, 2014a). Li et al. (2019)
assert that a clear climate of corporate and union collaboration is required to positively influence
employee accountability episodes. Bolman and Deal (2017) claimed that a company’s primary
responsibility is to nurture positive relationships with other collaborating entities, like unions.
Cooperation between a company and union assists in reducing employee individual and group
level cognitive conflicts and reduces grievances between employees within the union and
company dual leadership structure. Cooperation brings the two targets closer together, improving
felt accountability, reducing uneven practice, enhancing employee well-being, and improving
overall organizational performance. When accountability mechanisms within the organization are
balanced, employees experience higher levels of homeostasis, which improves employee
satisfaction, and optimizes organizational performance (Goedekke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010).
When accountability systems fail to hold employees accountable, or leaders fail to use existing
mechanisms to hold employees accountable, poor performance and uneven practice can occur
(Romzek, 2015). There is currently no existing empirical research on felt accountability and
9

uneven practice within the dual accountability system of company-union relationships, nor using
open systems theories.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The problem of practice for my dissertation research combined the study of felt
accountability and uneven practice within dual organizational systems. Felt accountability
explores individual employee perceptions about accountabilities within organizational
relationships, while uneven practice tells us why systems are imbalanced. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems theory provides the lens to view this problem of practice.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994, 1995a, 1995b) model consists of a basic set of nested principles
that examine the relationship between an individual and their surrounding environments.
Allowing the linking of internal and external systems together to determine employee
development within an organizational setting. This research is a phenomenological examination
into union machine operator’s perceptions of felt accountability and uneven practice within one
manufacturing facility. This study identifies how union machine operators feel toward and
balance their dual commitments toward two cooperative or sometimes uncooperative targets, the
union and the company. This balance affects employee felt accountability and uneven practice,
and impacts how an employee feels toward one target or the other. Lastly, an employee’s felt
accountability determines the employee’s behavior within the context of a specific accountability
episode.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model is an open, multi-level systems model. In an
open system, individual development never happens alone as individuals within the environment
impact each other’s development by playing supportive or disruptive roles. Moreover, human
growth and development happen through the interactions of two or more systems. Regev et al.
10

(2013) posit that organizations can be studied as open systems because they constantly interact
with the internal and external environmental forces that shape them. Additionally, Frink et al.
(2008) claim that workplace accountability contains multi-level system interactions. Vibert
(2014) notes that viewing accountability through a systems lens determines how individual
power is exercised through inter-relationships and subsystems. Understanding how an individual
exercises their power within inter-relationships and subsystems enables an organization to
discover which subsystems are working or not working and correct and adjust accordingly.
This study utilizes a qualitative methodology. Qualitative methods are appropriate for
phenomenological studies and exploratory work and provide compelling research when
collecting data in words (Robson & McCartan, 2016). According to Creswell and Creswell
(2018), phenomenological research describes a human beings' lived experiences. Qualitative
research helps examine the complexity of human social problems and gathered data from human
beings' meanings and experiences. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explain that data from
qualitative studies are collected within-participant type settings, like interviews, where data
emerges from inductive themes and the researcher interprets the socially constructed data.
Robson and McCartan (2006) explain that in qualitative design, concepts and ideas emerge when
participants describe the natural world as they have lived, felt, and explored the nature of their
personal reality living inside the existing social system. These descriptions become the
qualitative data.
The worldview selected for this study is pragmatism. A pragmatist worldview focuses on
the inner world of human experience, practical matters, and inquiry rather than theory (Robson &
McCartan, 2016). Consequently, pragmatism emphasizes what lens works at the time, the
discovery of knowledge, and the meaning of existing truth, and explores pluralistic approaches to
11

deductive reasoning, meaning, and how knowledge changes over time. This study applied
pragmatism to understand the historical, social, and political perceptions of employees’ felt
accountability and uneven practice in a dual organizational setting using episodic interviewing
techniques (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). According to Tulving (2002) episodic interviewing is
used when there is a need to reach back in time to ask about participants’ perceptions of past
events from their episodic memory. Episodic memory enables one to remember past experiences
in the present day.
The data collection method used in this study was semi-structured participant interviews.
The type of interviewing technique used for this study were episodic interviews. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) stated that interview questions for qualitative research ask open-ended and less
structured investigative questions. The semi-structured interviews were “flexibly worded” (p.
110) and guided by a list of protocol questions to be explored. Using episodic questions allowed
the researcher to view the past perceptions of participants experiences. By applying a more open
exploration of data it has allowed the researcher to respond to emerging themes and examine new
ideas on the topic of felt accountability and uneven practice.
The sample or unit of analysis studied was the individual union machine operator, with a
minimum of 6-years tenure, working within various departments of HPB. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) identify that nonprobability sampling is the method most used in qualitative research.
Additionally, the most popular non-probabilistic sampling method is purposive sampling.
Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to gather participants. These sampling
methods allowed the researcher to purposely select participants whose productive relationships
could help provide the most comprehensive and useful answers to the research questions by
identifying specific participants, examining their feelings, asking for understanding and personal
12

insights into the research subject (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful
interviewing of select union employees allowed for examining and identifying the core issues of
the problem of practice, which provided meaningful insight into employee well-being, felt
accountability, dual commitment, and uneven practice.
The Researcher
The researcher worked in the HPB organization for over 6-years and has personal
perceptions, knowledge, and understanding of the accountability environment. The researcher
has experienced the conflicts and tensions within the accountability system. The researcher has
witnessed the challenges of leadership enforcement and union machine operators’ accountability
choices in a wide variety of accountability episodes and the impact accountability confusion has
upon employees within the dual organizational structure. For this reason, the researcher desires
to build a more meaningful system of accountability that will enhance employee well-being,
balance the organizations formal and informal scale of accountability, and potentially improve
organizational performance.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions provide meaning and clarity for use throughout this study.
Accountability
Researchers cited various definitions of accountability that relate to this study. Frink and
Klimoski (1998) defined accountability as “the adhesive which binds social systems together” (p.
3). Dubnick (2014a) explained that accountability is a moral force brought about by pressure
through internal and external forces. Tetlock (1985) asserted that accountability is the need for an
employee to justify their actions. This study defines accountability as a social system which
pressures employees, as free agents, to justify their work-related behaviors to someone else.
13

Accountability Systems, Structures, and Mechanisms
These include the overarching formal regulations and external factors and drivers which
formally and informally encourage operators to be accountable within a variety of organizational
settings and contexts.
Dual Organization
A dual organization is a nested organizational setting with multi-foci (Akoto, 2014). For
the purpose of this research, a dual organization nests a union within a company, and in this
study, we refer to the union as the union, the company as the company. The organization is the
combined collective of the company and union (Lichtenstein, 2002c).
Dual Commitment
Dual organizational commitment requires a multiple multi-focal commitment. Dual
commitment is defined as the “positive correlations between favorable attitudes toward the union
and the employee” (Beauvais et al., 1991, p. 176). Wombacher and Felfe (2017) posit that
successful dual organizations require dual commitments. Therefore, this study defines dual
commitment as an employee having positive feelings and commitment, toward both the company
and union, which enables the employee to feel sustainable engagement, hold themselves
accountable, and optimize their performance.
Felt Accountability
Felt accountability is the term used to describe individual perceptions of accountability
within the literature (Tetlock, 1992). Felt accountability revolves around an employee’s
perception of being held personally accountable. The most common definition of felt
accountability in the literature is the real or perceived likelihood that the actions, decisions, or
behaviors of an individual will be evaluated by some salient audience, resulting in the potential
14

for the individual to receive either rewards or sanctions based on this expected or routine
evaluation (Hall et al., 2003). Pan and Patel (2020) state that perceived accountability “refers to
individuals acquired sense of accountability in their interactions with social and organizational
systems” (p. 2). This definition demonstrates that employees have already acquired individual
personal perceptions of accountability prior to engaging in a social or organizational work-
related accountability setting. Therefore, this study defines individual-level felt accountability as
a sociocultural personal value driven state of mind, frequently based upon the employee’s
personal feelings, and their values of being answerable within work-related relationships
(Hochwarter et al., 2005; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015; Pan & Patel, 2020).
Individual and Organizational Homeostasis
Individual homeostasis is defined as a biological living organisms’ ability to continuously
maintain certain operative variables within a range of compatible survival values (Damasio &
Damasio, 2016). Organizational homeostasis is defined as the process whereby organizations
maintain constant internal states to be independent of external environmental “perturbations”
(Regev et al., 2013. p. 2). In this study, both individual and organizational homeostasis are
discussed, however there is not ample time to examine these subjects in profound biological
detail.
Systems Theory
A system is defined as a cohesive group of interdependent parts within a hierarchy that
has at least two interconnected elements that may be considered open or closed (Kast &
Rosenzweig, 1972). Open systems must interact with other environments for survival, where
closed systems are insensitive to environmental deviations, surviving independently. This study
uses open systems theory, which coincides with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model. The
15

ecological model is considered an open system where multi-level systems interact with each
other and have the ability in this study to affect individual employee felt accountability, uneven
practice, and organizational accountability behaviors within various contexts.
Uneven Practice
Romzek (2015) applies the term “uneven practice” (p. 4), as the failure of using existing
accountability governance arrangements to hold employees accountable. Accordingly, uneven
practice may include insufficient organizational accountability systems design, a failure to use
the existing governance systems properly, or inaccurate leadership implementation of
accountability mechanisms.
Organization of the Study
Looking forward, Chapter Two includes details of the conceptual framework and the
theory of change that is used to implement the study. Chapter Three discusses the qualitative
methodological framework, pragmatic worldview, the selection of participants, the research
setting, data collection, data analysis, reliability, and validity. Chapter Four is a discussion of the
actual acquired research data, interview protocol questions, themes, and coding. Lastly, Chapter
Five comprises the study findings and provides four recommendations available for
organizations to assist in building better balanced accountability systems. Additionally, future
recommendations for research are provide in Chapter Five.

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The problem of practice for my dissertation research combines the study of felt
accountability and uneven practice within dual organizational systems. Felt accountability
explores individual employee perceptions about accountabilities within organizational
relationships. Uneven practice tells why and how the formal and informal accountability systems
are balanced by the organizational mechanisms of accountability. Since the year 2000, there has
been a renewed interest in accountability research within Western society. From 2010 till present
scholars have contributed to a growing body of literature on felt accountability (Chen et al.,
2016; Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Hall et al., 2017; Royle, 2017; Schillemans et al., 2020;
Wallace et al., 2011). Dubnick (2014a) claimed that the prevailing demand and attention to
accountability is growing due to increasing societal disruption during these prevailing,
transitional, and turbulent times.
This accountability demand directly impacts political institutions and organizations. Frink
et al. (2008) stated that too much accountability brings intensity, causes organizational stressors,
and leads to negative performance consequences. Flinders (2011) also cautioned that adding too
much accountability may be problematic because adding additional governance mechanisms may
suffocate the ensuing organizational capacity or morale. Flinders (2011) identified an
integrity/efficiency trade-off within governance mechanisms or what Flinders considers an
accountability dilemma. The literature identified that too little accountability can lead to
organizational dysfunction (Frink et al., 2008). Additionally, Dubnick (2014a) asserted that
accountability must balance informal and formalized accountability governance systems to be
effective.
17

Literature on accountability looked at accountability from multiple theoretical and
conceptual models, and addresses multiple accountability concepts and constructs (Bovens &
Schillemans, 2014; Hall et al., 2017; Hochwarter et al., 2005; Pan & Patel, 2020). However, only
a few studies advocate examining the phenomenon from the multi-level systems perspective
using Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et al., 2008;
Johnson, 2008). Organizational accountability literature during the 1980-90s is limited and
focused on the concepts of judgment and choice in laboratory settings to help explain individual
accountability behavior (Tetlock, 1985, 1992; Tetlock et al., 1989). In the 2000s, researchers took
accountability research out of the lab and into real-world organizational settings to help define
employee perceptions of accountability in different contexts (Ferris et al., 2002; Frink &
Klimoski, 2004; Heinric, 2002; Lanivich et al., 2010).
All previous research adds to understanding the complexities of accountability constructs
in multiple contexts; however, the researcher has identified key articles of inquiry, critical to this
study, that distinguish the need to view accountability from a multi-level systems perspective
(Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et al., 2008; Johnson, 2008). The claim from these researchers
(Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et al., 2008; Johnson, 2008) is that the single linear models
used in most previous accountability research fails to capture the holistic complexities of
organizational accountability. These researchers (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et al., 2008;
Johnson, 2008) specifically highlight the meso-level system of Bronfenbrenner's ecological
framework and systems theory as giving improved functionality and meaning to the
accountability construct. Comparatively, Dubnick (2011) asserted that fully understanding
organizations requires viewing organizations as accountability systems.
18

This study added to the small but growing body of accountability literature looking at felt
accountability and uneven practice through an open multi-system framework and reviews
accountability through biological and ecological system lenses. This research systematically
analyzes how multiple biological and ecological systems affect employees' accountability and
development within the dual organizational structure of a company and union. Finally, this
research discusses how dual organizational commitment impacts felt accountability and uneven
practice, and focuses on the importance of linking and balancing dual organizational
accountabilities through biological and ecological systems lenses. Additionally, the researcher
created the new triangular model of uneven practice to help organizations complete a capacity
analysis of current organizational accountability systems and make improvements to better
balance accountabilities in the future.
Accountability
Accountability comes into existence according to the mechanisms by which the systems
of governance and relationships form (Dubnick, 2014a). However, different social structures
provide the context of accountability research (Dubnick, 2003). Formally, accountability is the
implied promise of organizational performance, and the implied use of control to oversee
operational behaviors within bureaucratic organizations (Dubnick, 2014a). Informally,
accountability refers to the employees attitudes and behaviors combined with the associated
structural mechanisms at play within a hierarchical organization (Royle, 2017). Additionally,
Lerner and Tetlock (2003) identified the critical contextual factors that shape the when and why
of accountability systems which include; the type and timing, the audience and knowledge of
their sources of biases in decision making, the audience’s amplification of the bias, the choice of
tasks, and pre or post judgments and decision making. According to Olsen (2014), accountability
19

requires that someone be answerable to someone else, and that they are then obligated to explain
their actions or inactions. Looking at organizational accountability literature identified the need
to look at organizational accountability through a dynamic multi-level systems framework rather
than a single linear lens (Frink et al., 2008; Johnson, 2008; Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019).
The constructs of societal and organizational relationships are the informal accountability
systems that create the personal relationships of social coordination. Accountability systems look
at the entirety of all the formal and informal subsystems that account for accountability within
that society or organization (Vibert, 2014). According to Tetlock (1992), organizations map
employee accountabilities through accountability systems. Dubnick (2014a) claims that these
formal system mechanisms may include incentives, performance reviews, completed projects,
policies and procedures. While the informal system mechanisms include social relationships and
psychological relational bonds, all of which develop an employee’s perception of accountability
and commitment to the organization or organizations, as in dual accountability systems.
Accountability systems are created through implicit and explicit means within
organizations, based upon the institution’s use of effective mechanisms to maintain both formal
and relational accountability (Vibert, 2014). Bronfenbrenner's ecological model provided a
conceptual framework of principles to analyze reciprocal relationships among people and their
environment (Adu & Oudshoorn, 2020). According to Vibert (2014) all the environments within
the system play upon each other with dynamic interactions to determine the ontological meaning
of accountability for each individual employee.
Origins of Social Governance
A review of the biological origins of accountability and governance demonstrate that all
living organisms, societies, and organizational structures operate under fundamental elements of
20

accountability (Dubnick, 2014a; Damasio & Damasio, 2016; Hall, et al., 2017). In fact,
governance has its early evolutionary beginnings within simple unicellular organisms (Damasio,
2018). According to Damasio (2018) unicellular organisms relied on chemical molecules to sense
and respond to conditions within their environment and to guide the actions and behaviors of
other cells thereby allowing them to flourish in the presence of others. Their unifying goal was to
maintain their own social cellular environments, which they accomplish through developing
systems of accountability and collaboration.
These unicellular organisms are the earliest forms of life known to create social
governance systems for survival (Damasio, 2018). Accordingly, they accomplish this by holding
other cells within their social environment accountable by using principles of social governance.
One condition of social governance is using accountability behaviors to maintain and balance the
organizing cells to operate according to the rules of homeostasis, which retains balance
(Damasio, 2018). Individual biological and organizational homeostasis is a critical element in
accountability. It requires employee perceptions of accountability and organizations to
collectively collaborate for survival while balancing their commitments and loyalties toward
achieving organizational goals and objectives.
Definitions of Accountability
According to Damasio and Damasio (2016) the beginnings of social governance began
with the survival of unicellular organisms, however, researchers identified the beginnings of
accountability theory as having roots in agency theory, where someone is answerable to another
(Mero et al., 2014), contingency theory, which identifies that employee actions are contingent on
internal and external factors (Tetlock, 1985), and control theory where the organizations need to
create employee controls, like policies and procedures to maintain employee control (Dubnick,
21

2014b). Definitions of accountability vary based upon contextual factors. However,
accountability is much more than a simple term to be defined (Dubnick, 2014b). At the center of
accountability is a “powerful conceptual construct” (Dubnick, 2011, p. 30) that plays an
important role in how people form their perceptions of organizations. Thus, how companies
create and administer organizational accountability mechanisms with the system impact an
employee’s perceptions of their accountabilities. Frink and Klimoski (1998) argue that
accountability is the bond that ties organizational social systems together. Researchers also argue
that accountability requires that someone be answerable to someone else for their conduct
(Dubnick, 2014b; Hall et al., 2003; Mero et al., 2014; Tetlock, 1985). Accountability is a moral
force brought about by pressure through internal and external forces, and accountability requires
that employees must justify their actions through judgment and choice (Dubnick, 2014a; Tetlock,
1985). Accountability is a highly complex construct, and a balanced accountability system is
required for employee well-being and long-term organizational survival.
Sinclair (1995) asserts that there is no arguing the need for accountability, however
defining it is more challenging. Sinclair (1995) equates accountability to a “chameleon” (p. 219),
in that it changes and exists in many forms and is given multiple dimensions of meaning based
upon its context. Additionally, Sinclair (1995) adds that accountability requires compromises
toward others. Therefore, employees constantly construct their accountabilities as they weave
personal experiences of responsibility, fairness, justice, and choice into their cognitive
accountability framework (Sinclair, 1995; Tetlock, 1985). Moreover, Hall and Ferris (2011)
argue that without accountability, employees would feel free to do whatever they choose, and
chaos would reign in the workplace. Additionally, they claim that the strength of any balanced
accountability system is the ability to keep workers focused and engaged within the organization.
22

Balancing the Scale of Accountability
Accountability scholars identify two common accountability structures: institutional or
formal accountability structure, and relational, social, or informal accountability structures (Dewi
& Riantoputra, 2019; Dubnick, 2011; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Balancing the scale of
organizational accountability requires looking at both formal and informal governance structures
of accountability (Dubnick, 2014b; Ferris et al. 1999; Frink & Klimoski, 2004). By
deconstructing ontological accountability along a continuum, Dubnick (2014b) places
institutional or formal accountability on one side, and relational, social, or informal
accountability on the other side.
Institutional Accountability
Institutional or formal accountability mechanisms include organizational policies and
procedures, formal state and federal policies, legal, and contractual accountabilities (Dubnick,
2014b). Identifying formal accountability, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) contend that
accountability is at the center of all formal contractual relationships. They conceptualize the
“accountability binary” (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 17) as a director who oversees a
provider. Within the binary, the director has power over the provider to reward, punish, or
replace the provider. Of note, is that Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) conclude that
organizational dysfunction naturally occurs because directors and providers have different
informal values, goals, information, and rights. Their viewpoint provides a discordant interaction
between formal and informal accountabilities.
Within organizational systems, formal accountability structures become the human
resource policies which become organizational control mechanisms designed to monitor
employees and shape workers' accountability behavior (Eisenhardt, 1985; Hall et al., 2003). In
23

addition, formal mechanisms of accountability and control within an organization are subject to
employee interpretations, thus two workers facing similar formal organizational accountability
control systems may experience significant differences in their perceived levels of accountability
(Hall & Ferris, 2011). Researchers suggest that simply implementing formal accountability as
part of organizational governance without understanding individual-level perceived or felt
accountability does little to encourage worker sustainable engagement (Ogden et al., 2006;
Guidice et al., 2016; Crossan et al., 2017).
The extant literature on accountability has largely focused on formal or imposed
accountability mechanisms that entail surveillance style controls (Frink and Klimoski 2004, Pan
& Patel, 2020). Under formal accountability, individuals are required to justify their views and
conduct to superiors who have the power to confer rewards or punishment (Tetlock, 1985; Beu &
Buckley, 2001; Unerman & O’Dwyer, 2006; Pan & Patel, 2020). Formal accountability is widely
prevalent in union workplaces and is imposed by various contractual agreements, governance,
policies, and formal procedures (Visser et al., 2018). Evidence shows that formal accountability
generally results in more complex cognitive processing for employees that may or may not be
positive (Bartlett et al., 2014; Mero et al., 2014; Messier et al., 2014; Pan & Patel, 2020). The
effect of implementing formal control mechanisms may be contingent on a variety of factors,
types of tasks, and quality of relationships (Pan & Patel, 2020). While these formal
accountability mechanisms deal with the organizational control of employees, they occupy just
one side of the accountability scale.
Relational Accountability
On the other side of the accountability continuum lies relational, social, or informal
accountability (Dubnick, 2014b; Frink et al., 2008; Frink & Klimoski, 2004). The literature
24

proposes that the informal or social accountability structure is the most influential element in
defining accountable relationships between organizations and their employees (Frink et al., 2008;
Dubnick, 2014b). Informal sources of accountability may include the group’s norms, the
corporate culture, social climate, feelings of loyalty to peers, superiors, and customers, with
healthy respect for organizational goals (Frink & Klimoski, 2004). According to Dubnick
(2014b) relational accountability involves one's willingness to account for individual behaviors
within social relationships and is created through social coordination, rather than formal
mechanisms. Dubnick (2014b) posits that for accountability relationships to be understood, they
must speak the same language, be open to exchanges, shift mindsets, and promote persuasion
and practices of reciprocity. Accordingly, relational accountability episodes may only require a
simple word of mouth agreement or personal principles and values of a participant's actions to
hold informal accountabilities in place. These informal constructs are developed through implicit
psychological relational bonds (Dubnick, 2014b).
When control mechanisms within relational accountability systems are required to hold
people accountable, such as contractual agreements, laws, and regulations, accountability
episodes quickly shift from informal to formal accountability (Dubnick, 2014b). This shift from
informal to formal accountability includes the placement of formal mechanisms to replace the
informal relationships with formal policy mechanisms which can harm the sense of relational
accountability (Dubnick, 2014b). According to Dubnick getting accountability right requires
balancing both formal and informal structures.
Researchers increasingly recognize the importance of informal individual intrinsic
feelings of accountability, which constitutes a value-based dimension that is different from rules,
regulations, and surveillance-based formal accountability mechanisms (Agyemang et al., 2017;
25

Cohen, 2016; Hall et al., 2003; Hall & Ferris 2011; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015). Evidence
shows that individual accountability behavior is driven by individual-level perceived or felt
accountability, which is considered a state of mind where individuals feel a need to be
intrinsically answerable to themselves and others based on their own values (Hochwarter et al.,
2007; Hall & Ferris 2011; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015). In the present research, perceived
accountability refers to individuals’ acquired sense of accountability within the interactions of
social and organizational systems. Taking the phenomenological perspective, perceived
accountability represents a mental state developed in the socialization process where individuals
are exposed to the “web of accountabilities”, which may be seen as a normal part of day-to-day
life (Hall et al., 2017, p. 216; Gelfand et al., 2004; Hall & Ferris, 2011). Pan and Patel (2020)
suggest that organizations consider improving employee’s perceptions of informal accountability
through training programs that can enrich individual-level employee accountability perceptions
and improve organizational accountability.
The Balance of Accountability Systems
How organizations choose to balance conforming formal institutional policies and
relational accountability mechanisms creates employee's perceptions of felt accountability
toward the organization (Frink et al., 2008). The challenge in dual organizations is that two
different organizational identities working in cooperation may have different cultural climates,
making it difficult to align accountability systems, so that employees conceptually perceive only
one accountability system (Ke & Zhu, 2019). There are increasing calls for research to advance
the knowledge of accountability framework and explore whether and how felt accountability
might go beyond externally imposed formal accountability mechanisms to impact long-term
employee’s behaviors (Chen et al., 2016; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015; Ogden et al., 2006;
26

Steinbauer et al., 2014; Visser et al., 2018). The formal and informal mechanisms of
accountability balance the accountability scale; however, the systems and mechanisms of
accountability establish the complex foundations of cellular, societal, and organizational
accountability.
Systems, Structures, and Mechanisms of Accountability
Discrepancies in literature confuse the terminology of systems, structures, and
mechanisms of accountability. Hall et al. (2003) claimed that the terms structures and
mechanisms are used interchangeably within most accountability literature. The complexities of
accountability systems help weave accountability mechanisms into organizational structures.
Systems and structures of accountability according to Dubnick and Romzek (1987) refer to the
overarching culture, mission, markets, regulations, environmental factors, and procedural
regulations formally and informally created to hold people to account. Dubnick (2014a) posited
different social systems provide the contextual frameworks of accountability. Additionally,
Dubnick (2003) claimed informal and formal structures both emerge as a means of feedback and
control via governance for organizations. Tetlock (1992) added that organizations must map
accountability through their accountability system, and system mechanisms may include
contracts, incentives, reviews, and job performance, which determine an employee’s
organizational commitment level. Vibert (2014) proposed a more holistic approach arguing that
organizations view accountability systems through all the subsystems that create employee
accountability within the structure of the organization.
To account for these differences and align the open system theory and Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model, this study views an accountability system according to Dubnick and Romzek
(1987) who argue systems are comprised of cultures, missions, markets, regulations, and external
27

environmental factors. According to Frink et al. (2008) there are similarities between structures
and mechanisms, as accountability systems weave mechanisms into structures such as formal
organizational policies, procedures, and informal norms, and cultural climates (Dubnick, 2014a;
Frink et al., 2008). Within accountability structures, mechanisms emerge as a means of providing
feedback to employees to create the required measures of organizational governance and control
(Dubnick, 2003).
It is the effectual impact of all these subsystems working together which drives increased
organizational accountability between the organization and stakeholders (Frink et al., 2008). In
the opinion of Dubnick (2014a), fully understanding an organization requires looking at
organization accountability systems, because organizations' accountability systems involve
relationships to time, space, temporality, ethicality and constitute role expectations. Therefore,
organizational culture, climate, values, and norms help define each individual employee’s
accountability actions and behavior referred to as accountability episodes (Dubnick, 2014a).
Understanding accountability systems, structures, and mechanisms is critical to understanding
the concept of organizational accountability and performance, but it is employee conduct within
each individual accountability episode that determines whether an employee is actually willing to
be held accountable or not within the given context.
Accountability Episodes
Individual accountability episodes are at the heart of organizational performance and
employees make personal decisions of judgment and choice to be held accountable or not
(Lerner & Tetlock, 2003; Tetlock, 1992). For the organization it is important to hold the right
people accountable because holding the wrong people accountable, or not holding people
accountable at all, may corroborate organizational ineffectiveness and uneven practice (Dubnick,
28

2014a; Romzek, 2015). Tetlock (1992) states that workers have judgement and choice and they
claim the rights to and choose whom to be held accountable to, within the organization and
within each individual accountability episode.
Looking at judgment and choice, Lerner and Tetlock (2003) identify the ability of an
employee to make an accountability decision is based upon the conditions, circumstances, and
context of the individual accountability episode. Additionally, Lerner and Tetlock (2003) show
that accountability decisions are contingent upon multiple individual and informal social factors,
including; employees maintaining their social identity, workers tailoring judgment and choice
responses to their audience, the employee's opinions of co-workers, organizational status, and the
social context of the episode. Lerner and Tetlock (2003) also explain the conditions that improve
judgment and decision-making within accountability episodes includes the timing of pre-
decisional or postdecisional accountability prompts, types of accountability, and the confirmation
of justification of thought.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) postulate that decision-makers, called providers, shift
their goals according to how well they know and anticipate the director's response within the
accountability episode. Likewise, during work-related accountability episodes employees are
mostly concerned with maintaining their employee identity, which can potentially result in
justifying choices or attempting to convince others they have made the right choice (Lerner &
Tetlock, 2003). Additionally, Lerner and Tetlock conclude that accountability systems can be
structurally engineered by the organization to encourage desired behaviors of judgment and
choice and discourage undesirable forms of judgment and choice. Along with judgment and
choice, the complexities of accountability decisions are judged by how decisions are reached,
and are defined as process and outcome accountabilities.
29

Process and Outcome Accountability
Multiple researchers (Dalla Via et al., 2019; de Langhe et al., 2011; Pan & Patel, 2020;
Patil et al., 2016; Tetlock et al., 2013) discussed how individual employee accountability
processes and outcomes are a vital part of choice and judgment decisions. Furthermore,
understanding the differences between process versus outcome accountability is critical to
identifying how an employee reaches an accountability decision. Patil et al. (2016) explain that
when faced with an accountability decision, the decision-maker must determine whether to
conform to or deviate from the cultural norms. Potential accountability decision-making errors
may be viewed as “excessive conformity” (Patil et al., 2016, p. 282) by sticking too close to the
rules, or “excessive deviation” (p. 282) where employees stray too far from the rules. Both of
these extremes have implications on the cognitive state of employees and organizational
performance. Additionally, an employee’s decision toward process or outcome accountability is
dependent upon the homogeneity of the organizational climate (i.e., values, culture, goals, vision,
and leadership). This suggests that incongruent climates or a combination of misaligned
accountability systems may lead to more errors in employee accountability decision making
(Patil et al., 2016).
Pan and Patel (2020) review process and outcome accountability by looking at
employees’ high or low perceptions of accountability, and the lens of formal accountability
mechanisms in the field of accounting. These researchers noted that employees who scored
higher on intrinsic perceived accountability measures did not require higher imposed formal
accountability, meaning that an employee’s perceived accountability is intrinsically stable and is
not reliant on additional external formal accountability mechanisms. In contrast, employees
scoring lower on perceived accountability measures required additional levels of formal
30

accountability mechanisms to meet the same performance standards (Pan & Patel, 2020). This
research is important because it recognizes that employees may gain their perceptions of
accountability through individual socialization processes and enact them within the work
environment. Hall et al. (2017) describe these socialization processes as a complex “web of
accountabilities” (p. 216) that view an employee’s normal mental state of being accountable, and
then becomes a personal reflection of their individual accountability when they enter the
workplace. This demonstrates that individual level felt accountability by employees is diffused
into the organizational workplace and can significantly impact work related accountability
processes.
Both de Lange et al. (2011) and Tetlock (2013) explain how people are held accountable
for the decision-making processes used in reaching their end goal, and how employees achieve
their desired outcomes within the accountability process. They further explain that process
accountability employees are accountable for how they do their work and accomplish key
organizational objectives, which involves the means and ethics workers use to reach the
organizational goals. Contrastingly, in outcome accountability, managers evaluate employees on
their ability to obtain the desired bottom-line results, with no regards to the means or ethics (de
Langhe et al., 2011; Tetlock et al., 2013).
Tetlock et al. (2013) argue that managers need to balance process and outcome
accountability for their employees to ensure both are derived from data-driven decision making
and ethical considerations. Tetlock et al. (2013) additionally explained that the context of ethics
and trustworthiness are coupled together during employee accountability decision making.
Furthermore, Tetlock et al. (2013) identify political ideologies, conservative and liberal, as
possible factors mitigating as to whether managers will use process or outcome accountability
31

effectively. According to their research, politically conservative managers are more likely to use
outcome accountability, while politically liberal managers are more likely to use process
accountability (Tetlock et al., 2013).
Tetlock et al.’s (2013) research highlights an example of the strong role that organizations
and managers play in deciding whether to support employees by balancing process and outcome
accountability and in determining which accountability type will drive the best results. Even with
extant literature on process versus outcome accountability, Hall et al. (2017) posit that due to the
complexities of organizational settings, it may be impossible to always identify a clear
distinction between process and outcome accountability, thus adding further complexity to the
construct of accountability. However, within the complexities of accountability, it is also critical
to understand the linguistic differences between the concepts of responsibility and accountability
within literature, as these concepts while different are frequently used interchangeably.
Confusing Constructs: Responsibility and Accountability
Understanding the linguistic differences between the concepts of responsibility and
accountability is often overlooked by scholars (Bergsteiner & Avery, 2010; Schlenker, 1997).
Bergsteiner & Avery (2010) claim that the conceptualized definitions of responsibility and
accountability appear to be used contradictorily and synonymously. This study utilizes Dose and
Klimoski’s (1995) claim of differences in responsibility and accountability, by incorporating the
idea that responsibility is self-control and accountability is social control. Numerous researchers
posit, there is no responsibility without accountability, and one without the other can cause
dysfunctional organizational outcomes (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Schlenker, 1997; Tetlock,
1992). Schlenker (1997) explains that with the expectations of accountability, people behave
more responsibly. People's thoughts of being responsible proceed episodes of accountability, and
32

accountability cannot be established until employees first establish the cognitive ideal of
responsibility (Cummings & Anton, 1990; Schlenker, 1997). There is significant research on
both the nature of responsibility and accountability; nonetheless, it is from here that this study
begins an examination into the nature of felt accountability.
The Nature of Felt Accountability
For the purpose of this research felt accountability is an ever evolving process that occurs
over time, becomes intrinsic, and endures reflection (Hall et al., 2017). Felt accountability is the
term originally used to describe individual-level accountability and an employee’s perception of
their organizational accountabilities (Tetlock, 1992). The distinction of perception is essential
because employee’s perceptions drive the realities of their own organizational accountability
behaviors (Hall & Ferris, 2011). In addition, Lewin (1951) and Bronfenbrenner (1979) both
argue that a person’s perception of their environment is far more valuable and of importance than
the reality of the environment itself.
According to Chen et al. (2016), an individual employees’ perceived accountability is
subjective in nature, and motivates employees to seek approval and respect from those to whom
they are accountable. An employee’s felt accountability may be related to an employee’s
personality dimensions and may predispose an employee to interpret the accountability
experience as consistent with their own personal perceptions (Hochwarter et al., 2005). In
addition to personal perceptions, an employee’s perception is also affected by their perceptions
and experiences of organizational accountability contexts and existing formal accountability
mechanisms (Hochwarter et al., 2005).
Frink and Klimoski (2004) identify the subjective nature of felt accountability within
phenomenological accountability studies because of the “individual, subjective, and internal
33

nature of accountability” (p. 132). Multiple scholars (Agyemang et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2016;
Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Frink et al., 2008; Guidice et al., 2016; Hall
et al., 2003, 2017; Han & Perry, 2019; Hochwarter et al., 2005; Pan & Patel, 2020; Parker, 2014;
Royle, 2017) have referred to this internal perceived subjective nature of accountability as felt
accountability.
This individual-level perceived or felt accountability is considered to be an individual
value driven state of mind, frequently based upon employee’s personal feelings and values of
being answerable (Hochwarter et al., 2005; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015). Personal perceptions
of accountability are linked more to informal accountability systems, and are different from
formal accountability mechanisms like surveillance systems, rules, and contracts (Pan & Patel,
2020). Comparatively, these researchers view perceived accountability as an employee’s sense of
perceived accountability combined with their interactions within informal social and formal
organizational systems (Pan & Patel, 2020). The work of Sinclair (1995) highlights that personal
individual-level accountability occurs within the realm of socialization. Sinclair (1995)
suggested that felt accountability is fidelity to higher causes, and confirmation of honesty to
personal values, which may be invoked in the interest of personal, public, or organizational
accountability. Additionally, Sinclair (1995) claimed that personal individual-level felt
accountability is a product of upbringing, common sense, having high personal standards, doing
what is right, and living with the right consequences. There are recent calls to advance the
research on felt accountability as the growing importance of an individual’s personally held
values and intrinsic sense of being accountable transfers directly from the employee’s personal
life to their organizational work setting (Pan & Patel, 2020).
34

Definitions of Felt Accountability
There are two important definitions of felt accountability to examine within existing
literature. Definitions of felt accountability include definitions toward individual employee
perceptions of accountability and how felt accountability occurs within the social organizational
systems that drive accountability decisions (Hall et al., 2003; Pan & Patel, 2020). The most
common definition of felt accountability found in research is by Hall et al. (2003) which is the
actual or perceived likelihood that some salient audience will evaluate an individual's actions,
decisions, or behaviors, and that there is the potential for the individual to receive rewards or
sanctions based upon the evaluation. Pan and Patel (2020) state that felt accountability “refers to
individuals acquired sense of accountability in their interactions with social and organizational
systems” (p. 2). Within this definition, Pan and Patel (2020) argue that an employee has already
acquired individual personal perceptions of accountability and transfers these personal
perceptions into the work environments informal social and formal organizational systems.
Personal and Personality Characteristics
The model of accountability in human resource management created by Hall et al. (2003)
in Figure 2 considers how HRM (Human Resource Management) systems, and employee
personality characteristics affect felt accountability. It is a widely used model that shows how an
employee’s perception of accountability can be influenced by internal and external system
factors and have multiple positive and negative outcomes (Chen et al., 2016; Hall & Ferris, 2011;
Hochwarter et al., 2007; Pan & Patel, 2020). The center of the HRM system is influenced by
internal and external job, organizational, and environmental factors. Personal characteristics are
then added in, which affect episodes of felt accountability and produce a variety of accountable
employee behaviors including; illegal, political, and organizational citizenship behaviors, job
35

tension, involvement, performance, and satisfaction, as well as the emotional labor required to
account for and live with one’s accountability decision.

Figure 2
Model of Accountability in Human Resource Management

Note: Hall et al. (2003) model of human resource management systems shows how HRM
systems, organizational factors, job factors, environmental factors, and employee personal
characteristics can affect employee felt accountability. From Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G.
R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resource
management. In C. R. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resources
management (pp. 29–64). Copyright 2003 New Directions in Resource Managemant

36

Empirical research on felt accountability was originally based on laboratory experiments
(Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), however, literature from 2010 through 2022 is field-based (Chen et al.,
2016; Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Royle, 2017). The existing empirical research on felt
accountability examines felt accountability through the multiple concepts, constructs, and
contexts of personality traits, psychological empowerment, organizational politics, organizational
support, job performance standards, job satisfaction, leadership roles in mediating felt
accountability, organizational climate, work-related stressors and tensions, and extra-role
behavior (Breaux et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2016; Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Ferris et al., 2002;
Royle, 2017; Wallace et al., 2011).
Examining felt accountability from an organizational psychology lens, Royle (2017)
studied 303 full-time working adults to determine that four of the big five personality dimensions
(job satisfaction, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and emotional stability) positively
mediated felt accountability. The study results show that personality dimensions predict
employees feelings of answerability, as well as work-related attitudes and behavioral
commitments. Furthermore, Royle (2017) states that agreeable individuals are more satisfied
with their jobs, especially when harmony exists within the workplace, and that this phenomenon
relates positively to felt accountability.
Studying the links between core self-evaluation (CSE), task performance, and felt
accountability, Chen et al. (2016) examined 302 questionnaires from vertical supervisor-
employee dyadic relationships. These researchers sought to link the mediating effects of felt
accountability, employee personality traits, transformational leadership, and job performance
using the social contingency theory. Chen et al. (2016) argues that job performance is one of the
keys to organizational performance, and that through studying these dyadic relationships
37

employee felt accountability is positively related to transformational leadership, personality
traits, and task performance.
Psychological Empowerment
Assessing the psychological empowerment process moderated by felt accountability on
levels of managerial performance, Wallace et al. (2011), studied 539 restaurant managers, from
116 corporate owned fast-food restaurants. The researchers found that levels of employee high-
felt accountability positively related to organizational climate and higher restaurant performance,
which positively mediated psychological empowerment. Addressing the value of felt
accountability, these researchers argue that managers feelings of low-felt accountability observed
managers feeling less empowered and also having lower levels of restaurant performance.
Organizational Politics
Researchers have also identified links between felt accountability and organizational
politics (Breaux et al., 2009; Ferris et al., 2002). Organizational politics are defined as behaviors
not sanctioned by the organization which are related to employee personal self-interest (Ferris et
al., 2002). Consistent with the phenomenological view of felt accountability, it is the perceptions
of politics, and not the actual reality of politics that drives employees perceptions of
organizational politics (Breaux et al., 2009). Accordingly, employee’s perceptions of politics and
felt accountability are important predictors of job satisfaction, because positive work
environmental characteristics such as rewards, or negative sanctions may alter an employee’s
perception of satisfaction, which can be viewed positively or negatively (Ferris et al., 2002).
Breaux et al. (2009) researched the interactional effects of felt accountability on
organizational politics and job satisfaction within multiple workplace contexts. The researchers
studying three independent samples identify that job satisfaction decreased as felt accountability
38

increased for employees who perceived they were operating in a political work environment. The
study findings show that the perception of work-related politics promotes uncertainty and
ambiguous circumstances which decreases both job satisfaction and felt accountability. This
occurs because employees in a political environment have more difficulty determining the
congruency of accountability outcomes (Breaux et al., 2009). The researchers conclude, that
within a low level political organizational environment, employees may be more focused on
organizational goals, rather than self-interests. This reduction of politics positively supports
employees felt accountability and enhances organizational goals.
Organizational Support
Advancing the meso level theory of felt accountability and social exchange frameworks,
Dewi and Riantoputra (2019) studied felt accountability to determine which organizational
factors may contribute to employee felt accountability. These researchers identify felt
accountability as an employee’s perception of their own accountability, and argue that these
perceptions have enormous impact on organizational performance (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019).
Conducting a time-lag study of 132 participants using multiple regression analysis, Dewi and
Riantoputra (2019) show a positive correlation between employee positive affect, perception of
organizational support, and felt accountability. Additionally, they demonstrate that organizational
structures with negative affect are negatively correlated with felt accountability, especially when
bureaucratic organizational structures like unions are present. Multiple scholars seeking to
understand the concept of felt accountability within literature identify how employee felt
accountability impacts organizational behavior and performance in varied contexts (Bergsteiner
& Avery, 2010; Hall et al., 2017; Mero et al., 2014; Spitz‐Oener, 2006).
39

Literature Deficiencies
Literature deficiencies on the subject of felt accountability suggested a need to further
understand felt accountability. First, literature on felt accountability within dual organizational
structures is non-existent. Dewi and Riantoputra (2019) argue that future studies of felt
accountability should focus on linking different types of organizational structures to felt
accountability and focusing on interactive multi-level system models. Second, there has been no
research linking felt accountability to the idea of uneven practice, in which supervisors may not
use the existing mechanisms within the organization to hold individual employees accountable
(Romzek, 2015). Additionally, there is no research on how uneven practice negatively impacts
individual-level felt accountability, job, task, roles, or co-worker and supervisor relationships.
Uneven Practice
Uneven practice defines how existing organizational accountability systems fail to hold
individuals answerable and accountable (Romzek, 2015). Uneven practice is defined as the
breakdown of accountability systems, which fail for multiple reasons. Accordingly, Romzek
(2015) argues that accountability systems may fail due to a lack of proper structural design and
the misalignment of mechanisms, which causes an imbalance in formal and informal
accountability systems. Organizational failure to use existing governance systems properly is
another form of uneven practice, and this can lead to organizational confusion or lead to potential
conflicts between the organization and the employee. Inaccurate leadership implementation of
organizational accountability mechanisms within the system is the third reason uneven practice
may exist within an organization. When leadership fails to implement systems or mechanisms
equitably, this can lead to leader employee conflict. Romzek (2015) argues that as leaders,
“sometimes we impose accountability effectively. But often, we do not do it well” (p. 5).
40

Literature on uneven practice is novel but significant to this study, as it determines why
organizational systems of accountability fail and how these failures impact individual employees’
levels of motivation and commitment affecting overall organizational performance. Romzek
(2015) is the only author identified using the term uneven practice, which demonstrates that
uneven practice is a new topic within organizational accountability studies. For this reason, the
researcher has selected to study felt accountability and uneven practice combined, which could
benefit from further examination.
Organizational Communication
The literature on organizational communication studied since the 1940s is vast in scope
and theory. Researchers agree that the two focal units of analysis in organizational
communication are the role of formal and informal systems on information flow and the use of
media as larger instruments of communication (Abrahamsson, 1977; Conrad & Cheney, 2018;
Katz & Kahn, 1978; Redding, 1985). These formal and informal systems align with
accountability theory (Dubnick, 2014A). According to Conrad and Cheney (2018), the current
rise in organizational communication studies shares four purposes:
1. Organizations require communication to create constructs of shared meaning to enact
the organization.
2. To understand the different layers of individual identities within the organization.
3. To establish organizational identification and what creates the rationale for an
organization.
4. We must look at the interpretations or perceptions of reality that compose the building
blocks of organizational governance.
41

In theories of organizational communication, organizations are unified, cooperative
systems that pursue a shared goal or goals (Conrad &Cheney, 2018). Magenau et al. (1988) argue
that affective dual organizational commitment arises from an employee’s ability to see the
company and union as one connected entity. These perspectives assume that both dual
organizations communicate effectively so that employees within dual organization systems see
one identifiable unit that shares identical goals where communication is cohesive. According to
Conrad and Cheney (2018), when individuals within the organization see different goals
communicated, see disagreements with the existing goals or the strategy of pursuing shared
organizational goals, individuals may choose to move detrimentally against the control of
organizational governance systems.
According to Magenau et al. (1988), communication is a variable of commitment. These
researchers argue that employees' perceptions when the variables are unified creates a more
satisfying relationship with both entities. However, when the employees perceive dissatisfaction
within a variable, their satisfaction level will be diminished. Like a company and union, dual
organizations do not always share the same goals. Each entity has its communication structures,
different layers of collaborating individuals, different shared meanings, entity identification, and
a collaborative governance system that often collide. To be successful these dual entities and
communication structures must be linked together through collaboration, which is challenging
(Conrad &Cheney, 2018). Researchers argue that the one variable consistent with high dual
commitment levels is that of positive labor-management relationships, and positive labor-
management relationships require highly effective communication structures to be perceived by
employees as one entity (Angle & Perry, 1986; Fukami & Larson, 1984: Gallagher, 1984).
42

Three factors of organizational commitment are applied to the satisfaction of effective
communication: (a) affective commitment, (b) continuance commitment, and (c) normative
commitment (Allen, 1992; Ammari et al., 2017). These findings highlight that organizational
communication is positively related to worker commitment. Additionally, Allen (1992) notes that
when organizations are engaged in Total Performance Management (TPM) programs, as is HPB
in this organizational study, TPM within manufacturing settings has higher communication
variances, which impact employee's organizational commitment. When addressing
organizational communication, it is critical to look at individual informal factors of
communication in order to identify how individual commitment impacts one's perception of felt
accountability.
Organizational Commitment
Employee commitment is among the most researched topics in organizational psychology
and research on organizational commitment flows from multiple internal and external
organizational factors (Zalawadia, 2019). A model for organizational commitment created by
Meyer and Allen (1991) composes three types of commitment; affective, continuance, and
normative. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), affective commitment is an employee’s
positive emotional attachment to the organization. Continuance commitment examines the gains
versus losses of working for the organization, and normative commitment is an obligatory
commitment form.
Defining Commitment
The literature defines organizational commitment as a multi-faceted and vital construct
with factors of individual psychology, attitudes, values, organizational communication, and
performance management (Dey, 2012; Klein et al., 2012; Reichers, 1985). Similarly, multiple
43

researchers have established a tangible link between employee commitment, accountability
constructs, motivation, turnover, well-being, and corporate performance (Frink & Klimoski,
2004; Klein et al., 2012; Mero et al., 2014). Klein et al. (2012) define commitment as a socially
constructed psychological bond between a target and an employee, who make a conscious choice
to dedicate themselves to completing a given task or set of tasks. Similarly, Dey (2012) identifies
three factors of organizational commitment; employee dedication to the organization, willingness
to work on behalf of the employer, and the likelihood they will maintain the relationship.
Organizational commitment has been defined as the strength of an employee’s attitude, values,
and involvement in the organization which develops over time as the perception of employee
goals become consistent with the organization’s, leading employees to show willingness to exert
effort on behalf of the organization (Decotiis & Summers, 1987; Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001;
Mowday et al., 1979). Furthermore, Thacker (2015) states that commitment is a factor in an
employee’s psychological work state, and identifies that organizations use commitment to
measure and capture work-related psychological behaviors.
Socially Constructed Psychological Bonds
Organizational commitment in management literature is identified as a psychological
state; therefore, it is individually and socially constructed in the workplace to form multiple
psychological bonds with specific attributes (Klein et al., 2012). Klein (2012) identifies four
noteworthy attributes of organizational commitment; (a) commitments are individually
constructed psychological states within social contexts; (b) an individual chooses to be
committed to a specific dedicated target; (c) commitment is unidimensional and one can be
committed to more than one target; (d) if one ceases to end communication with, or be
accountable to a chosen target, then the commitment may end.
44

Klein (2012) and Reichers (1985) agree that all employee workplace bonds are a
commitment to the employing organization. However, they also recognize the difficulty of
measuring the ambiguity of commitment because employee commitment is not generalized by all
employees, nor to all workplace entities. In other words, employees choose who to be committed
to, based upon the psychological and social workplace bonds they develop. Researchers further
recognize the importance of dual commitment for this study, identifying that employees can have
commitment to more than one organizational entity at any given time, and that selecting one
distinguishable entity may be based upon the given contextual and informal social relationship
factors (Klein et al., 2012; Reichers, 1985).
Company Commitment
The literature on individual company-level employee commitment examines individual
and group behavior, how different leadership styles affect commitment, and the relationships
between organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction (Banks et al., 2014;
Ćulibrk et al., 2018; Sungu et al., 2019). It is the phenomenological view of felt accountability
and the informal accountability relationships that drive the utility of these commitments, and not
just formal organizational accountability mechanisms (Hall & Ferris, 2011). In fact, Royle
(2017) posits that it is not just the established formal and informal mechanisms of accountability
that drive employee behavior and attitudes toward commitment, but also individual-levels of felt
accountability and the perceptions of their organization. In other words, it is the subjective
interpretations or perceptions of reality and not the objective reality that matters to employee’s
when determining their level of commitment behavior to the organization (Royle, 2017).
To quantify other research and converge the strengths of connections between company
commitment, job satisfaction, and job task characteristics, Ćulibrk et al. (2018) studied the
45

mediating role of job involvement, work characteristics, and job satisfaction on organizational
commitment in the transition economy of Serbia and concluded that employees working in
manufacturing companies, identify with and are more committed to the organization and more
satisfied and involved with their work. The work of Ćulibrk et al. (2018), validates past
commitment research by highlighting the vital link between job satisfaction, job involvement,
and organizational commitment (Raymond & Mjoli, 2013; Zopiatis et al., 2014).
Transformational leadership, or a process that transforms people, has gained popularity
since 2000 because of its emphasis on driving intrinsic motivation and follower development
(Northouse, 2019). Sungu et al. (2019) further explains that employee commitment levels are
impacted by individual-level behavior and by supervisory leadership styles. According to Sungu
et al. (2019) transformational leadership appears to be a mediating factor in employee's
occupational commitment, and they propose a relationship between affective organizational
commitment, affective occupational commitment, transformational leadership, and job
performance. Collecting data from 398 employees, the researchers demonstrate that employee
performance and commitment are higher when leaders exhibit higher levels of transformational
leadership. The theoretical model of occupational commitment in Figure 3 by Sungu et al. (2019)
shows how the relationship of leaders using transformational leadership can lead to both
employee affective occupational commitment and affective organizational commitment which
sustains higher levels of job performance.

46

Figure 3
Theoretical Model of Occupational Commitment

Note: Sungu et al. (2019) model shows how job performance increases with affective
organizational and affective occupational commitment when leaders chose a transformational
leadership style. From Sungu, L. J., Weng, Q. D., & Xu, X. (2019). Organizational commitment
and job performance: Examining the moderating roles of occupational commitment and
transformational leadership. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(3), 280–290.
(https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12256). Copyright 2019 by the International Journal of Selection and
Assessment.

47

Leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX) are both based on
social leadership styles and used to describe how leader-employee relationships define
organizational commitment (Banks et al., 2014). LMX is a leadership approach that centers on
the quality of connecting interactions between the dyadic relationship of a leader and follower
(Northouse, 2019). TMX identifies the proximal relationships among team members and the
quality of team members working relationships (Shkoler et al., 2019). According to Banks et al.
(2014) the LMX and TMX constructs are firmly related to and determine organizational
employee and team commitments. In a detailed meta-analysis study, Banks et al. (2014)
measured the quality of employee-supervisor reciprocal exchanges, showing that higher quality
employee-supervisor relationships improved measures of team and peer commitment.
Banks et al. (2014) also showed that LMX was positively associated with job
performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, while TMX contributed more to
individual job performance, job satisfaction, and employee commitment. Furthermore, Banks et
al. (2014) identified that team-peer relationships are more important to employee commitment
than supervisor-employee relationships. Moreover, the study concludes that employee's
perceptions of the quality of exchange between supervisors and team members are essential
(Banks, et al., 2014). This research considers additional links between job satisfaction, job
involvement, and employee commitment through the examination of union commitment which
provides a clearer picture of the commitment construct.
Union Commitment
Existing seminal literature demonstrates that the problem of union commitment is not a
new phenomenon (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960; Purcell, 1954). Historically, union commitment
has often been at odds with overall company commitment (Lichtenstein, 2002b). Furthermore,
48

unions have traditionally used mechanisms of control within collective bargaining agreements to
achieve commitment (Becker, 1987; Lichtenstein, 2002c). Early research shows distinct
commitment patterns between union and non-union workers which are moderated by individual-
level perceptions of the quality of existing union and management relationships (Dean, 1954;
Gallagher, 1984).
It may be cognitively difficult for union employees to develop simultaneous
commitments to both the union and the employer and much research has been done on dual
allegiance, also referred to as dual commitment (Angle & Perry, 1986). Additionally, the
existence of conflict between two organizational entities, may increase the difficulty for workers
to commit to both the union and company. Furthermore, according to Angle and Perry (1986), if
the conflicting relationship between the company and the union is strong enough, union workers
may opt toward a unilateral commitment and strengthen ties to the union because workers are
more likely to participate in union roles, which can strengthen their union commitment, and
reduce company commitment.
Moreover, Dose and Klimoski (1995) explain that contradictions exist in organizations
that want to engage employees, and also hold them accountable through formal control
mechanisms. Likewise, they argue that traditional bureaucratic methods, with hierarchical
control and formal sanctions, are no longer effective means of gaining union member
commitment. In fact, control often produces dysfunctional results and “infantlike” (Dose &
Klimoski, 1995, p. 37) worker behaviors that exhibit childlike dependency upon the organization
(Dose & Klimoski, 1995). When organizations implement formal controlling accountability
mechanisms that fail to meet employee’s psychological needs, worker behavior may show a lack
49

of company commitment resulting in displays of frustration, conflict, and states of helplessness
(Dose & Klimoski, 1995).
In addition, worker conflict and commitment may depend upon the role the employee
plays within the union. Union and role commitment research has been studied since the 1950s
(Purcell, 1954). For example, Magenau et al. (1988) took a longitudinal approach to look at dual
and unilateral commitment among shop stewards, and regular union members to determine
potential role differences in union commitment. The findings suggest that union shop stewards
have a higher unilateral commitment to the union, and regular union members had more
unilateral commitment to the employer (Magenau et al., 1988). To add to this discussion,
organizational and union support theories of instrumentality were selected as potential factors
affecting union commitment.
Instrumentality is defined as a union member’s cognitive assessment of the unions
defined cost and benefit of collective representation (Tetrick et al., 2007). Surveying 273 union
employees and 29 union stewards, Tetrick et al. (2007) determined how union support and
instrumentality affect commitment. In a two-model comparison based upon organizational
support and union participation theories, the researchers showed that instrumentality plays an
antecedent role in the perception of union support, union loyalty, and union participation (Tetrick
et al., 2007).
In addition, research on social exchange theory, the concept of reciprocity, and union
power relationships looks at employee commitment and obligatory feelings toward the union.
Blau (1964) originally defined social exchange theory as voluntary actions taken by individuals
who are motivated by the expected reciprocal returns within the relationship. Reciprocal
determinism demonstrates that employees both influence and are influenced by their own
50

personal factors and by work environment (Bandura, 1986). Li et al. (2019) examined the
influence of social exchange theory and triadic determinism on union commitment by studying
46 Chinese private firms using induced and compulsory type of exchanges to influence employee
union commitment and participation. The findings determined that the employee participation
climate (EPC) is positively related to union commitment and job involvement, with
organizational justice being the liaison between union participation and job involvement
contexts.
Moreover, the relationship of power and reciprocity combine within organizational
relationships to impact the level of employee commitment (Gouldner, 1960; Thacker, 2015).
According to Gouldner (1960) power and reciprocity are common themes in organizational
union management relationships. In fact, Gouldner (1960) claims that reciprocity occurs when
one social unit is more likely to contribute to another unit by providing more benefits to them.
However, Gouldner (1960) also argues that power is one condition where reciprocity may
constrain relationships. Thacker (2015) adds to the discussion by proposing corollary
relationships between union employee obligation, power, and support. Thacker’s (2015) study
shows that social exchange mediates relationships between union commitment, but that union
commitment may shift over time based upon the power exchanges between the union and
company management. Thacker (2015) posits that when union power declines, employee union
commitment may also change. Additionally, union involvement may hinder company
involvement and commitment, adding to the complexities of dual commitment.
The research of Zalawadia (2019) shows that union employees may have strong
stewardship bonds toward the union which may aid in strengthening union loyalties, but which
also weaken the company management bonds. In a study of union employees working in the
51

chemical industry in India, Zalawadia (2019) found employees with high union involvement
were negatively correlated with job satisfaction and company management commitment.
Correspondingly, as the level of union involvement significantly increased the level of
organizational commitment decreased. Comparatively, seminal and current research identifies
similar union organizational correlations between increased union involvement and decreased
organizational commitment (Dodiya, 2010; Sinha & Sarma, 1962). While company commitment
and union commitment are both valuable elements of this discussion, organizations must strive to
nurture dual organizational commitment to achieve the highest performance levels.
Dual Organizational Commitment
Notably, there are two parts of organizational commitment, which consist of an
employee’s commitment to both the company and union, identified as dual organizational
commitment (Angle & Perry, 1986; Beauvais et al., 1991; Fukami & Larson, 1984; Purcell,
1954). Historically, the relationship of dual commitment between organizations and unions has
been categorized as adversarial, and has created complexities for workers caught in the middle of
potential conflicting union company relationships (Beauvais et al., 1991; Ke & Zhu, 2019;
Purcell, 1954). Purcell proposed the concept of dual commitment in 1954 as the possibility of
dual loyalty and defined dual commitment as the collective belief in the company and union
positively coexisting together.
Likewise, others researchers define dual commitment as an employee having positive
relationships and favorable attitudes toward both the union and the employer (Beauvais et al.,
1991; Magenau et al., 1988). Gordon and Ladd (1990), using a taxonomic approach to
identifying commitment, cite four potential union employee commitments: (a) unilateral
corporate commitment, (b) unilateral union commitment, (c) dual no commitment, and (d) dual
52

commitment. Moreover, perceptions of dual organizational commitment impact employee
behaviors; however, these are a context-specific phenomena, which according to Ke and Zhu
(2019), make it challenging to define dual organizational commitment completely.
In his seminal work, Dubin (1961) explains that company commitment and union
commitment are mutually exclusive, as one can be committed to the company, but not the union,
and vice versa. Dubin (1961) posits that company and union relations can create a sense of
competition between employees for loyalty and commitment. Furthermore, collective labor
systems play a legitimate role in creating organizational stability, social equity, and equal pay
systems. However, collective labor has been in a state of historical warfare with corporate
adversaries for more than a century, potentially leading to employee commitment conflict
between the union and company (Becker, 1987; Lichtenstein, 2002a).
Purcell’s (1954) seminal study interviewed 385 workers over 3-years to determine their
allegiance to the company and union. The definition of allegiance used by Purcell (1954) is an
attitude of favorability toward both the company and the union, and general approval of their
overall policies. The findings indicate that 73% of union employees felt allegiance to both the
company and union, concluding that most union workers want a collaboration between the
company and union.
Multiple researchers agree that good labor relations support definitions of dual
commitment, which benefits both the company and the union, and that positive relationships can
lead to positive dual commitment to both entities (Gordon & Ladd, 1990; Magenau et al., 1988;
Purcell, 1954). Wombacher and Felfe (2017) posit that a successful dual organizational
commitment requires organizational dual commitments and that employee dual commitments
interact synergistically to enhance employee performance. Accordingly, the optimal situation
53

would be for an employee to be committed to both organizations within a dual organizational
construct (Wombacher & Felfe, 2017). However, Beauvais et al. (1991) argue that employee
commitment may not always work in both directions due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Consistent with previous research on union commitment, Larson and Fukami (1984)
examined the interrelationships between organizational commitment, union commitment, and
organizational behavior in unionized newspaper workers. They concluded that union employees
with higher performance levels have stronger dual commitment. Correspondingly, these findings
show that employees with strong dual commitment, also had reduced incidents of employee
turnover, unexcused absenteeism, and led to fewer warnings.
How an employee perceives one entity compared to the other impacts their accountability
decision making process. Perceptions are created out of the existing subjective norms and
general attitudes of union employees, thereby impacting union member instrumentality and
informal social relationships (Goeddeke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010). Goeddeke and
Kammeyer-Mueller (2010) conclude that perceptions of employee union support are positively
related to union participation; however, perceptions of company support were negatively related
to union participation. Additionally, they highlight the potential for divided loyalties, how
employer and union relationships shape employee attitudes, and there is a need for workers to
feel positive, supportive social relationships between the company and union (Goeddeke &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010). According to Goeddeke and Kammeyer-Mueller (2010), employee
divided loyalty may demonstrate that employees perceptions of organizational support is lacking,
or that union management relationships may be socially strained.
Perceived organizational support (POS) is also a mediator of dual commitment.
Eisenberger et al. (2001) define POS as an “experience-based attribution” (p. 42) concerning
54

workers' positive or negative intent toward organizational policies, norms, procedures, and
actions as they positively or negatively affect worker's perceptions of commitment. Eisenberger
et al. (2001) studied the reciprocation of federal postal workers and the role of perceived
organizational support (POS) on felt obligation. POS was positively related to how employees
felt about their dual commitment toward helping the organization accomplish its objectives. In,
addition felt obligation mediated the associations of POS, worker commitment, and worker role
performance, allowing employees to have greater acceptance of union company reciprocity
norms.
The conflict between professional cohesion and union unity often creates confusion due
to professional autonomy. In a longitudinal study at a public university, Beauvais et al. (1991)
hypothesized that the labor union-management relationship climate, union involvement, and pay
levels would affect faculty dual commitment levels. The results show how dual commitment
affected union and management relationships, and how dual commitment was stronger after a
union contract settlement agreement was reached. While faculty may have experienced cognitive
dissonance prior to contract negotiations, their cognitive consistency, and unilateral commitment
improved after contract negotiations. According to Beauvais et al. (1991) organizations must
balance existing dual commitments through relationships that interact synergistically to enhance
employee performance and to maximize organizational performance.
The optimal situation of course, would be for an employee to be committed to both the
company and union within a dual organizational construct (Beauvais et al., 1991). However,
Mero et al. (2014) explain that employee interaction may work in one direction, but not the other,
based upon intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Dual commitment is important because if structural
and social misalignments between governance systems exist, they may impact the employee's
55

ability to mentally and emotionally balance accountabilities, which can affect organizational
performance and corporate long-term performance (Hall et al., 2017; Romzek, 2015).
Systems Theory
To capture the importance of using multi-level systems theory within accountability,
Dubnick (2014a) makes the claim that accountability as a social system may be the most
pervasive and perhaps the most powerful single influence on human social behavior. Of equal
importance, Frink and Klimoski (2004) state that within the sociocultural evolution of social
systems, from the most primitive tribal systems to loosely structured modern organizations,
governance systems require different degrees of behavioral expectations and accountability
structures. Researchers identify that using a multi-level systems approach provides the most
comprehensive and holistic examination of the accountability construct, and they recommend the
continued use of multi-level systems in accountability studies (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink
et al. 2008; Johnson, 2008). According to these researchers, organizational systems include a
multitude of structures and functional mechanisms.
Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1950) is the founder of general system theory which
defines the principles of interaction which appear in many sciences and is applicable to all
sciences concerned with systems. One of these structures are accountability systems, which are
systems of formal mechanisms and informal relationships that drive short and long-term
organizational outcomes (Ebrahim, 2005). Reviewing multi-level systems is vital to this study
because the theoretical framework of this study is Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
model. The key focus of this research study is based upon open system theory; however, before
embarking on a theory of open systems, a brief review of closed systems is provided in order to
highlight the differences.
56

Much of the literature on closed systems argues that these systems are imperviable to
outside influences, potential perturbations, and are linear in nature. Closed systems are defined
by the ideas of isolation, linearity, being cut off from other system parts, homogenous, and as one
mechanism that operates alone (Collier, 1994). Of importance to this research, Johnson (2008)
postulates that linear models may only provide approximations of a part of human and
organizational behavior, and represent non-equilibrium dynamics, as closed linear systems are
unable to model human developmental transitions within and between systems.
However, general systems theory also claims that the boundaries of system theory are
fuzzy and permeable, and one mechanism inside the system can alter and affect other
mechanisms within the same system (von Bertalanffy, 1950). Because of the complexity of
systems, they can neither be completely open or closed; but rather “partially open and partially
closed” (von Bertalanffy, 1950, p. 453). According to Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) the concept
of open or closed systems is challenging to defend as all one, or all the other. Although these
researchers argue that boundaries of closed and open systems may appear slightly blurred, closed
and open systems operate very differently, and it is open systems that are the focus of this
research because they provide a model of human development.
Research on open systems theory dates back to when scientists began studying living
organisms. In fact, scientists have embraced using open systems in the sciences of biology,
physiology, and the social sciences (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1950). In
addition, current organization and management theorists have utilized open systems theory
within their studies (Bastedo, 2004; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972: Johnson, 2008; Frink, 2008). The
term open systems is used to describe the complex, depth, of multiple interacting layered
systems, the interacting causal relationships, and unpredictable environments that exist between
57

these layered systems (Mearman, 2006). Johnson (2008) explains open systems theory by stating
that organizational systems are self-organizing systems, that create spontaneous shifts of actions
and reactions based upon perturbations in the environment, in which interdependent and
autonomous agent’s actions become intertwined within these coherent organizational processes.
According to Bastedo (2004) using open systems theory has profoundly altered the way
scientists understand schools and organizations. Furthermore, virtually all modern organizational
theories utilize an open systems perspective.
Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) define an open system as a cohesive group of
interdependent parts within a hierarchy that have at least two interconnected elements. Open
systems must interact with other environments for survival and are sensitive to deviations within
the environment. Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) further state that the social sciences put human
beings at the center of interest in organizational systems theory. To define the complexity of
systems-theory, this research applies key concepts from the research of Kast and Rosenzweig
(1972).
The fundamental concepts of systems theory are:
• Systems have subcomponents.
• they are open or closed.
• input is transformed into output.
• Systems have boundaries
• they involve the force of disorder and unpredictability (entropy).
• they are steady and maintain dynamic homeostasis.
• feedback within an open system is essential.
• Systems have hierarchical relationships.
58

• Systems appear to have multiple goals or purposes.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model is an open system model and is critical to
understanding how human organisms grow, develop, and mature (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Frink et
al., 2008; Johnson, 2008). Moreover, the evolution of a system emerges within the context of the
environment. Therefore, a system is only as good as its short-range relationships (Johnson,
2008), which in this organizational accountability study includes employees, peers, and
supervisors. Open systems involve continuous change, even if at the surface, human beings and
organizations can appear in a stationary state. von Bertalanffy (1950) explains that every living
organism is in a “quasi-stationary” (p. 27) state of flux. In other words, within open systems,
energy flows out, comes back, and human development occurs (von Bertalanffy 1950).
Change occurs in open systems through the irritability and perturbations of occurring
autonomous activities, which create disturbances in the stable homeostatic state. After the
disturbance, the organism returns to a steady state of homeostasis, but it has been changed
forever by the slow irritable or large potential perturbations happening within this development
process (von Bertalanffy, 1950). Within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological system, human
development occurs when these irritabilities, disturbances, and perturbations occur within
proximal processes. According to von Bertalanffy (1950) the characteristics of open systems are
required to understand the evolution of development between the higher order complexities
within human development.
According to Bastedo (2004) organizational accountability research can benefit from
using systems theory because in open systems, organizational environments strongly influence
people within these organizational systems. The systems provide vital resources that sustain the
organization and lead to change and survival. Virtually all modern theories of organization utilize
59

the open systems perspective, which has profoundly altered the understanding of organizational
theory today (Bastedo, 2004). Similarly, within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, the
environmental systems in an organization interact and influence an employee within the cross-
interactions occurring between the various micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono systems.
Viewing accountability from an open systems lens magnifies the social interrelationships
employees create within their immediate physical, psychological, and cross system
environments. As Bronfenbrenner (1995) articulately explains, human development is
interdependent on other systems and cannot happen independently. Within open systems, similar
actions within comparable systems can have very different results, and even the slightest
perturbation occurring in one system can have “far-reaching consequences resulting in larger” (p.
7) fluctuations in other parts of the system (Johnson, 2008). Bronfenbrenner (2007) also explains
that perturbations can create situations where maintaining homeostatic balance is challenging.
Accordingly, employees and environments interacting inside an open system can create varying
levels of instability, which may result in taking a long time to regain homeostatic balance.
Open systems are dynamic because they can self-organize to create periods of stability at
specific points in time and context (Lloyd et al., 2001). Additionally, new individual emergent
behavioral development characteristics within systems may be chaotic, diversified, and change,
resulting in instability. When applying this to the phenomenological framework of felt
accountability, it becomes clear that episodes of accountability do not stand alone and may create
organizational stability or instability depending on the symmetric or asymmetric relationships of
involved stakeholders (Ebrahim, 2005). Organizations and employees are both influenced by and
influence their social environments because human development does not happen independently
of others within their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tudge et al., 2003).
60

Open systems have unique biological complexities beyond the ability to discuss in this
dissertation, however this research highlights the fundamental concepts of homeostasis and
homeostatic feelings, and other points applicable to understanding human development in the
biological relationships of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory. Homeostatic forces are
required to stabilize patterns of behavior and keep them normative because external perturbations
drive instability and change (Lloyd et al., 2001). Dubnick (2014b) posits that balance is required
within open systems for individual and organizational survival, and that accountability is the
primary means of maintaining these organizational systems. When organizations properly apply
accountability mechanisms to achieve balance within the organization, employees also feel
homeostasis or cognitively balanced, and organizational performance is optimized.
Biological Balance: Homeostasis
Developed in the field of physiology by Canon in the 1920s, homeostatic balance or
homeostasis is a century-old model that applies to the biology of human beings, organizational
constancy, and balance within societies. Homeostasis is formed from the open systems theory
and serves as the basis for control theory (Lloyd et al., 2001). This study takes the non-traditional
approach of applying biological development interactions to the degree in which biological
influences vary across ecological systems and environmental conditions. While researchers have
increasingly recognized the influence of biological factors on individual and organizational
behaviors, the interaction between biology and environmental systems has been largely ignored
(Rutter et al., 1997; Rutter & Pickles, 1991).
The extension of the biological framework into the concept of accountability utilizes
Bronfenbrenner's (1977; 1979; 1994, 1995b) proximal processes. Proximal processes while
frequently cited by Bronfenbrenner, have not received significant attention in literature (Merçon-
61

Vargas et al., 2020). Proximal processes are the processes that promote human development
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), and employees develop accountability behavior within these
proximal processes during interactions with others in the organization. Additionally, proximal
processes have the ability to provide functional and dysfunctional behaviors, which create
employee and organizational balance or imbalance (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020).
The importance of balance between a company and a union within an organization is
identified by Gordon and Ladd (1990). It is this homeostatic balance that supports the informal
and formal balance of organizational accountability between dual organizations and supports the
maintenance of higher positive levels of employee felt accountability for employees (Dubnick,
2014b, Frink et al, 2008). Individual homeostasis may impact organizational homeostasis, and
vice versa; and both are discussed within this research framework.
Individual Homeostasis
The concept of individual homeostasis refers to the relative consistency of a person’s
psychological status and the resistance to change, which is provided by personal stability in the
face of perturbations, which results in a given transient stimulus responses while returning to its
previous psychological balanced state (Lloyd et al., 2001). While both living organisms,
biological and self-creating organizational systems, are rich and complex in nature, it is
homeostasis which forms the basis of self-control and feelings (Damasio, 2018). Individual
homeostasis refers to “the ability of all living organisms to continuously maintain functional
variables within a range of values compatible with survival” (Damasio & Damasio, 2016, p. 1).
While there is not time to detail the specific biological homeostatic processes here in this
research, it is essential to recognize that the complexity of systems like individuals and
organizations require balancing accountability mechanisms for individual and organizational
62

performance (Dubnick, 2014b). Johnson (2008) asserts that while complex systems are
constantly evolving, changing, and developing, this is when homeostasis states are regaining
their balance, and even slight changes within the system can have a profound impact on system
outcomes. Damasio and Damasio (2016) postulate that there are two types of individual human
homeostasis, one is an automatically engineered control mechanism, and the other relates to how
a person controls and balances their own emotions and feelings within varying contexts.
Nature has provided living beings with a set of subconscious automatic physiological
controls which are biologically engineered according to a range of values that help establish
metabolism (Damasio & Damasio, 2016). This first type of homeostasis is necessary so that all
living organisms maintain individuality, but survive as an integrated whole (Damasio &
Damasio, 2016). The second type of homeostasis according to Damasio (2018), is called
“homeostatic feelings” (p. 126), which provides supplementary mechanisms to support the
control of the most simple of human feelings. Damasio (2018) posits that homeostatic feelings
operate under the same condition as the subconscious more automatically controlled
homeostasis; however, feelings intervene to help humans regulate themselves, and this allows
individuals to create solutions to life's problems. Damasio (2018) argues that feelings are
“formative regulatory interfaces” and “curiously double-sided” (p. 126). Homeostatic feelings
occur in an individually centered physiological mental state, similar to motivation or drive,
which gives human beings the ability to explain a direct experience while experiencing the actual
state of being that they are engaged in through their emotions (Damasio, 2018). This has
similarities to felt accountability, which functions as a mental state of mind, allowing employees
to engage in feelings that support their accountability experiences and decision making processes
63

while being engaged emotionally while in the accountability episode (Frink & Klimoski, 1998;
Hall et al., 2017).
Human beings must have the means to balance their physiologically state of feelings, and
these feelings have specific content, intensity, and valence (Damasio & Damasio, 2016).
Furthermore, the biological mental aspect of homeostasis channels information into the mind,
while feelings of valence require human beings to act in accordance within the context of the
situation. Damasio (2018) claims that valence is the inherent quality of an individual’s emotional
experience that falls somewhere between pleasant and unpleasant extremes. Accordingly, it is
valence that dictates action to correct, do something, do nothing, or do more of the same, as
employees feelings are felt and the individual is affected by these pleasant or unpleasant feelings,
and within the environmental context must take action. Thus, valence emerges in the socio-
cultural realm through individual-level positive or negative feelings and emotions (Damasio &
Damasio, 2016). Valance relates to how employees cope with the demands of accountability, as
there is wide variance of coping strategies which influence cognitive processing of how
employees act and how employees think about their accountability strategies (Hall et al., 2017).
Damasio and Damasio (2016) explain, feelings by definition affect human experiences
and experienced feelings compel the organism owner to act and promote learning opportunities,
much like the proximal processes of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model support human
development. Correspondingly, learning opportunities create a multitude of potential deliberate
responses to feelings which impact accountability choices. However, the function of homeostasis
is also prone to malfunction because it offers more freedom of operation, promoting agentic
qualities (Damasio & Damasio, 2016). In fact, Damasio (2018) argues that within the valence of
homeostatic feelings, there is a host of other socio-cultural and environmental circumstances
64

affecting how humans balance emotional responses, which include their personality, social,
organizational, and cultural structures. This regulation of feelings as an emotional state turns a
human agent into a potential owner of its own regulations, thereby providing the ability to self-
regulate feelings (Damasio, 2018). The function of homeostasis not only occurs within
individuals, but also occurs within organizational systems.
Organizational Homeostasis
Organizational systems include various interrelated structures and functions, such as the
company, labor union, organizational size, physical arrangements and facilities, products made,
and the organizational climate and culture (Salazar & Beaton, 2000). Additionally, these
structures and functions provide stability during performance to determine if systems are
designed effectively. Regev et al. (2013) define organizational homeostasis as how organizations
maintain constant internal states to facilitate the intrusion of independent external environmental
“perturbations” (p. 2), and how organizations attempt to maintain a relatively stable environment
while living within dynamic changing external systems. Regev et al. (2013) also posit that
organizational homeostasis has multiple purposes: (a) to balance internal forces against external
forces, (b) develop constancy which creates norm stability, (c) create autonomy, (d) maintain
control, (e) regulate inner well-being, and (f) regulate the long-term goal of employee and
organizational survival.
Additionally, Lloyd et al. (2001) claim that homeostasis is formed from the open systems
theory, and Damasio (2018) identifies homeostasis as a dynamic and complex open system that
explains human beings' and organizations reluctance to accept or reject system changes. This is
congruent with the literature on Bronfenbrenner (1979) whose ecological model describes an
open system, subject to perturbations from outside forces within separate subsystems which may
65

be receptive to or reject change. How organizations handle change within the open system when
perturbations occur is the deciding factor of employee accountability development which also
impacts the future of organizational changes.
Organizational Change
Literature on organizational change has been plentiful since the 2000s and has focused on
the importance of stability, instability, and on how change happens on a constant basis (Church
& Dawson, 2018; Ogden et al., 2006). Furthermore, Lewis (2019) posits that change may be
considered a sign of progress within an organizational structure. Zorn et al. (2000) define
organizational change as how organizational structures modify and alter processes, which often
occur due to leadership or shareholder feelings of instability. Accordingly, Lewis (2019)
postulates that organizational leaders are under extreme pressure and social influence by
shareholders to stay on the leading edges of technology and innovation and to adopt purposeful
change programs and make them stick. For example, in the 1980s, the U.S. manufacturing sector
came under pressure to adopt lean manufacturing processes from international manufacturers
(Lewis, 2019). During this period, Total Performance Management (TPM) programs became a
“marker of excellence” (p. 32) for manufacturing companies around the world. Furthermore,
incorporating a TPM program in a manufacturing setting is currently indicative of an
organization's focus on building reliability efficiencies, high quality, and their goals of
continuous improvement (Lewis, 2019).
Within manufacturing environments of continuous improvement, stability and change,
Lewis (2019) asserts that perturbations happen with minimal opportunity to re-balance the
system, while additional processes simultaneously occur which impact periods of stability and
create instability. Accordingly, Lewis (2011) also mentions that employees may experience
66

familiarity and stability at some points in time, and disruption and fluctuations at other points.
However, change can also create a loss of progress, instability, and inconsistency. Therefore,
employees in organizations need sufficient time to develop and implement change strategies, and
then additional time to return to an emotional state of consistency (Lewis, 2011). In fact, Lewis
(2019) states that too much change, ineffective change programs, and canceled or overextended
change programs are costly to the organization and the employee organizational climate.
Accordingly, organizational change must also be followed by periods of balance and stability
(Lewis, 2019), while employees learn to re-balance their homeostatic feelings and consider the
impact of internal and external change events within individual emotional and external
ecological environmental systems.
Theory of Change (ToC)
The theory of change (ToC) reflects employees making changes to their accountability
behavior and engaging in improved accountability decisions in the work-place. The ToC fills the
gap between how a situation can be changed and is the hidden narrative that leads to the
researcher’s goal of change (Tuck and Yang, 2012). In this study, the ToC benefits both the
employee and the organization. The ToC states that if the organization provides more relational
or social accountability, and better balance it with the institutional or formal accountability, union
machine operators may change their accountability behavior to be more committed to the dual
organizational entity. In turn, they will make better accountability choices, igniting higher levels
of organizational performance and paving the way for future change and progress. According to
the literature, when employees feel higher levels of felt accountability employees show higher
levels of job involvement and organizational performance improves (Royle, 2017; Wallace et al.,
2011; Chen et al., 2017).
67

Change Models
According to Kotter (1995), the ultimate test of any leader may be determined by their
ability to guide organizational change. Even though no business can survive without long-term
reinvention, which requires change, human nature is typically resistant to change, and change
programs are often met with resistance. Thus, leading change is essential for a leader and can
also be incredibly difficult to implement organizationally.
The researcher uses three specific change models to effectively support the
implementation of recommendations in chapter five. These models include, Kotter’s 8 step-
change model (Kotter, 1995), Elrod and Kezar’s model for systemic institutional change (Elrod
& Kezar, 2017), and the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Each
model and their purposes are described in this section.
Kotter’s 8-step change model (Kotter, 1995) reminds us that there are 8-Steps to consider
when implementing change. Furthermore, each step is required, and going through them faster
can have devastating impacts on the long-term success of any change program. Making each step
stick is critical for long-term organizational change success. Step one identifies the need to create
a sense of urgency for the necessary change. Step two requires that you create a coalition of
people who can guide others through the change process. In step three, leaders develop the vision
and strategies to help others through the change. Step four requires that the vision and change
initiative is communicated to all involved in the change implementation. During step five, the
goal is to remove any obstacles or barriers which may impede the change efforts. In step six,
after you begin the implementation, finding short-term wins is essential to keep motivation for
change moving forward. In step seven, you build on the current changes as the implementation
moves forward. The eighth step is when the change initiative is accepted and implemented within
68

the organization, and the vision and goals have been met. Figure 4 shows the steps required using
Kotter’s 8-step change model (1995) to make organizational change effectively stick.

Figure 4
Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model

Note: From Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change. Copyright 1995 by the Harvard Business Press.

69

The second model used in chapter five is the Elrod and Kezar’s model for systemic
institutional change (2017). The Elrod and Kezar model in Figure 5 identifies that while the
model was originally created to create change in STEM graduation rates, the model applies to
any organization requiring systemic and sustainable institutional improvements. Additionally, the
model is focused on facilitating organizational learning, yet also incorporates other change
research to address organizational politics, developing buy-in, creating a shared vision, and
understanding of the power of the culture to unearth the underlying values and assumptions
which may create resistance. The model is like a flowing river which indicates the dynamic flow
of the nature of change (Elrod & Kezar, 2017). The underlying foundations of the model are
leadership, readiness of the organization, and then the ability to take action.

70

Figure 5
Elrod and Kezar’s Model for Systemic Institutional Change

Note: This amended version of the Elrod and Kezar model of systemic institutional change
(2017) was created by the researcher and is simplified from the original version to show the flow
and activities by which two organizational targets can combine together to create large systemic
institutional cultural change. This amended model contains all the same elements of the original
model. From Elrod, S. & Kezar, A. (2017) Increasing student success in STEM: Summary of a
guide to systemic institutional change. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(4), 26-34.
(https://doi: 10.1080/00091383.2017.1357097). Copyright 2017 by the Magazine of Higher
Learning.

71

The third model used in chapter five for learning implementation and leadership training
is The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model in Figure 6
shows the four critical levels of learning evaluation that need to happen to ensure employees
reach the learning results needed to sustain behavioral changes. At level one you identify how
engaged and how much the employees enjoyed the training. During level two you assess the
employees knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment to applying what has been
learned. Level three requires that you monitor, coach, and support employees in their work
environment to ensure the new learning behaviors have been adopted. In level four you review
leading indicators and key performance metrics to determine if the organization has met the
sustainable results of the training.

72

Figure 6
The New World Kirkpatrick Model

Note: The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is a learning
evaluation tool used to ensure learning equals desired behavioral change by employees. From
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. Association for
Talent Development. Copyright 2016 by the Association for Talent Development.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model is an open systems model that determines how
the blueprints for organizational culture in one system is changed or altered to produce
corresponding changes in behavior within another system. Bronfenbrenner (1979) explains that
within the ecological model, all environments within the system play upon each other within
dynamic interactions to determine the ontological meaning of accountability for the individual.
Accordingly, the individual employee, placed at the center of Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological
model, is impacted by all the subsystem's forces and all the activities and linkages with other
parts of the organizational system. Johnson (2008) states that this dynamic system forms the
person's environment and has a bi-directional influence on accountability within subsystems.
73

According to Adu and Oudshoorn (2020), Bronfenbrenner's ecological model provides a
framework of principles to analyze reciprocal relationships among people and their environment.
Employee accountability decisions are informed by the disruptions and perturbations occurring
inside the contextual environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In a paper analyzing the correct uses
of Bronfenbrenner's theory by Tudge et al. (2009), the authors claim that understanding the key
concepts, which includes proximal process's, molar activities, dyadic relationships, and Process-
Person-Context-Time (PPCT), is required for a complete understanding of Bronfenbrenner's
model. Continuing is a discussion of the implication of these fundamental concepts, along with
genetics and heredity, as these biological concepts align with these ecological concepts to create
the complexities of employee's decisions to be held accountable or not within the organizational
accountability system.
The Implications of Biology, Genetics, and Heredity
The theory of ecological development presented by Bronfenbrenner (1995a) is a
theoretical organizing tool focused on integrating inter-disciplinary systems around the subject of
human development. To accomplish this integration, the ecological model combines theories
from multiple distinct disciplines including ecology, biology, psychology, sociology, cultural
anthropology, behavioral genetics, neurobiology, economics, and historical perspectives
(Bronfenbrenner, 1995a). The common theme of Bronfenbrenner's (1995a) model is “linking
lives within contexts” (p. 623). Linking lives within a variety of accountability contexts, provides
consideration of the inherent biological, genetic, and hereditary forces which contribute to
employee human development.
Individual genetics and heredity in Bronfenbrenner's (1979) original model are identified,
but not explicitly labelled in his early work. The individual is the central figure in the model and
74

the individual’s role is central to the context of the developing microsystem (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). However, research from an ecological perspective requires pushing the boundaries of the
model further, as Bronfenbrenner did in his future work, where he discusses how the forces of
biological factors, genetics, and heredity combine to play a role in human accountability
development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Tudge et al. (2009) posit that while Bronfenbrenner (1979) acknowledged individual
genetic and biological characteristics, Bronfenbrenner's original work focused on the personal
characteristics a person brings with them into an environment. In the words of Bronfenbrenner
(1995a), individuals “have as much to do with their development as to the environment in which
they live their lives” (p. 623). The role biological genetics play is given significant notice by
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994), who state that many scientists and researchers have expanded
on the idea of genetics within the original ecological model. Additionally, heritability, viewed
through the behavioral genetics model is defined as “the proportions of an individual variation in
a given human characteristics that is attributed entirely to the genetic endowment”
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 569) that is entirely free from environmental influences. This
leads Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) to the conclusion that employee's behavioral choices
within the proximal processes are determined by multifarious genetic, heritability, and ecological
environmental variables, which dictate the strength and direction of personal development
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), and the direction of accountability decisions within these
proximal processes.
Proximal Processes
Proximal processes according to Bronfenbrenner (1995b) are defined as “progressively
more complex reciprocal interaction[s] between an active, evolving biopsychological human
75

organism and the person, objects, and symbols in its immediate environment” (p. 572) that
endure over time and occur frequently. Proximal processes are viewed as the “engines of
development” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 620). For this purpose, they consist of the
everyday interactions between the employees, co-workers, union management and company
leadership, and they encompass the symbols, and objects within the organizational environment
that promote their work-life accountability development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Mercon-Vargas et al. (2020) argue that proximal processes are the mechanisms used to achieve a
specific purpose. Additionally, while Bronfenbrenner (1979) views proximal processes as having
positive effects on human development, Mercon-Vargas et al. (2020) expands this concept stating
that inverse proximal processes may produce incompetency and potential dysfunctional results.
Additionally, these inverse proximal processes may have stronger effects within an environment
that has already been weakened.
Within the model, proximal processes are the genetic potentials through which
psychological potentials are actualized (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Bronfenbrenner and Ceci
(1994) imply that when proximal processes are weak, genetic potentials may remain unrealized,
and when they are strong, proximal processes may “increase in magnitude” (p. 569). Also,
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) posit that within the individual lies the proximal processes that
define individual development elements. The elements of proximal processes which assist in
realizing human potential, according to Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) are:
1. Differentiated perceptions, responses, directing, and controlling one's self behaviors;
2. Successfully coping with stress, acquiring, and building knowledge and skills, and
establishing and maintaining social relationships; and
76

3. How an individual internally and symbolically constructs their physical and social
environments.
One study that addresses the influence of proximal processes on biological-environmental
factors is Riggins-Caspers et al. (2003). This research examined the proximal process of adopted
parents, with birth-parent pathology, and their harsh disciplinary behaviors on 150 adopted
children. Riggins-Caspers et al. (2003) identify correlations between parents’ biological factors
being moderated by the ecological environment's context. According to Riggins-Casper (2003)
these biological factors carry across different environments or systems, as in Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems model. Proximal processes are just one of four processes that help
shape the behavioral development of an individual's ongoing behavioral proximal processes
within the ecological model. Additionally, this study examines the connection between molar
activities, dyadic relationships, and Person Process Context Time (PPCT) in shaping employee
accountability behavior.
Nature and Function of Molar Activities
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) original theory identifies molar activities as the principal
element and most powerful manifestation of forces influencing a person’s development.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) claims that they are “ongoing behavior possessing a momentum of its
own and perceived as having meaning or intent by the participants in the setting” (p. 45). He
clarifies that while “all molar activities are forms of behavior, however, not all behaviors are
forms of molar activities” (p. 45). Because all behaviors are not equally significant, according to
Bronfenbrenner (1979) some behaviors may influence employee development more than others.
Molar activities, as identified by Bronfenbrenner (1979) are critical and influential concepts that
can assist in addressing accountability research.
77

The elements of molar activities addressed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) determine that
1. They are an ongoing and continual process occurring over time, not just a momentary
activity that occurs once.
2. They are perceived as being meaningful and enacted through intent.
3. They have a momentum of their own and they may create tension within the system.
4. They are characterized by the employee’s work status and persistence of activities
through time.
5. They are resistant to environmental interruptions, and are not restricted to the
immediate setting, but may involve remembering objects, people, places, and other
events that are not actually within the immediate contextual setting.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) explains that molar activities directly affect people and human
development due to their importance within the organizational setting, because they are related to
other on-going activities and are influenced by other employee behaviors. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
acknowledges that molar activities have a chronological time perspective and involve others
within the informal social system, as in this study of employees with peers, and supervisors. In
reference to these molar activities, Bronfenbrenner (1979) states that the depth of employee
development is determined by the complexities and varieties of how diverse these molar
activities become and how intertwined activities become with other people, eventually leading
them to become part of the employee’s “psychological field” (p. 55) of development.
Correspondingly, an accountability episode within an organization has all the elements and
complexities of molar activities within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model. Molar activity
is another element that shapes the complexity of the ecological model; additionally, dyadic
relationships are another important element.
78

Dyadic Relationships
When two employees participate in activities, pay attention to each other, and participate
in complementary activities. The creation of dyadic relationships results in human development
which occurs inside these dyads (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979),
these dyadic relationships constitute what is called a “development system” (p. 66) in which the
dyadic interactions form the developmental processes as two or more people bond.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) explains that the social system must account for all the relationships
within the social system. This research studies accountability episodes, because developmental
change occurs for all people inside the dyadic relationship of these episodes. Additionally,
Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits that dyadic relationships form in three different ways within an
organization: observationally, jointly, and primarily. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), an
observational dyad happens when one person pays “close and sustained” (p. 56) attention to the
other, or at least acknowledges they have an interest in the relationship. A joint activity dyad is
where people participate in similar activities but complement each other (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Joint activity dyads frequently occur in manufacturing settings and are powerful combined
activities derived from reciprocity and working together. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), a
primary dyadic relationship exists at the phenomenological level and influences both people’s
thoughts and behaviors. Even when these two people are apart, their bond continues to influence
their developmental behavior, which is a powerful force of personal motivation that guides each
person in the dyad’s course of potential accountability development.
The elements of these dyads constitute the basic building blocks of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) microsystem, in which accountability episodes take place. The elemental foundation of a
dyadic relationship according to Bronfenbrenner (1979) includes: (a) reciprocity, (b) the balance
79

of power, and (c) affective relations. In a reciprocal relationship, what one person does
influences the other person's actions, and there is a coordination of activities that are usually
positively influential (Bronfenbrenner, (1979). Additionally, even when dyadic relationships are
reciprocal, the balance of power within a dyadic relationship may be balanced or imbalanced.
Power is essential to human development because people learn more when the balance of power
shifts towards them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). He argues that people in dyads with higher degrees
of power are also more likely to abuse and exploit their power. Bronfenbrenner (1979) identifies
those affective relationships develop over time through mutual interactions. Additionally, a
person's affective feelings toward the other person may become more or less pronounced toward
the other person over time. Also, when people work together, the time element of a person's
feelings toward the affective relationship and the other person may shift from mutually positive
to negative, ambivalent, or asymmetrical.
This research discusses the positive and negative effects of dyadic relationships; however,
it is essential to add that when a third party becomes part of the dyadic equation, this party can
enhance or impair the compacity of the dyad's developmental functions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Additionally, people within a dyad can serve as confidants, aids, substitutes, or scapegoats. They
can provide additional resources constructively or negatively to the dyad, causing it to be
emotionally and socially balanced or imbalanced for the people within the dyad (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Bronfenbrenner explains that dyadic relationships are an essential part of any social
system, which for this study includes open systems of accountability. Additionally, the concepts
of person, process, context, and time (PPCT) as introduced by Bronfenbrenner (1979) are
discussed to promote further understanding of human development.
80

Person, Process, Context, Time (PPCT)
In this study, PPCT supports a greater understanding of felt accountability and
employee’s relationships within a dual organizational construct. Tudge et al. (2009) state that an
understanding of PPCT is necessary to fully understanding Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model.
Johnson (2008) asserts that PPCT also applies to organizational development processes.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) argues that PPCT is a biopsychological condition. Within accountability
research, the developmental processes of job, tasks, and relationships may vary as a joint
function of employees' systems processes and environmental surroundings, providing varying
outcomes of felt accountability (Hall et al., 2003, 2017). Mutual scholars explain that the
developmental power within a joint activity dyadic relationship is derived from a common theme
in dual organizational and accountability research. That theme which is vital to this study is
reciprocity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Dai et al., 2020; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Gouldner, 1960;
Thacker, 2015).
Bronfenbrenner’s concepts of PPCT include:
1. The process is the proximal processes that occurs in the immediate environment over
time within the individual-level and microsystem.
2. Person acknowledges the biological, genetic, and hereditary predispositions, and
personality characteristics of the employee, which they bring into the work
environment from sociocultural influences.
3. Context includes the interrelated systems of the model, including the microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
81

4. Time also refers to the chronosystem, which for this study involves how the
relationship of episodic historical events affect employee's commitment to dual
organizations, and their felt accountability toward the union or company.
The Ecological Systems of Bronfenbrenner
This study has provided substantial literature on the biology, ecology, and psychology of
individuals at the center of Bronfenbrenner’s model as well as system interactions to set a strong
foundation of the understanding of how highly complex interactions are formed within potential
employee behaviors and organizational accountability systems. The literature on open system
theory using the ecological model linking accountability is limited. However, the following
researchers identify a strong need to address organizational accountability through a multi-
systems framework, using Bronfenbrenner’s model, and claim that a single-system framework
cannot capture the complexities of accountability systems (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et
al., 2008; Johnson, 2008; Pan & Patel, 2020).
Johnson (2008) utilizes complexity theory to understand system changes and to identify
how complex systems fit into Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model. She defines complexity theory as
a “specific kind of process from which a level of organization and order emerges that is difficult
to discern and impossible to measure accurately for long-term prediction” (Johnson, 2008, p. 6).
Accordingly, because organizations are constantly evolving and developing, they need complex
systems to support and balance states of homeostasis, and the degree of disorder and randomness
surrounding them (Regev et al., 2013). Johnson (2008) claims that the continual evolution of
organizational systems “transcends the sum of all component parts” (p. 6). She explains that
school systems, like other organizations, have all the qualities of complex open systems, an
exchange of energy and matter, self-organization, spontaneous shifts, dependence on coherence,
82

and dyadic relationships. The following sections contain a brief literature review on each level of
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as they relate to felt accountability and uneven
practice.
Microsystem
The innermost level of the ecological model is the microsystem or the system closest to
the employee. It contains the accountability structures with which the employee has the most
direct contact (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Defined initially by Bronfenbrenner in 1977, the
microsystem of human development consists of the complex relationships between the individual
and all other persons within the immediate setting. In this study this includes union machine
operators, peers, supervisors, and close proximity leaders. Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) state
that the microsystem explains the physical features of the manufacturing environment, the
factors of the employees’ roles, places, and content, and the activities in which the employees
engage in overtime within the immediate setting.
Within the microsystem, the most basic developmental behavioral interactions occur
person to person, in dyads, within the context of the environmental setting (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) conclude that employees and supervisors are invited,
invite, are permitted, or inhibited from participating in the microsystem, which ultimately drives
or inhibits their occupational development. Additionally, the employee is both influenced by and
influences the microsystem and the organization of this system, including employees, their
families, peers, co-workers, supervisors, and the employee’s community (Johnson, 2008). Each
of these relationships critically impacts a worker’s accountability at this microsystem level.
Within manufacturing for example, the worker may be surrounded by coworkers, but
because of the fast pace of assembly line work, not interact as frequently with them, and feel
83

more isolated in their environment than an employee who works directly in an office surrounded
by coworkers (Salazar & Beaton, 2000). This is why within the microsystem, working conditions
and job structure are a critical part of the content that is characterized by the nature of the job
(Salazar & Beaton, 2000). Additionally, this includes how well the job role matches the
employees’ use of their skills, talents, and knowledge. Salazar and Beaton (2000) conclude that if
an employee is not fit for the job role, the employee may feel frustrated or angry; however,
relationships with coworkers and supervisors may help or hinder how an employee feels. While
the microsystem has direct impact on the employee and where the accountability episodes begin
forming, it is the mesosystem where actual accountability development occurs for employees
within the organization (Frink et al., 2008; Johnson, 2008).
Mesosystem
According to Bronfenbrenner (1995a), the mesosystem involves all bi-directional
influences between all the other ecological systems; micro, exo, macro, and chronosystems. In a
landmark conceptual paper on meso-level accountability in organizations, Frink et al. (2008)
discuss the mesosystems theoretical ideals of organizational accountability. Consistent with this
research, they cite that within the mesosystem, accountability episodes are traced back to the
complexity of systems theory. Frink et al. (2008) indicate that using Bronfenbrenner’s
mesosystem can help integrate contemporary theory and research on accountability toward a
“unitary whole” (p. 177). Furthermore, Frink et al. (2008) argue that accountability must be seen
from a multi-level systems perspective. Additionally, these researchers claim that future research
will be unable to unlock the complexities of accountability by using a single-level framework
due to its simple linear inadequacies (Frink et al., 2008). Because accountability systems are
social systems with sets of shared standard norms and expectations (Frink et al., 2008), the meso-
84

level is critical to understanding organizational accountability. Indeed, for this research,
accountability must also consider contextual factors, which link the micro and macro concepts
across levels of meso analysis. Additionally, Frink et al. (2008) identify three conditions that
must be met to achieve meso-level status: a) at least one individual or group level process should
be included, b) that at least one organizational level construct should be integrated, and c) the
individual or group constructs must have a link to the organizational construct.
Role theory may be the best example of meso related theory in organizations. Role theory
examines the individual level of understanding of workplace behaviors that affect the
accountability structures within the organization (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Frink et al., 2008). Dewi
and Riantoputra (2019) provide additional empirical evidence for a mesosystem theory of felt
accountability. By integrating internal and external factors of felt accountability, they suggest
that employees with positive affect have higher levels of felt accountability. Consequently,
employees with negative affect have lower levels of felt accountability. In addition, the
perception of organizational support and the type of organization can mediate the effects of
employee felt accountability (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019). Additionally, Dewi and Riantoputra
(2019) posit that more bureaucratic forms of organizational structures, like unions or dual
organizations, appear to enact lower felt accountability due to more formal decision-making,
chains of authority, and behavioral formalization.
Exosystem
Bronfenbrenner (1979) claims that the exosystem comprises the linkages and processes
that take place within two or more settings, but do not directly involve the developing person.
According to Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) the exosystem lies beyond the immediate
environments or social systems that do not directly impact the employee, but have the ability to
85

influence their development. Johnson (2011) cites the organization as being within the
exosystem, which in this study would include the dual organizational structure of the union
representing the employee in collective bargaining, and the company, HPB. Johnson (2011)
explains that the exosystem is the broader systems that indirectly impacts the employee. The
events of the exosystem according to Johnson (2011) may represent changes in the system, such
as restructuring, downsizing, job insecurity, or adversarial competitive work climate, or as in this
study, a merger or acquisition by another company, TPM change program implementation, and
COVID. Additionally, she asserts that within the exosystem, organizational structures
accommodate changes within social, economic, and political environments. Accordingly, the
organization internalizes what it has learned and continuously evolves within the inherent
exosystem to create a culture of continuous improvement by implementing strategic priorities
(Johnson, 2008).
Dewi and Riantoputra (2019) also examine felt accountability for employees within the
exosystem, and claim that employee feelings of support by the organization result in higher
levels of felt accountability; conversely, employees who perceive the organization as non-
supportive have lower felt accountability. Dewi and Riantoputra (2019) postulate that
organizational support is manifest in the exosystem by the organization through established
norms, systems, and the organizational climate. Additionally, organizational support assumes that
both the organization and the union support collaborative work systems that enhance a union
employee’s felt accountability within a dual organizational structure. Furthermore, Dewi and
Riantoputra (2019) explain that those mechanistic bureaucratic organizational structures may
prevent positive enhancement of felt accountability because their decision-making is centralized.
Centralized decision-making is part of the union company construct and may negatively affect
86

and lower felt accountability. While the exosystem is comprised of the organizational structures
and systems, the macrosystem includes the broader concepts of societal influences.
Macrosystem
The macrosystem within the ecological framework is defined by the continuities in the
development of culture, subculture, belief systems, ideologies, and societal change within the
whole systems boundaries (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Accordingly, Bronfenbrenner (1979) explains
that it is within the macrosystem that class identification, ethics, cultural differences, and social
change, create the socialization of human development outcomes. In fact, the variation in the
type of activities within different cultures and the intensity and collective nature of socialization,
may elicit levels of social conformity or non-conformity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). According to
Johnson (2011) it is the societal norms, laws, legislation, policies and procedures that are
antecedents which combine to create the macrosystem.
According to Frink et al (2008) the macro level can be viewed as organizational policies,
patterns of accountability conduct, and how the organization fills its role within the external
environment. Furthermore, these researchers posit that while sometimes explicit and others
implicit, these systems create the shared norms of behavior within organizational cultures. The
macrosystem encompasses the way things are done, the socially understood methods of conduct
which help create centralization of social systems (Frink et al., 2008). In addition, Frink et al.
(2008) explain that accountability is used within the organizational macrosystem to provide a
means of governance and organizational citizenship within the whole system to meet stakeholder
needs.
Taking care of stakeholders is another macro level accountability construct and is defined
as the relationship between organizations and the varying stakeholder groups (Jahansoozi, 2006).
87

The concept of accountability is at the heart of stakeholder relationships (Frink, 2008). External
stakeholder groups can exert pressure on the different ecological organizational systems, which
supports the need for the organization to be accountable to their stakeholder groups (Frink et al.,
2008). Jahansoozi (2006) posits that organizational-stakeholder relationships are autonomous
governance systems within the macrosystem, in which the organization is not at the center of the
universe. Finally, stakeholders are a critical entity to which an organization must collaborate,
trust, satisfy, and have prospering commitments to survive. While stakeholders in the
macrosystem are important entities, they are subject to changes within time dimensions.
Chronosystem
The chronosystem relates to the time-based dimension of human development occurring
within different environments (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, Johnson, 2008). Bronfenbrenner (1995)
states that across historical periods of time, environmental changes are able to produce
significant developmental change that can be positive or negative for an individual.
Bronfenbrenner (2005) identifies the chronosystem as a construct, not a theory. He argues that
the chronosystem is about time and timing related to environmental features, not individual
characteristics. Additionally, Bronfenbrenner (2005) explains that a chronological system may be
helpful when added to other theoretical frameworks. Bronfenbrenner (2005) defines the
properties of the chronosystem by concluding that “its design permits one to identify the impact
of prior life events and experiences, singly or sequentially, on subsequent development” (p. 83)
that occurs in the external environment of the individual. Time can refer to short-term or long-
term dimensions, and additionally to socio-historical events that occur throughout an individual’s
lifespan (Johnson, 2008). Bronfenbrenner (1995) suggests that for human development to occur,
it must happen on a fairly regular basis or over extended periods that are focused on the
88

environment, conditions, and the processes that shape human development throughout an
individual’s lifespan. Human interactions across time can emerge as powerful predictors of
human development outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1995).
In 1995, Bronfenbrenner identified three important life course principles relating to time
and timing within an individual’s human development (pp. 641–642).
1. An individual’s life course is seen as embedded in and is powerfully shaped by the
conditions and events occurring during the historical period in which the person lives.
2. A major factor influencing the course and outcomes of human development is the
timing of biological and social transitions related to the culturally defined age, role
expectations, and opportunities occurring throughout the life course.
3. The lives of all family members are interdependent. How each family member reacts
to a particular historical event or role transition affects the developmental course of
the other family members both within and across generations.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) concept of the chronosystem and time directly relate to the short
and long-term events within a persons’ lifespan, time working within an organization, and how
organizations change with time is a significant factor in human and occupational development.
Additionally, Bronfenbrenner (1995) argues that work environments can be chaotic. He claims
that this chaos can disrupt the formation of and stability of relationships essential for
psychological growth and development within the workplace. In addition, Bronfenbrenner
(1995) claims that the conditions that often lead to workplace chaos are often the “unforeseen
products” (p. 644) of policy decision-makers that occur within different types of organizations
and that these policies can reduce the quality of human capital.

89

Conceptual Framework
The literature demonstrates that the development of a conceptual framework requires that
scholars be specific about their research. As Robson and McCartan (2016) explain conceptual
frameworks determine the details and features, carefully observe the relationships between
concepts that provide direct meaning to the research, and provides a link to the data that is
collected and analyzed. Miles et al. (2018) presents a conceptual framework as a theory about
what is happening and why it happens. Additionally, the conceptual framework explains the
aspects and features of the study and how they relate to each other. According to Leshem and
Trafford (2007), doctoral research should identify arguments and provide what they refer to as
“conceptual coherence” (p. 93), which should connect theory with practice. Maxwell (2012) cites
a more general-purpose for the conceptual framework: systems, concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories that inform the research. Scholars may provide conceptual
frameworks through visual depictions and graphic diagrams or narrative forms (Robson &
McCartan, 2016). This research assumes a link between employee felt accountability, uneven
practice, communication and commitment within a dual organizational structure.
This conceptual framework acknowledges that systems theory provides an open system
structure that moves development boundaries across these multiple systems to determine
individual employee accountability development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ebrahim, 2005; Frink
et al., 2008). The complexities of systems theory within the ecological model invites the
interactivity between the various system elements, presuming linkages between them and
improving accountability constructs within the organizational whole (Frink et al., 2008). The
ecological system is an open system with various subsystems that interact and affect the
90

individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) at the center of the model and potentially influence felt
accountability, uneven practice, and level of sustainable engagement.
The conceptual framework details in Figure 7 presents a graphical description of the dual
organization, accountability factors, Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model, concepts of felt
accountability, uneven practice, the players or targets of this study, and their roles and tasks.
Since this study involves a dual organizational structure, the whole circle divides into halves.
The top half represents the company, and the lower half represents the union. Employees have
equal opportunities to be committed to one or both entities, but how they choose is based on how
the multiple system components interact, identifying their commitment to which entity and how
they choose to accept or reject their accountabilities. The ideal situation would be that each
employee would have equal allegiance to both the company and the union. However, this is
determined by how both the company and union appear to be united in goal and purpose.
Employees need to perceive that union company communication appears as one united entity.
However, this is rarely the case due to the adversarial relationships that often exist between a
company and a union.
The central figure at the center of the framework is the individual employee who arrives
with a multitude of predispositional genetic and hereditary accountability factors, sociocultural
characteristics, values, personal feelings, and family and societal relationships that have formed
and developed the individual employee's perceptions of accountability over the chronology of
time (Bronfenbrenner, 1995b). These genetic, hereditary, and sociological factors can influence
union machine operators' work-related accountability decisions. The surrounding microsystem
includes immediate work-related influences like task, role, co-workers, leader, and supervisor
relationships that may provide support or not. The level of support also directly affects the
91

employee's accountability-related decisions. Uneven practice in the model's center explains why
organizational accountability mechanisms fail to provide equitable accountability decisions
toward individual employees (Romzek, 2015). Varying levels of uneven practice determine the
functionality or dysfunctionality of the organizational accountability system. Reviewing the
model of uneven practice may pinpoint the areas of dysfunction so that the elements and
mechanisms within the system can be adjusted appropriately to distribute equitable and fair
accountability for all employees.
Within the mesosystem, the internal and external elements interact to support change and
accountability growth and development decisions (Bronfenbrenner, 1995a). The outer circles
represent the exosystem and macrosystems. The exosystem identifies accountability mechanisms
for both the company and the union, respectively, and external leadership roles inside both
entities. The top half of the macrosystem on the company side determines the company's cultural
values, attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies. The lower half of the macrosystem identifies the same
within the union, and the center dividing line is the cooperation and collaboration that form
relationships that enhance or detract from building individual-level employee accountability
within the organization.
At the base of the model is the chronosystem. The chronosystem represents the elements
of time and space (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). This study focuses on determining employee
perceptions of felt accountability within three episodic organizational change events that have
occurred over 6-years and how these change events determine a union worker's commitment to
one or both entities, as well as accountabilities. Furthermore, how union machine operators
choose to be held accountable at these points in time helps support the analysis of this research
by bringing all the elements of the conceptual framework together to determine how various
92

subsystem components within elements of time impact employees' accountability choices. It is
imperative to understand each subsystem's dynamic impact and the factors relating to the
elements of accountability that may weigh upon the individual employee within the work
environment, as these can each affect an employee's level of felt accountability and their
accountability choices within specific contextual factors.

Figure 7
Conceptual Framework

93

Conclusion
Investigating accountability through biology and ecological frameworks provides
opportunities to add new insights into individual employee felt accountability behaviors and the
idea of uneven practice. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, biological homeostasis, and
open systems theory provide a complementary framework to view dual organizational systems,
employee felt accountability, and uneven practice. As Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) claim,
understanding the link between genetics and heredity upon individual levels of felt accountability
adds new knowledge on how employees may enact accountability episodes within organizational
frameworks and balance accountability priorities.
Researchers state that simple, singular, linear models of organizations have many
limitations and faulty assumptions, which create misconceptions about how leaders view
organizational accountability systems and employee felt accountability (Frink et al. 2008:
Johnson, 2008). Organizational systems are highly dynamic complex systems that require multi-
directional linkages of interrelationships between systems and form the interactions that impact
employee felt accountability (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1950). Organizations
need to understand the links between biological and ecological systems to understand human
beings' multiple layers of accountability complexities completely. In addition, the realization and
understanding that dual organizations have higher levels of complexity require further
clarification of the multiple layers of dual organizational accountability structures, which creates
increased levels of accountability complexity for workers (Beauvais et al., 1991; Ke & Zhu,
2019; Purcell, 1954). Thus, balancing both accountability systems through greater collaboration
becomes a necessity between dual organizational constructs to create the reality of one system
and one structure of accountability, with balancing norms, cultures, and climates. With improved
94

accountability cohesion, union employees may feel more cognitively connected and committed
to both the union and the company equally. Workers may enact felt accountability through a
single lens, reducing cognitive psychological inconsistencies which create organizational
dysfunction, and individual accountability conflict and confusion.

95

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine the phenomenological perceptions of
employee felt accountability, and understand how employees make meaning of and feel about
accountability constructs toward the dual organizational targets of the company and the union. In
addition, this study seeks to determine how uneven practice, which is the ability or lack of ability
of supervisors to use organizational mechanisms to hold union employees accountable, also
relates to union employees’ felt accountability. Sustainable engagement defined by HPB (2019)
is the intensity of an employee’s connection to their organization marked by a committed effort
to achieve company goals in settings that support productivity and maintain personal well-being.
Achieving sustainable engagement requires an employee’s perception of accountability to be
positive. Felt accountability as a phenomenological construct can be strained in dual
organizational relationships, as employees have to balance their accountabilities between two
different commitment targets. If these targets are misaligned employee confusion may result and
organizational dysfunction can occur.
This chapter introduces the research design and provides a rationale for the selected
design and its relationship to the research questions and theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
The research questions are outlined describing how they align with the chosen methodological
design. An overview of the design is presented, along with a description of the research setting
and the researcher's positionality as it relates to this study. The researcher also identifies the
rationale for how participants are selected, the instrumentation used, and the data collection
procedures used for the study. Finally, there is a discussion about using data collection
procedures, issues related to credibility and trustworthiness, ethical considerations, limitations
96

and delimitations of the study, a description of the participants and their selection criteria for this
study, and the participants demographic identification.
Research Questions
Maxwell (2012) posits that research questions specifically explain what the study aims to
understand. Accordingly, research questions serve two functions, to provide relationships to the
research goals and framework and provide a relationship to the study's methods, credibility, and
trustworthiness. According to Robson and McCartan (2016), research questions provide the key
to guiding the research methodology. The following qualitative research questions provide
practicality within the phenomenological theoretical framework, conceptual framework, design
methodology, and pragmatic paradigm relationships for this study.
1. What internal influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB inside the
immediate environment?
2. What external influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB within the distal
environment?
3. How does the culture, climate, and context of dual organizations and uneven practice
impact employee felt accountability?
Overview of Design
Robson and McCartan (2016) explain that the design of a research study creates the
roadmap to turn the research questions into a research project. There are three broad
methodologies to consider when selecting a research design, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2012; Robson & McCartan, 2016). The
methodology that best fits this study is a phenomenological qualitative design. Robson and
McCartan (2016) posit that qualitative design emerges from the research, typically anticipating
97

the research design. Additionally, qualitative research is instrumental when personal subjective
ideas assist in driving inductive reasoning (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study seeks to draw
inferences and definitions from both the HPB employee survey, semi-structured interviews, and
the researcher working in the organizational environment for over 6-years. Using all these data
points will provide robust credibility and trustworthiness to the phenomenologically collected
data. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the qualitative design focuses on creating
meaning from experience, with the researcher as the primary analysis instrument. This study
aims to collect meaning from participants about their personal perceptions of felt accountability
by gaining insight into how employees perceive their accountability experiences within the
organization.
Felt accountability research has commonly been dominated by quantitative design.
Predominant accountability researchers like Tetlock (1985, 1989, 1992), Dubnick (1987, 2002),
Frink and Klimoski (1998, 2004), Hall et al., (2003, 2017), Johnson (2008), and Romzek, et al.
(2012) have all used quantitative design and conceptual papers in their research. In 2008
however, two papers promoted the use of qualitative design through the use of Bronfenbrenner's
(1979) ecological systems framework suggesting this qualitative viewpoint provides a more
complete and holistic view of the complexities of organizational accountability (Johnson, 2008;
Frink et al., 2008).
There is no accountability research linking felt accountability to systems theory between
2008 and 2019, when Dewi and Riantoputra showed renewed interest in qualitative design
methods using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) systems theory. This researcher elects to continue the
work of these previous researchers by promoting qualitative design methodology looking at felt
accountability and uneven practice through the lens of Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological
98

systems model, biology, systems theory, and the constructs of organizational communication,
commitment and homeostasis. Additionally, a pragmatic philosophical paradigm guides this
study.
Philosophical paradigms are viewed in terms of research purpose, types, and views of the
researcher's reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Maxwell (2012) postulates, a researcher must
have the right paradigm fit for their research as it supports the assumptions about how the
research is conducted. This researcher is using a pragmatic paradigm for this study. According to
Robson and McCartan (2016), being pragmatic designates concern for the human practical,
sensible and realistic experiences. Pragmatism is guided by perceptions of experiences and is a
world view that arises from perceptions of actions within situations. Pragmatism works to
provide practical realistic solutions to life’s problems (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Pragmatists
believe that multiple paradigms are able to address research questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). There may be multiple means of addressing an accountability episode for an employee,
and the conclusions may be based upon their perception of what works for the employee within
the given context, rather than providing predetermined responses. While, the pragmatist
approach is an appropriate paradigm for this study, there is one caution provided by Robson and
McCartan (2016). This caution suggests that researchers using a pragmatic paradigm, may be
tempted to look externally to find answers to the problems that are being addressed, and to hurry
and complete the research. Their recommendation is that a researcher stay within the limits of the
internal collection of data and resist “external pragmatism” (p. 28) to maintain the credibility,
rigor, and trustworthiness of the research.
99

Data Collection Procedures
Applicable to this study are two appropriate data collection procedures, both appropriate
for qualitative research. These methods include using an organizational survey, only to identify
the company goal of sustainable engagement, and semi-structured interviews (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2016). The first collection method is the use of an existing organizational employee
survey report. This report is used only to highlight the organizational goal of sustainable
engagement. No further document analysis of the employee survey will be completed. The HPB
survey report is called the Employee Survey (ES), and it provides the research with the
foundation for this organizational goal of sustainable engagement for the research. The idea used
in the report relates to the organization's optimal goal of reaching sustainable engagement.
Sustainable engagement, defined by the organization in the ES, is the intensity of an employee's
connection to their organization marked by a committed effort to help achieve company goals in
settings that support productivity and maintain all employees' well-being. The researcher applies
the goal of sustainable engagement to this study to see how employees felt accountability and
uneven practice supports the organizational goal of achieving sustainable engagement. While the
organization has the goal of optimizing sustainable engagement, from the researcher's analysis of
the details of the ES report, sustainable engagement has not yet been reached as an organization
nor at the one specific manufacturing site that has been selected for this research.
While electing to use the ES to highlight the organizational goal of sustainable
engagement, no specific data points from the document will be used. The survey report is not
used in more depth, and further detail and the ability to triangulate data from it may be limited
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The ES document is very limited by its information, and applying
it to felt accountability, and uneven practice within the organization may be challenging.
100

Therefore, the document will not be coupled with semi-structured interviews through
triangulation to gain additional insight into the phenomena.
The second data collection method most appropriate for this qualitative methodological
design is semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interview questions are open-ended, less
structured questions allowing flexibility within the interview process, with the addition of
probing questions and cues used to gather phenomenological data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Robinson and Leonard (2019) posit that interviews allow
researchers to capture richer and more detailed qualitative data of people’s perceptive worlds.
Semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher the opportunity to read participant's facial
expressions, voice tone, body language, and other nonverbal cues (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
This two-way communication allowed for more profound insights into the phenomena of felt
accountability, uneven practice, and personal feelings sustainable engagement. Additionally, the
semi-structured interviews allowed the interviews to occur naturally and allowed the researcher
to respond to participant’s initial answers with cues and probing questions that elicited richer,
deeper, more meaningful, and detailed responses (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Table 1 lists the
three research questions used in this study and data sources and methodology which guided this
study.

101

Table 1
Research Questions and Data Collection Method
Research questions Interviews

1. What internal influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB
inside the immediate environment?

X

2. What external influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB
within the distal environment?

X

3. How does the culture, climate, and context of dual organizations and
uneven practice impact employee felt accountability?

X

Research Setting
The specific research setting was one U.S. manufacturing plant within a large
international food manufacturing organization. This manufacturing facility employs 225 local
union members and 75 non-union administrators, supervisors, and managers. Ninety-eight
percent of identifying union membership is male, with only 2% female. Additionally, over 90%
of union employees are of Hispanic American heritage, with the smallest percentages of ethnicity
being Caucasian American, Asian and Pacific Islander American, and Middle Eastern American
ethnicities.
The local union has a 35-year long and stable history at this particular manufacturing
plant. Due to mergers and acquisitions, the companies within this manufacturing facility have
changed five times within the last 35-years. It is important to note that the strength and stability
of the union at this facility keep union employee turnover very low, at levels under 6%. The
average tenure of a union machine operator is 12-years. This tenure may provide additional
102

validity to the findings as operator experiences with the organizational constructs of
accountability within this facility are culturally engrained over time.
The researcher has observed the environment of the company and union collaboration at
this manufacturing facility for over 6-years. During this time, a large international manufacturing
organization acquired the original company, which is vital to understanding how accountability
constructs have operated and changed over time. This viewpoint provides the researcher with
important impressions of how felt accountability, uneven practice, and sustainable engagement
connect within the organizational setting and how participants may enact accountabilities within
individual accountability episodes inside the organization.
Participants
The researcher has specifically elected to interview only union machine operators and
gather their perceptions of the dual organizational system's perceived accountability and uneven
practice. The researcher did not elect to interview company and union leadership as participants
in the study. The goal was not to compare and contrast leadership perceptions of the internal and
external factors linked to operator accountability. The purpose of the study was to determine the
concerns of union machine operators and identify the internal and external factors which
determine how employees feel within the accountability system. Furthermore, based on operator
perceptions, make recommendations to improve the dual organizational accountability system to
create improved organizational employee well-being and performance.
The participants for this study were union machine operators with at least 6-years of
organizational tenure. This tenure is essential as it provides the long-term perspective required to
explain the phenomena of an individual union machine operator’s felt accountability over time
within different contexts. In addition, each operator has experienced the three episodic events
103

prescribed in the semi-structured interviews, which have happened over the past 6- years. These
union machine operators provided rich and robust qualitative perceptions about their individual
felt accountabilities within the organization at these three specific periods of time and how their
felt accountabilities may have changed from before the event, during the event, to after the event.
The Researcher
Understanding the researcher's positionality at the beginning of the study plays one part
in helping eliminate bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative research requires that a
researcher's background, culture, and experiences be divulged because it holds the potential for
shaping interpretations of the participant interview experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Positionality is the need to emphasize the notion of how the researchers, race, gender, social
class, and background relate to the participants within the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, Creswell and Creswell (2018) claim that researchers can also attempt to mitigate
bias by attempting to take a stance toward the participants that is non-judgmental, empathetic,
and respectful of each participant.
In this study, the researcher personally identifies with most Hispanic participants because
he is of Hispanic and Caucasian decent and also male. However, there is a distinct difference
because the researcher identifying as Hispanic and Caucasian does not outwardly present the
appearance of being of Hispanic origin. The researcher’s outward appearance is more Caucasian
or White. So, while the researcher relates well to the participants of Hispanic heritage at work,
the participants may not reflect the same relationship back to the researcher. Additionally, the
researcher’s socioeconomic status differs from that of union machine operators. Most union
machine operators have high school diplomas or a short collegiate background. In comparison,
the researcher has advanced educational degrees. The researchers work-related status also differs
104

by societal standards, as manufacturing union machine operator jobs are considered blue-collar
positions, while the researcher’s position in a managerial leadership role is considered a white-
collar position.
The researcher’s perceptions of the union machine operators in this manufacturing setting
have been shaped through personal observations and experiences working directly with these
employees inside the organizational manufacturing environment for the past 6-years. The
researcher’s observations are of great importance to this research. Patton (1987) suggests that
capturing the holistic essence of an organization's culture through observation allows the
researcher to capture the unique essences of the organizations human and social systems.
Moreover, this researcher claims certain reflexivity due to the intimate nature of his
employee relationships and his organizational involvement. With over 6-years as an
organizational participant, the researcher holds his independent perceptions and biases of the
organizational cultural norms, climate, values, subcultures, political and economic systems, the
interrelatedness of these company and union structures, and the observed formal and informal
accountability systems. The researcher cannot completely separate himself from the research, but
only attempt to limit perceptional bias. As Maxwell (2012) concludes, the researcher is an
instrument of the research itself, and one cannot systematically ignore what is known from
personal experience within the research setting.
The researcher’s work-related perspective appears through the eyes of a member of the
organizational leadership team in a supportive role. Additionally, the researcher does not have
any direct union member reports, which helps to mitigate potential ethical concerns. As an
organizational leader, the researcher has extensive in-depth experience working with many of the
union machine operators who participated in this study. The researcher has observed these union
105

machine operator's perceptions and perspectives through collaborative daily workflows,
participation in group meetings, training and development sessions, implementing a wide range
of organizational programs, union and company institutional systems, organizational changes,
personal meetings, within multiple settings and varied contexts.
At the beginning of the researcher's tenure with the organization, with limited knowledge
of union activities and sociocultural biases, the researcher claimed biases toward the union,
leaning positively in favor of the organization. However, as the researcher’s tenure has matured
within the organization, the biases have also significantly changed. The viewpoint currently held
by the researcher is that union employees' treatment by the organization has appeared to
marginalize union employees, by treating union employees with less significance and not
providing them a direct voice in the organizational processes immediately affecting them.
Because of these observations over the researcher’s tenure, the researchers bias now lean more
toward the company, who provide union workers little voice in their everyday work processes,
leaving them feeling marginalized and depreciated in value.
Bolman and Deal (2017) suggest that it is the company's responsibility to improve
cooperative relationships with other collaborating entities, whether these be vendors or labor
unions. Accordingly, it the responsibility of the company which possesses the power and
responsibility, to ensure that cooperative union relationships exist and union employees do not
feel marginalized. Additionally, as organizations work to achieve strategic goals, governance
systems must be in place, but not so oppressive that employee’s act imprudently.
Data Sources
The two data sources used in this study are the ES employee survey to identify the
company goal of sustainable engagement and semi-structured interviews. The ES is very limited
106

in its use, and the only data point collected from the survey is the organizational goal of
sustainable engagement. The primary data source used in this study is a semi-structured
interview protocol. After reviewing research questions, and theoretical and conceptual
frameworks, the interview protocol designed by the researcher was piloted with two union
machine operators within the selected population and fit the participant criteria. Afterward, slight
adjustments were made to the interview questions to improve alignment.
ES Survey Report
The ES survey report from the organization was provided to the researcher by
organizational leadership and only highlighted the organizational goal of trying to reach a
specific level of sustainable engagement. The goal of sustainable engagement is the only data
point used from the survey as the survey is limited in its use regarding felt accountability and
uneven practice.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The researcher’s semi-structured interview protocol design was created to align with and
answer the three research questions. The 11 interviews questions relate to how felt accountability
is perceived from the effect of internal system sources and from the outside influence of external
system sources, during specific episodic events. The semi-structured interviews collected
perceived detail and descriptive data from participants about three specific accountability
episodes, happening over 6-years. The first question asked for the participants definition of the
term accountability, as definitions of accountability may vary from the research, and from
participant to participant. The next nine questions address three specific episodic events which
have occurred within the organization over the past 6-years. The purpose of these nine questions
107

was to identify what internal and external influences may shift or change participants felt
accountability over time.
In addition, the researcher identified how the participants may have felt about the culture
and climate of the organization at the time of the event versus now, and what factors may have
led to participants changing their felt accountability perceptions. The last question relates to the
subject of uneven practice and the perceptions union machine operators had about themselves
and others being held accountable or not being held accountable by their immediate supervisors.
This question was asked to determine how the culture and climate of supervisors holding
employees accountable or not, impacted employee’s individual felt accountability behaviors. The
participant responses to all these interview questions assisted the researcher in gaining insight
into the organizational accountability culture, climate, and individual accountability behavior,
uneven practice, as well as each participant’s level of sustainable engagement within each
individuals work-environment.
Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. According to Robson and McCartan (2016),
interviews are time-consuming for participants and should be more than one-half hour to gather
valuable data, but not much over an hour due to unreasonable demands placed upon people.
Zoom recordings and transcripts were stored on the researcher's personal computer as he
completed the research. Interview recordings and transcripts have been encrypted and password-
protected with non-identifying information. All reasonable efforts have been taken to protect the
confidentiality and anonymity of each participant and the conclusions of the data. The encrypted
research data was destroyed after the study, and written analysis was completed.
108

Participants
The target population is the individual union machine operators at the center of
Bronfenbrenner's model. These participants were purposely selected to provide descriptive
details as to how internal and external systems interact to create personal perceptions of felt
accountability within the context of the organizational workspaces. The population for this study
was a homogenous sample of union machine operators with at least 6-years of organizational
tenure. These operators work within various departments in one manufacturing plant on the West
Coast of the U.S. Six-years of tenure was used as a criterion due to the use of episodic
interviewing questions, which required union machine operators to be with the company for at
least 6-years to have experienced the impact of these episodic change events. The population size
that fits these criteria includes 60 union machine operators. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), a sample selection in a qualitative research study is commonly a small sample. The
researcher interviewed eight union machine operators from varying departments with
homogenous roles, tasks, and responsibilities.
Maxwell (2012) discussed that the sampling option selected for this study is referred to as
homogenous sampling. Homogenous sampling describes a method that deliberately selects
individuals that can provide more typical descriptions of the phenomena. Accordingly, this
method provides more confidence in the research because participants adequately represent the
average population members and are more likely to describe typical instances. This study only
conducted interviews with union machine operators, as warehouse workers, quality technicians,
and mechanics have different non-homogenous union roles. Union shop stewards did not
participate in the interviews because their power and privilege within the union may skew the
study results and change the homogenous nature of the sample selection. Current relevant
109

demographic details for union machine operators in this manufacturing setting conclude that
95% of the sample population identify as Hispanic, and 98% of the population identify as male.
Due to the homogeneity of the population and sample size, no demographic information was
collected.
Participant recruitment utilized a non-probabilistic sampling method referred to as
purposive sampling, along with snowball sampling. The researcher used purposive or purposeful
sampling, commonly used in flexible qualitative designs, which is defined as using the
researcher's best judgment to select a sample from the population that satisfies the specific needs
of the research project (Robson & McCartan, 2016). According to Maxwell (2012), one
qualitative research goal should be to purposely select participants whose productive
relationships can help you answer the research questions best.
Purposeful interviews of selected union employees aided in exploring and identifying the
core issues of the problem of practice and provided meaning to the construct of individual felt
accountability and the organization's culture and climate of accountability. Additionally, the
researcher used the snowball sampling methodology as needed to gather enough participants.
Snowball sampling, or chain sampling, referred to by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), is a common
form of purposeful sampling where referrals are garnered from typical interviewees to increase
the sampling participant pool.
When a researcher has spent a significant amount of time within the research setting,
purposeful sampling can be the most helpful tool, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The
researcher has built many union machine operator relationships during his 6-plus years tenure
with the organization and purposely selected specific employees who meet the sampling criteria.
These already developed relationships may increase the researcher's bias due to the working
110

bonds and relationships that have formed with many of these union machine operators. The
researcher aims to eliminate personal bias through objectivity and the effective qualitative
processes of triangulation, memoing, and member checking.
From the researcher's perspective and experiences, union members may be hesitant to
participate in any event that may interfere with union membership or appear to interfere with
company cooperation. Additionally, union machine operators appear to try and balance their dual
organization accountabilities by riding a middle line to avoid upsetting either target. Thus,
operator's confidentiality and anonymity are essential to this research. To maintain the
confidentiality and anonymity of each potential participant, the researcher obtained a list of
phone numbers and recruited participants outside of the work environment by using their
personal phone numbers. No one in the organization knew which employees were contacted by
the researcher. The researcher contacted participants confidentially and anonymously through
text messages and phone calls to see if they were willing to participate in this study. The
researcher briefly discussed the research purpose with each participant when contacting
participants. The researcher asked for employees' personal email addresses for further contact to
provide additional study information for those willing to participate. There were no incentives
offered for participation, and participants were interviewed off the work clock voluntarily,
selecting a space to interview which was comfortable for them outside the work environment. All
interviews were conducted and transcribed using Zoom.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used to collect data was a semi-structured interview protocol. Semi-
structured interview protocols appear widely used in qualitative flexible research designs and are
an adaptable method (Robson & McCartan, 2016). Within the qualitative semi-structured
111

interview protocol, the researcher is the instrument used to collect data and must be thorough in
examining the experiences of each participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews helped
learn about the union machine operators' behaviors, knowledge, feelings, opinions, attitudes, and
beliefs about the organizational culture and climate of accountability. The researcher developed
an interview protocol to narrow the focus of the central research questions into subsequent sub-
questions as recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018). Accordingly, each subsection of
questions provides cues and probes to elicit more accurate responses.
There are 11 questions in the semi-structured interview protocol. One question relates to
a definition of accountability and the other to the construct of uneven practice (Romzek, 2015).
Three questions are knowledge questions, with probes and cues to help the participant identify
and remember three previous episodic change events, which the researcher asked about during
the rest of the interview. Ideally, these three questions related specifically to three specific
episodic change events which have occurred at this specific manufacturing plant within the past
6-years. Each of these participants have participated in these events. According to Tulving
(2002), probes and cues can help participants better identify past events and recall emotions
related to them at the time. Thus, allowing the participants to have perceptual recall of past
events within their memory.
Additionally, sub-questions for each of these three episodic event questions relate to how
these events have impacted union employees' felt accountability within these time periods. The
sub-questions assisted in probing deeper into the employees' internal and external perceptions of
the accountability culture and climate of these past perceptions to determine how the systems of
Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model affect participants felt accountability. All questions
112

relate directly to the conceptual framework and identify the main theological components of
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model.
Data Collection Procedures
Within qualitative flexible designs, data collection emerges and evolves, and data is
typically collected through interviews, observation, and interaction and documented through the
researcher's journey (Robson & McCartan, 2016). While the researcher selected two
complementary data collection procedures for this study, a review of a survey report and semi-
structured interviews, 99.9% of the data emerged from the semi-structured interviews.
Qualitative researchers frequently collect multiple forms of data through examining existing
organizational documents, observation, and participant interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The researcher purposely selected the organizational survey document to help understand the
more significant problems within the organizational culture and climate and develop the research
questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey report (ES) provided in this study is a
companywide survey completed by HPB in 2019. The ES document explicitly related to the
employee survey for this particular manufacturing plant and was a mandatory survey taken by all
union employees. The mandatory nature of this survey document may also be a weakness in
using the document, and the date of the survey is 2-years old (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Using this organizational survey report identifies the overarching organizational goal of
sustainable engagement. Creswell and Creswell (2018) argue that supporting data or surveys to
which all organizational employees have provided feedback can be crucial in collecting
qualitative data. This ES document is only essential to this study as it discusses the
organizational goal of sustainable engagement and will not be used or analyzed further because
of its specific limitations.
113

HPB defines sustainable engagement as the intensity of employees' connection to their
organization marked by a committed effort to achieve company goals in settings that support
productivity and maintain personal well-being (HPB, 2019). According to HPB (2019),
companies with high levels of sustainable engagement outperform organizations with low or
traditional engagements. Dual organizational commitment felt accountability, uneven practice,
and sustainable engagement appear as intertwined conceptual elements within this research
study.
According to Robson and McCartan (2016), it is useful when piloting the interview
questions. Pilot interviews were conducted with two union machine operators meeting the
participant criteria. The original interview protocol had 19 questions, and the length of the
interview questions appeared to be quite lengthy. Thus, the interview questions were revised
down to 11 questions in total. Overall, the interview questions appear to solicit the data required
to answer each research question, and the researcher learned that the interview questions
provided rich descriptive data regarding the subject of felt accountability.
The collection of research data covers the who, when, where, and how the data was
gathered (Maxwell, 2012). The researcher interviewed eight union machine operators’. There
was an agreement reached with the HR department, that the research was not part of any
organizational process but was strictly that of the researcher. No one within the organization
knew who was being interviewed except for the primary investigator and the participant.
Confidentiality and anonymity are critically important to union employees, and they were treated
with complete transparency and were provided all relative information and clarity on the
research process upfront prior to choosing to participate in the study. The researcher collected
participants' personal phone numbers from participants themselves and one specific supervisor.
114

The researcher connected with each participant outside the work environment through their
personal phone or text to improve confidentiality and anonymity. The researcher and participant
then collaborated outside the work environment to discuss and clarify the purpose of the study. If
the employee was willing to participate through phone or text, the researcher asked for the
participants' email addresses to send additional information regarding the study and the informed
consent form. Once each participant read, understood, and completed the information and
informed consent form, an interview time was agreed upon, and a Zoom link was provided to
each participant. Additionally, the researcher sent a follow-up email a couple of days before the
interview as a reminder.
The interviews occurred between October 25 – December 5, 2021. The data was collected
through online synchronous semi-structured interviews using the interview protocol in Appendix
A. The 60-minute interviews were recorded and transcribed using Zoom to collect the data. The
Zoom computer-aided transcripts were inductively analyzed in-depth to organize interview
conversations by ideas and code them. The researcher scrubbed each transcript and then used the
software program ATLAS.ti to analyze and sort the descriptive data to determine and analyze the
hidden phenomena and the complex relationships within the data.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain that semi-structured interviews are the most used
data collection method in qualitative research. In addition, semi-structured interviews allow parts
of the interview to be structured and other parts to be less structured, by the researcher directing
the interviews toward the research goal of answering the main research questions. Interviews
were used to find things out about union machine operators' knowledge, feelings, opinions,
values, and sensory experiences, which provided a window that opened up the mental cognition
behind the participants' actions (Robson & McCartan, 2016) which may identify and explain
115

behavior within accountability episodes. While each interview was recorded and transcribed via
Zoom, the researcher also used memo writing techniques. Memoing has the ability during
interviews to enhance the continuity of communication through further contemplation and
supports the future construction of ideas (Birks et al. 2008).
Data Analysis
Data collected in this study mainly includes semi-structured interviews, with the ES
survey providing the organizational goal of providing sustainable engagement for employees.
After collecting the recordings and transcriptive data from the interviews on Zoom, data was
analyzed and member checked. Preparing the data required that the data be analyzed by the
researcher and coded according to key concepts provided by the participants. ATLAS.ti was then
used to systematically analyze any complex phenomena within the data, to develop themes for
the research, and helped to organize and determine the research findings themes.
Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews
The semi-structured interview protocol was used to collect individual participants'
perceptions of their accountabilities within the organization to determine how these
accountabilities may adjust over time according to past events, accountability change episodes,
supervisory accountability experiences, and shifting between the two organizational targets of a
company and union. The interview transcripts provided rich data and were triangulated through
observation, memoing, member checking, and then coded to identify common themes and
descriptive categories. Content analysis was used to analyze interview transcripts, as content
analysis provides the researcher opportunities to view the meanings, symbolic qualities,
expressions, and the communicative roles that come from interview participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
116

Credibility and Trustworthiness
The central tenet of qualitative research ensures that the research produces credible and
trustworthy results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, there have been substantial postmodern
debates over the past 25-years in the landscape of qualitative scientific inquiry concerning what
constitutes validity, reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness within the qualitative research
paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1973; Lincoln et al. 2011; Maxwell, 2012). Lincoln and Guba
(1985) posited differences in qualitative design research, using the terms credibility rather than
validity and trustworthiness instead of reliability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) define credibility as
plausible, believable, and accurate data that the researcher presents. Additionally, they argue that
improving credibility includes triangulation of data, member checks, and observation through
prolonged engagement within the setting and how many interviews a researcher may have in the
study to analyze and compare against data. Multiple other researchers also posit that using
multiple triangulation methods to support validity and credibility is a powerful strategy (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018; Meriam & Tisdell, 2016; Flick, 2018).
Similarly, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) postulate that in qualitative studies, validity
concerns itself with the credibility of the research. Within qualitative research, Maxwell (2012)
argues that using multiple data sources and multiple methods of collecting data can provide far
more credibility to a study than using a single method. Researchers using qualitative methods do
not need an “objective truth” (p. 122) to validate their research as in quantitative studies
(Maxwell, 2012). However, Maxwell (2012) makes the argument that researchers need research
credibility, which refers to the correctness of “descriptions, conclusions, explanations,
interpretations” (p. 122) of the data that researchers within the proper context consistently assess.
According to Geertz (1973), the philosopher Gilbert Ryle coined the phrase thick description in
117

1949, which defines thick description as representing the meanings and perspectives of the
participants. Collecting thick descriptions means that a researcher gets the most accurate data
descriptions possible directly from the participant's minds and does not make assumptions or
include biases toward the participant's data.
In this study, the researcher who observed this site's organizational culture and climate as
an employee for over 6 years will improve the credibility of the study. The researcher has built
quality relationships with and an understanding of union participants within the organization and
speaks the language of the organizational culture. The actual test of reliability and
trustworthiness of any research is the researcher's competence and how ethically the data is
collected, studied, and analyzed (Patton, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Substantial
participation in the setting, alignment of the conceptual framework, theories, methodological
constructs, acknowledgment of researcher biases, and the rigor used to collect data strengthen
credibility and trustworthiness concerns. To stay within the researcher's recommended
boundaries, threats to credibility in this qualitative study were addressed using multiple
credibility methods. These include triangulation, semi-structured interviews, member checking,
memoing, combining multiple emerging theories, and the researcher's over 6-year direct
observation of the union machine operators and the dual organizational environment.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), member checking requires soliciting direct
feedback from participants. According to Robson and McCartan (2016), member checking
means that the researcher has a clear and accurate objective understanding of the spirit of the
participants' responses and the literal interpretation of the interviewee, which combine to create a
vivid mental picture of the whole perception. After interviewing and reviewing the data, the
researcher then presented participants with the interview transcripts to discuss if the
118

interpretations accurately represented the participant's feelings and intentions (Robson &
McCartan, 2016). When member checking, the researcher assessed the isomorphism between
data collection and the participant's reality, as having accurate interpretations of the data
strengthens the validity and credibility of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As previous
researchers have posited, the evidence of research creditability lies in the sufficient details
provided by the researcher, the justification for the methods used, written research procedures,
and the personal ethics and responsibility of the researcher to maintain high levels of credibility
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Robson & McCartan, 2016).
Robson and McCartan (2016) posit that validity and generalizability are fundamental
elements in a researcher demonstrating the trustworthiness of research and that a researcher must
be objective to be creditable. Generalizability and transferability are concerned with the study
results being replicated and applied to other contexts or situations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Robson & McCartan, 2016). Researchers also refer to transferability, similarly to external
validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). The study's content adds to and
aligns with the current research on felt accountability and uneven practice with the addition of
the dual organizational context. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), being aligned means
the study applies proper scientific standards congruent with other researchers' philosophical
assumptions and applies a rigorous qualitative design for trustworthiness. This research study
was consistent with and followed the recommendations of previous researchers on organizational
accountability-related concepts and may be transferable to other manufacturing industries, dual
organizations, and non-union settings.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) define trustworthiness as being consistent while tracking the
logic of the researcher's processes. The researcher accurately completed member checks and
119

ensured a match between the accuracy of what each participant stated and the interpretive data to
improve the study's trustworthiness. Researchers also argue that confirmability is enhanced by
leaving an audit trail of all data, including raw data, reduced and reconstructed data, and process
notes, also referred to as memoing (Birks et al., 2008: Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Memoing supports the researcher by writing notes during the interviews, which
can assist in building relationships between the different codes and categories within the research
(Birks et al., 2008). The researcher left an accurate audit trail of all the interview data in this
study.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) posit that confirmability is the same as external reliability. One
method of improving confirmability includes using computer-aided software programs that can
extrapolate the data and have the ability to systematically analyze and uncover hidden complex
coding within the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study, Zoom recorded and
transcribed the interviews, and ATLAS.ti systematically analyzed the complex relationships in
the data, sub-coded the research, and helped the researcher weigh and evaluate the importance of
each code, identifying themes within the data. Additionally, ethically conducting research
supports the credibility and trustworthiness of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
While most ethical issues appear minimized by the study design, the researcher poses a
few common ethical considerations for this study. Robson and McCartan (2016) argue that being
ethical refers to a researcher having “proper conduct” (p. 235). Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
determine that proper conduct and ethical considerations must be determined far in advance of
collecting the research data and contingent upon the researcher's sensitivity, empathy, personal
values, developing relationships, and ethical guidelines.
120

Ethical considerations in this study involved the ethical treatment of participants and how
the researcher kept participants from being harmed. The main concern was ensuring participants'
privacy through procedures of confidentiality and anonymity. Without complete confidentiality
and anonymity, there was a risk that the company or union could take repercussions on
participants. Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of participants was vital, and the
following guidelines were put in place to accomplish this commitment. In addition, the research
was approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB), and
the researcher followed all applicable ethical guidelines, policies, and procedures for
interviewing human subjects.
The researcher followed these additional ethical guidelines. The researcher obtained
permission from the company and union to complete this study. While the union provided
approval for the research, union leadership asked that no specific questions about how
participants felt about the union be included in the interview protocol. The interview questions
initially required altering to adhere to the union's request. The researcher obtained informed
consent forms from each participant prior to interviewing them.
Additionally, the non-disclosure of participant names protected the confidentiality and
anonymity of each participant. No name identification was used in collecting data, and no
participant names who participated were divulged to either the company or the union. Neither the
company nor the union knows which union machine operators were interviewed by the
researcher, and this information was kept strictly confidential between the researcher and each
participant.
Participants did not receive payment or reimbursement for participating in the interviews,
and participation was completely voluntary. Participants completed interviews on their personal
121

time and did not participate in this study while at work. Additionally, conflicts of interest were
minimized in this study because the researcher worked in an organizational support role and had
no direct subordinates within the collective union membership.
Once collected, data scrubbing ensured that no identifying words, phrases, or potential
identifications could be used to identify any of the union machine operator's participants within
the data. The researcher takes full ethical responsibility to ensure the data was encrypted and
password protected digitally on his personal computer. Destroying the data was the ethical
obligation of the researcher. The data was destroyed by removing all encrypted recordings and
transcripts from the researcher's personal computer after completing the study.
Summary
In this section, the researcher outlined the qualitative methodology for this study and
examined the relationships between the methods and the study design, which invites examination
of the concepts of organizational felt accountability and uneven practice within dual
organizational systems. The researcher presents the primary research, the purpose of semi-
structured interview questions, data collection sources, and the interview protocol. Additionally,
participant selection criteria, validity, reliability, and ethical consideration have been addressed,
along with study limitations and delimitations. All of these relate to the central purpose and
tenets of the study of understanding union machine operators’ perceptions of felt accountability,
uneven practice, and how these relate to sustainable engagement within a dual organizational
system.
122

Chapter Four: Findings
This qualitative phenomenological inquiry explored felt accountability and uneven
practice in dual organizational systems. Felt accountability is an employee’s individual
perceptions of their accountabilities which determines answerability choices that can vary within
organizational governance systems (Hall et al., 2017; Tetlock, 1989). Uneven practice is how
well organizations enacts accountability within its established formal and informal governance
systems (Romzek, 2015). The goal of any dual organization is to unify the two governing
systems as if they were one united organization, so that employees see one unified accountability
system. Dual organizations are psychologically more challenging for employees to navigate due
to the increased complexity of dual relationships. System misalignment and discordant systemic
norms between dual organizations add to the complexities of employees balancing a second
accountability construct (Beauvais et al., 1991; Goedekke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010; Larson
& Fukami, 1984). Due to the challenges of combining indistinct systems, a much higher
potential for divided loyalties exists, propagating undesirable employee accountability behavior
(Goeddeke and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010).
This research examined how union machine operators’ perceptions of accountability
impact and affect their well-being and impact organizational performance. In dual commitment
systems, the level of collaboration varies according to the collaborative social relationships a
company and union build over time. Additionally, this study determined how internal and
external factors of organizational change affect an employee’s accountability perceptions over
time. The findings demonstrated how the level of adversity or unification between the company
and union affect union machine operator’s perceptions of accountability. These commitments
shifted in one direction or the other based on union machine operators’ perceptions of the
123

harmony and balance or the tension and stress between the company and union within situational
accountability contexts.
Participants in this study were union machine operators employed by a large international
manufacturing company within one specific manufacturing location in the U.S. The researcher
conducted semi-structured interviews with eight voluntary participants who shared their voices
and lived experiences. Participants shared the factors that impacted their perceptions of
accountability in past contexts and led to their accountability choices. Individual participants’
perceptions were valuable because they demonstrated how accountability development took
place inside each individual through interactions within varied organizational contexts.
Individual and organizational accountability development is an ever-evolving process that occurs
over time and is fluid within individual employees and organizational settings (Hall et al., 2017).
Accountability development determines whether an employee will choose to be answerable and
accept the consequences of their choice within a specific context. Uneven practice was also
addressed with participants because uneven practice describes the collective organizational
reasons why accountability may fail to produce positive accountable outcomes within specified
organizational contexts (Romzek, 2015).
The study identified how union machine operators’ shifts in accountability occurred
based upon the person, process, context, and time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The researcher used
episodic interviewing techniques to discuss three major organizational change events occurring
over 5 years to uncover participants’ perceptions of accountability and identify the factors
affecting their accountability behavior. The research determined which internal and external
factors contributed to these accountability shifts. The following research questions guided this
study:
124

1. What internal influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB inside the
immediate environment?
2. What external influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB within the distal
environment?
3. How does the culture, climate, and context of dual organizations and uneven practice
impact employee felt accountability?
The first section of this chapter includes participant pseudonym information, their tenure
with the organization, and a brief demographic sketch of each participant. The second section
includes the findings from the participants’ lived stories discussing their perceptions of
accountability in the organization within specific episodic change events. Participants shared
themes related to their perceptions of accountability. Even with homogenous work-related roles
and responsibilities, each participant’s journey was unique. The participants’ similarities and
differences appear through various conceptual and contextual factors throughout the themes of
this thematic analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants in this qualitative research design were union machine operators within
one international manufacturing facility in the United States. The only criterion for this study is
that each union machine operator had at least 6 years of tenure with the organization. The union
machine operators in this study are the front-line employees, and their skills require highly
detailed technical, industrial, and mechanical manufacturing abilities. Their responsibilities
include consistently running multi-million-dollar manufacturing equipment at peak performance
levels. When mechanical issues occur on their equipment, these union machine operators are
responsible for troubleshooting the problems and fixing them. They must quickly determine the
125

range and scope of any equipment problem, and for more serious equipment issues create work
orders for the maintenance team to repair equipment quickly to maximize efficiency. As
Wyoming’s said, his supervisor told his team their responsibility is to “run, run, run” the
equipment.
The researcher used a non-probabilistic sampling method called purposive sampling and
employed snowball sampling from a group of sixty union machine operators. Eight union
machine operators participated in the research’s semi-structured interviews. Due to the shared
resemblance of participant work roles, the researcher determined that a more inclusive and
homogenous sample of union machine operators would be most valuable to the study. Because of
the homogeneity of the sample, organizational tenure was the only demographic information
collected. The researcher additionally provides a short demographic sketch about each
participant. The researcher invited participants to use pseudonyms for anonymity. One
participant gave the pseudonym of “Unsure”, which the researcher thought would confuse
readers. Thus, the researcher changed the pseudonym from Unsure to Wyoming to provide
readership clarity. Table 2 provides participants’ selected pseudonyms and the only collected
demographic information of organizational tenure.

126

Table 2
Participant’s Demographics
Participants’ Tenure with company
Chad 16-years
Coach 18-years
Frank 19-years
Girl Dad 22-years
Noisn Nagant (NN) 12-years
Soldier 9-years
Wylee
Wyoming (Unsure)
17-years
12-years

Participants Demographic Sketches
1. Chad is a 16-year experienced leader on his team. He was heavily involved in the
roll-out of the TPM program and provided training and development support. He
shared that his ethical perception of accountability comes from his religious views.
2. Coach is an actual coach with 18-year plant history. During his interview, he shared
his perception of accountability by identifying his three-strikes you are out
philosophy.
3. Frank is a veteran with 19-years at this facility. He shared that his accountability
showed at work through his strong work ethic and striving to do his best daily.
4. Girl Dad is the longest-tenured operator to participate, with 22-years. He supports his
girls at home and shared the unique teamwork perception of his accountability
philosophy.
127

5. Noisn Nagant (NN) is a leader on his team with 12-years of tenure. His perception of
accountability showed he must strike a happy balance working with operators and
leadership on his team.
6. Soldier is a veteran with 9-years of organizational tenure and leads his team. He
addresses his perception of accountability by sharing the details of his everyday work
routines.
7. Wylee is a team leader with 17years of tenure. His perception of accountability led
him to get more involved in the TPM program because he believed it worked.
8. Wyoming is a team leader with 12-years of tenure. He identified that his
accountability comes more from an internal sense of right and wrong, provided early
in life by his father.
Findings of Research Questions 1 and 2
1. What internal influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB inside the
immediate environment?
2. What external influences impact employee felt accountability at HPB within the distal
environment?
The findings showed that participants shared their lived work-related experiences that
allowed them to consider the internal and external factors related to their perceptions of felt
accountability or uneven practice within the contexts of specific organizational change events.
For research questions one and two, the participants’ voices identified the following 6 themes:
1. Their personal definitions of accountability
2. The relevance of organizational communication to felt accountability.
128

3. The role of both the union machine operator and leadership’s commitment to
influencing accountability.
4. The implementation of the Total Performance Management program (TPM) within
the organization during three phases; implementation, growth, and COVID.
5. The union machine operator’s perceptions of an acquisition of the existing company
by a large international manufacturing organization.
6. The effect COVID had on the daily lives of union machine operators and their
accountability decisions.
Table 3 shows the qualitative research themes which emerged from research questions 1
and 2. The table additionally identifies each participant’s voice who identified each theme.

129

Table 3
Themes of the Qualitative Analysis Research Questions 1 and 2
Research questions
1 and 2 themes

Participants who identified each theme
Definitions of accountability Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn Nagant, Soldier,
Wylee, Wyoming

Communication Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn Nagant, Soldier,
Wylee, Wyoming

Commitment Coach, Frank, Noisn Nagant, Soldier
TPM Phases 1, 2, 3 Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn Nagant, Soldier,
Wylee, Wyoming

Company Acquisition Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn Nagant, Soldier,
Wylee, Wyoming

COVID Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn Nagant, Soldier,
Wylee, Wyoming

Note: This table identifies the themes created by the participants voices for Research Questions 1

and 2. Additionally, it identifies exactly which participant identified the theme in the analysis.
Theme 1: Definitions of Accountability
Accountability has multiple constructs, dimensions, and meanings. Fully understanding
the perceptions of accountability first required an understanding of participants personal
definitions of the word accountability. To clarify their voices related to the terminology,
participants were asked at the beginning of each interview, “What does the term accountability
mean to you?”
All of the participants provided definitions of accountability, which varied in
scope and scale. For example, four participants, NN, Soldier, Chad, and Wyoming, shared
similar definitions suggesting that accountability is being reliable and taking
130

responsibility for your actions. In addition, NN stated, “Reliability is the consistency of being
accountable. Reliability comes hand in hand with accountability. You are talking more about
reliability, so that means that you are doing things right. … Which means you are more
accountable because you are likely more reliable.” Solider shared that “accountability means
being responsible for your actions whether it be at work or in personal situations.” Wyoming
suggested that action, in the form of following through, is a significant focus of accountability by
stating “just follow through to make sure that either thing is getting done as people say. They do
what they say they are going to do.”
Chad said,
Accountability, it is being able to actually. … Put your words into action. So, if
you say that you’re honest. … You know you have to prove that you are honest.
You take action or you should be able to explain yourself and prove that what
you’re saying, or the action you’re doing, is exactly what you mean. Like you
have proof, right? You say something and you are able to back it up.
Wylee framed his definition of accountability through the lens of doing the job your
paid to do and doing it well. Wylee said,
I guess for me, accountability is doing the job that you’re getting paid to do, and doing it
well, in safe manner, in a productive manner. I just think that just has to do with me as a
person. Like my dad, he always made sure that me and my siblings, we would get up
early in the morning to go pull weeds. He just instilled the value of hard work to make
sure that we all weren’t lazy, and that we went out there, we did our job.
Coach’s lens of accountability pointed out viewpoints similar to that of Wylee. Coach
said, “Hey, we pay you to do a job. We expect the job to be done well.” Coach’s definition also
131

goes into more depth by looking at accountability from the more institutional framework
of three strikes you are out. As Coach said,
I’m a three-strikes you’re out kind of guy. You have three chances. Well, I look at it like if
you got the rules of the job or anything actually. And you one time, okay, I get it, you
now. Twice, things happen. The third time, you got to own it. Well, I feel that if you’re
already been told, this is how you do it, this is textbook, A, B, C. You follow that, you
would never have a problem. So, I feel your accounting from the beginning.
Additionally, Coach discussed the implications of a central accountability component, which are
the consequences of accountability enforcement or lack of enforcement. Coach stated, “When the
accounting is not enforced, I think that you create more room for others to continuously make the
same mistake. I feel like it sets the tone.” His understanding is significant because he recognized
that enforcing accountability is a critical component of governance.
Frank, a union machine operator, working for 19-years inside the organization,
said, “accountability is super important.” His definition of accountability focused on role
modeling good work habits. Frank stated that accountability provides “opportunities to
improve.” Frank explained that improvement is being a “role model,” “setting an
example at work,” and “showing accountability” in his role.
Wyoming shared a similar definition of accountability, that being a role model
and following up are part of being accountable. Wyoming said,
I want people to think better of me than just your average person. I try to hold
myself accountable as well. You set an example in what you are saying. I have to
be the one that, like you said, sets an example of it.
132

Coach and Girl Dad both mentioned ownership as a factor of accountability in their
definitions. Coach said, “you have to own it.” Girl Dad explained that ownership is “a task you
take on.” Girl Dad said,
The word accountability means taking ownership on something that you’re doing, so if I
do something and make a mistake, I own up to it. I mean, that’s what I think
accountability is. … It’s ownership. Ownership of something, a task that I take on. … I
mean because like I said, I always take pride in something I do, so I try to do it the best of
my abilities.
Frank and Girl Dad also identified positive affect as a factor of accountability. Both Frank
and Girl Dad, sought a desire to feel positive personal affirmations about the ending results of their
accountability outcomes. Frank purported that he wants to “feel satisfied”
and ensure that his accountabilities in various contexts “match his personal beliefs and values.”
Girl Dad explained, “So, I don’t want to go and do something wrong and I don’t say nothing
because I won’t feel good about myself.”
Theme 2: Communication
The theme of communication demonstrated the participants’ complexities with
communication between peers, supervisors, and leadership, within the dual organizational
system. Communication appears to be both a barrier and gateway for participants navigating
their accountabilities within the dual system. Eight of the eight participants identified
communication as a factor that shaped their perceptions of accountability. Various contexts also
played critical roles in how these union machine operators view communication as a factor of
accountability choice.
133

The perception of leadership communication to union machine operators is highlighted
by NN, who provided the insight that a lack of communication by leadership offered the
perception that “leadership does not care.” NN clarified this by adding how operators feel when
leadership is not there, “A glimpse into the worker’s mind. … Well, he doesn’t really care or she
doesn’t really care because my machine is down. … Why isn’t he or she not here?” Additionally,
to NN communicating within what would be considered convenient distances also displays
practical leadership communication skills that lead to more accountable actions. NN said, “So,
supervisors, they start stepping back, and you know giving directions from afar, or instructions or
suggestions from afar. … The perception is that there is a lack of care or concern for the
employees.”
Similarly, Chad added that by not having “regular communication and follow through,
accountability is less likely to happen.” According to Chad, leadership communication to the
operators “signals a higher need for accountability and communication.” He identified that he is
more likely to make better decisions when management is involved in the process because, for
him, “leadership involvement requires a higher level of accountability.”
Soldier explained that his perception is that communication is his “top job responsibility.”
He also explained that communication can be frustrating when he said, “getting the information
he needs from the operators can be frustrating.” Referring to communication gaps, Soldier made
the analogy that a communication gap is like a revolving door. Soldier said,
I believe it’s in the communication. When you have a lack of communication you have less
communication. It’s like a revolving door where it just keeps getting’s turned around and
saying that you need to improve your communication. It’s hard to hold people accountable
or know who to hold accountable when it’s a revolving door.
134

Girl Dad and Wylee shared the perception that when there are more meetings and
dialogue between others, communication is enhanced. Wylee explained his perception that when
“there was more meetings, dialogue, they worked better to get things fixed.” Girl Dad said, “Less
meetings, equals less dialogue … Means less accountability.”
As leads in their departments, Chad and Soldier are responsible for dispersing
information to their teams. They shared similar experiences about how communication increased
their accountability during COVID. Since COVID put the TPM program communication system
on hold they explained that accountability increased in their role. Chad stated,
We became the link between, we were the communication between leadership and
Employees. … We had to be more accountable conveying the information. … Being that
we were the only. … Elements left in the program; we were the link. … Responsible for
communicating that to everyone on the line.
Participants have identified that communication can either be a barrier or gateway to
holding themselves accountable. Additionally, participant voices identified that there is a
reciprocal relationship between leader communication, commitment and accountability.
Theme 3: Commitment
Like communication, participants identified a reciprocal relationship between operator
accountability and leader commitment. Four out of eight participants shared their perceptions
that when leaders are not showing commitment to operators or organizational processes
accountability is likely diminished.
Commitment is a subject NN spent a lot of time discussing. NN directly links
organizational commitment and leader presence to operator accountability. NN said,
It’s a psychological thing to people. … It’s just the more you interact with them, the
135

more they feel like you care. … Sometimes you can make you look like you care by just
asking the right questions and showing up. … It does something in any relationship,
presence. … You know being there. … When they say, or they don’t care, then I won’t
care.
NN identifies the importance of the word “presence.” His perception is that when leadership is
not present, they don’t care. He also provides insight into an operator’s mind when they are
struggling with issues. He said, “you see their (operators) anxiety being elevated” and “what
enters their (operators) mind” is “leadership doesn’t care. Why isn’t the supervisor here
already?” He then added, “When you are there … your presence that you can explain. … And
then they can see better and then you can know.” NN explained that leaders, “They’re trying
their best to provide the tools and to make it more convenient for us to do our work and to get
more done.” However, NN said he really wants “more time and more involvement. Okay, more
alive in person consolations with suggestions” from leadership.
NN shared an example that showed a lack of leadership commitment to help solve a big
problem which he said, “frustrated a lot of employees.” NN said,
There are a lot of times, on a daily basis … Union workers on the floor and they need
something, or they got a question, or they need to reach out to someone. If you can give
them an answer right at that moment, or that day, or that shift rather than three days later,
and it seems impossible because everyone is busy, but you really need a fast follow up or
fast response. For example, we haven’t had a forklift in my department for the Diamond
area, because the battery went bad and we don’t have one yet. … So, we’ve been asking
for it and they (leadership) say we can order a new battery. So, you (leadership) are
telling us you have a battery that is days, maybe weeks from now, but what do we do in
136

the meantime? And a lot of employees get frustrated with that. We need a solution for the
meantime. … How are you going to help us?
Soldier shared a similar perception of leadership not committing to helping operators
solve ongoing issues which leads to operator frustration. Soldier said, “When something is
reported, it may seem very minor to them, but in reality, it’s something really big to us.” Soldier
explained that when an item does get reported, “Those minor defects might not get fixed in a
timely manner. So, then that causes a lot of downtime. … And you know downtime. … It comes
back to the operator like, what’s going on here?”
Coach discussed reporting and logging issues by operators to show their commitment and
being held accountable. He stated the reporting paperwork provided a means of holding
employees accountable. Coach said,
Because now if I see a problem versus just saying, hey, there’s this problem. Now its
logged, and I will continue to log it. Now, I feel that I’d be accountable for something
that happened bad, like a machine breaks a sprocket chain. … And I didn’t say
anything. … So, I think that really plays a big factor on the reporting. That is how I feel
you’re held accountable.”
Because there are multiple government regulatory agencies that govern manufacturing
production, Frank shared a different perception and identified that these agencies put
commitment pressures on the operators. Frank referring to external governing agencies and being
held accountable, said, “I think that the governing agencies help with this.”
In summary, participants identify their perceptions of leader commitment, leader
presence, commitment to using paperwork to prove accountability, as well as governing agencies
as ways to improve their accountability behaviors.
137

Theme 4: Three Phases of the TPM Program
The TPM program was a major lean manufacturing change initiative that began in 2015.
The TPM program provided new structures, systems, and processes of accountability for the
organization. The organizational leaders viewed the TPM program as a long-term
implementation plan that could take 7–10 years to complete. After 5-years, the organization saw
an unprecedented increase in 23% organizational efficiency. Because of the significant increase
in efficiency organizational leaders viewed the change program as highly successful. However,
participants perceptions show differences in how union machine operators felt about the
program, its effectiveness, and how the change initiative impacted participants perceptions of
accountability.
Eight of the eight participants shared their lived experiences of the TPM program, which
were categorized into three phases by the researcher according to the viewpoints of participants’.
There are three phases: The first phase was the implementation phase. The second phase was the
growth phase. The third phase was identified as the COVID phase.
TPM Phase 1: Implementation Phase
The implementation phase consists of the first year of the TPM roll-out. Eight of eight
participants shared their perceptions of this time period. When the TPM program began, Frank
felt good about the program’s implementation. He said, “I thought that was helpful.” According
to him, since the company was growing, the organization needed additional investments in
programs. Frank said that, “We’re getting bigger, and we need to keep the success going to be
more successful.” Frank felt that the TPM program was “Going to capture that. … Overall be
more organized. … And support the organizational mission.”
138

Like Frank, Girl Dad’s perception of the implementation phase was positive. Girl Dad
identified, “When the TPM program wasn’t around, it’s like when you’re dealing with someone
one on one. I mean, it’s easy to, how can I say? Cover it up, or. … We won’t even know it’s
happening, if there’s an issue.” Girl Dad said that implementing the TPM program improved
accountability within himself and others because people were coming together and talking about
the problems together and how to fix things together. Girl Dad explained,
I mean the TPM program helped out a lot, because like I said, we were all there talking
about issues that we had. Whereas as far as in the past, when there was no TPM program,
it was just a quick pass down of what you were doing. Now the TPM, you bring it all out
and we talk about it. We tackle the issue as a team, instead of individual. So, I think the
TPM its pretty good.
Girl Dad explained his positive overall perception of the TPM program and accountability.
I think it increased accountability because people were more committed together … I see
the change. TPM is all about coming together and talking about things. So, I mean, I
could speak very highly of it. … I think it’s a good thing. … When TPM wasn’t around I
was thinking a lot different.
NN’s initial perception of the implementation phase was that the organization presented it
as a marketing ploy. He said, “And then, of course. … They just market it right because they
think oh it’s just a form of looking like they’re doing something. … They want to justify another
program that’s not gonna work or just going to fall by the wayside.” However, after seeing how
other operators were responding and due to what he called his “bigger perception,” his
perception of accountability towards the TPM program shifted. NN said that,
139

When people don’t take it seriously, that it doesn’t work, you could get partial results and
then eventually you’re like it’s not really working out. Well, why are we putting all that
much effort into it? So, I thought okay let’s give it a shot and let’s look and see how it
goes, because I hear a lot of negative things from. … The union workers on the floor …
Let’s just see because I don’t know everything about it. I don’t know how things are
going to turn out, so just go with the flow was my thought.
Wylee also thought the change program implementation roll-out was effective. He
discussed operator buy-in as an essential part of the implementation phase. He stated, “The
hardest part right there is that not all operators bought in, and I mean you going to get your
knuckleheads.” Wylee added, “I tried to make it work and thought that it did work. We started to
get lots of defects fixed. We started to see the changes as far as our machine running more
reliable. I thought it was rolled out pretty good.” Additionally, Wylee became more involved
because he saw positive results coming from the program. He said, “I think it had a positive
effect, so I got more involved,” and there was “better communication.”
Wyoming said,
I believe in the program. I think it does work. … I think perception of it soured a little.
So, the drive was there in the beginning, but then once a couple months passed, it just
flew away. After a year, it was well. … People weren’t doing it anymore.
Wyoming also made a comment regarding the importance of operator buy-in for the success of
the program implementation.
If you don’t have buy-in everywhere, then it’s just going to fall apart. And I think the
buy-in wasn’t there with everybody, and it has to come from the top to the bottom. And I
think because there wasn’t buy-in everywhere, I think it just fell through the cracks.
140

According to Wyoming, “How much people care about making sure that the program is
followed” was a significant factor of success.
Soldier’s perception of the implementation phase is that union machine operators just saw
it as another program to roll out and that it would eventually phase out and fail just like programs
of the past. Soldier identifies how organizational tenure may affect operators’ perceptions and
potential loss of program commitment. “I think during the initial roll-out people. … Like a lot of
people had been with the company for a while,” and these people made statements like “here we
go again. Another program. Within 6 months it will be gone.”
Chad thought that the TPM program implementation brought about more accountability
through more documentation. According to Chad, TPM “brought accountability into action.”
Chad said,
Hey, I was having this problem or going through this issue, and that was it. … But now
if I put it on paper and we have a meeting about it. … Discuss it, the accountability part
comes in then. Now I feel account—accountable; I have to be accountable for it.
Chad also explained that he saw team accountability improve. He shared, “I have positive
changes from the team because now they (the team) said, well its showing that I am making a
difference, its being looked at.” In a prompt to Chad, the researcher said, “Okay, so you feel like
the program held you more accountable?” And Chad responded, “Absolutely. Absolutely.
Accountable.”
Frank identified the three factors that shaped his perception of the TPM program
implementation. Frank said, “it helped me organize.” Second, Frank said, “it helped me be more
efficient.” Third, he said, “I thought it would help the group.”
141

Coach explained that the TPM program introduced a new formalized structure to union
machine operators’ daily routines. Coach said,
It’s more structured than the ones in the past. It was real, real structured. … Because now
you, instead of having anyone dragged to get to their station, now they have to be at the
station at a certain time, requires certain knowledge and filling out and reporting. Then
you have a room meeting, which you open up with safety, you speak on A, B,
and C.
Coach’s perception is that the TPM implementation started very strong, and then accountability
for the program began to taper off. Coach said,
The implementation was there at the beginning, like hey, pounding, pounding, pounding.
It’s like, we’re going to go in hard with this, and then it kind of tails off. So, that’s what I
think. I feel that, like we’ve implemented these certain things that have helped, but it’s
kind of like the same old song. Hey this needs to be done, but it slowly tails off and it will
continue to just tail off.
In summary, operator perceptions of the TPM change program implementation is that it
was needed for a growing company, positive, effective, improved group think, provided more
structure, and help operators be more accountable, but that commitment to it eventually tapered
off.
TPM Phase 2: Growth Phase
The growth phase of the TPM program started at the end of 2015 and went through early
2020. Between these years, the organization saw historical efficiency gains of 23%. Eight of
eight participants shared their perceptions of accountability during the growth phase.
142

Chad and Soldier both stated that during the growth phase of the TPM program, the
program structure was becoming more of a “daily routine” for operators. Chad shared his
perception of how the program became a daily routine. Chad stated,
There was coaching. We had coaching in the beginning. … And it was going on for a
While. … The coaching would help them go through it and understand the reason behind
this and how it should be working and how it works. So, the coaching was there. … They
would coach each other. … We had peer to peer communications.
Soldier’s reasoning for the program becoming more of a daily routine is that more
operators were buying into the program as time went on. He stated, “I think it’s the operator …
The employee in general buys into the program or buys into what’s being preached by the line-
centric team.” Soldier added, “They gonna take more accountability into their job, and they’re
taking it more seriously. … And they’re gonna do what’s been asked of them.” According to
Soldier, “operators were trying to put their input into the program, as an operator that runs that
piece of equipment, and they were starting to see the changes being made. … A lot of the fixes
were getting done, and a lot of the maintenance was getting done.”
NN shared how he perceived management involvement in the program drive better
results. NN said,
As I see more people getting involved from management and from other angles …
Other departments, okay it’s good, because to me the more they get involved, the more
time they spend. And literally to me it just means they care more, or they’re being asked
to do more, and when they do it that they care more, they want to see results.
NN also discussed when he noticed that the program showed improvements.
143

Yes, I do feel different I do feel like the intention is there to do better and they’re
[management] trying harder. I think they’re showing up more, although I think it’s not
enough. … They’re giving us better tools better materials to read. ... Well, yes … they’re
trying their best to provide the tools and to make it more convenient for us, who are easier
to do our work and to get more done so, yes, I feel better about it, although I think there is
still a lot of improvement.
Frank said about the growth phase, “I think we’re losing some of the, you know,
accountability.” When prompted by the researcher why he felt this accountability loss, Frank
said, “Leadership style has a lot to do with it. And so, when leadership puts in place
accountability measures. … How do you think that you as an employee or other employees may
handle that?” He said that employees can find accountability “loopholes” and ways to “maneuver
around … accountability requirements,” which in the end he said creates a “loose culture, and
loose accountability.”
Wyoming perceived that union machine operator follow-through was affected by
leadership follow-through. He said, “after a year it was, people are not doing it anymore, because
people (leaders) weren’t following through.” Wyoming’s perception was similar to that of NN
and Wylee which included the importance of continuous leader follow-through. NN said, “I just
felt like. … If they’re not going to do anything or they’re not going to follow through on why
people aren’t doing it anymore, then it shows how much people (leaders) care about making sure
that the program is followed.”
Wylee perceived that not all union machine operators bought into the program. Wylee’s
perception is that when the company rolled out the program, “It gets traction … We started to see
the change as our machines are running more reliable.” Then Wylee said he saw a “lack of
144

organizational commitment to sustain long-term organizational growth.” Wylee perceived tenure
as a potential reason for the lack of operator accountability. He said, “You get all these older
guys that they’re just there to just do whatever they want to do. … And I mean they’ve been
getting away with it forever. … Their accountability is not going to change.”
Coach’s perception provided four potential reasons that union machine operator
accountability may have shifted over time and the reasons why the TPM change program failed.
The first reason is turnover or “the movement in the plant.” The second reason is that parts of the
TPM processes were changing which requires operators to learn new additional processes. Coach
said, “the paperwork and everything’s going digital now for the most part.” The third reason is a
lack of operator training. As Coach said, “training is part of building accountability.” The last
reason Coach offered is a lack of operators maintaining proper paperwork and logging events. As
Coach said, “So I think that really plays a big factor on the reporting. That’s how I feel you’re
held accountable.”
TPM Phase 3: COVID Phase
When COVID impacted this manufacturing plant in March 2020, it dramatically changed
the daily operational flow in this facility. The TPM program’s structure provided the main
communication and accountability systems between operators and leaders. With COVID
restricting direct contact and requiring social distancing protocols, the employee and leader
communication channels quickly disappeared. Eight out of eight participants shared their
perceptions of the TPM program in the COVID phase of the program. These participants
discussed how COVID dramatically changed and shifted their daily work routines and
accountabilities.
145

When speaking of the TPM program during the COVID phase, Wylee said, “We don’t
even do that anymore. It’s Monday through Friday. It’s a joke. All that stuff is gone.” Similarly,
Chad shared his perception that, “The wheels fell off. All the wheels, not even one, all the wheels
fell. It was just dead.” Chad continued to explain the impact of COVID,
COVID was a huge change! I mean it’s a huge change. I mean the change is- is just
Unmeasurable. … You couldn’t measure the change, but it was big. The fact that –
There was no, I mean there’s no interaction. The whole program was basically on hold.
Chad referring to the change in communication channels said, “The whole thing about the huddle
is the communication. … So, the communication wasn’t there, so the program is basically
ineffective. … COVID made it impossible to continue group meetings.” Regarding
accountability during this phase Chad said, “the accountability—was almost lost.”
Girl Dad shared his perception of the program during the COVID phase when he said, “it
doesn’t seem like it’s there anymore.” Girl Dad also shared his individual accountability and his
way of continuing the program for himself and others by still using the tools from the program.
Girl Dad said,
But it’s helped me out, because like I said, it’s helped me work on things, it holds me
accountable to more things now that whereas before. Even though the TPM program is
not there I can still talk to people about it or with a situation that I’m in. But, I think it’s
very good. I wish we still had it at our job. It’s a tool for me now, on my own to talk to
other people about … and I still implement it.
Girl Dad’s perception is that his continued efforts using the program tools will, “In the long run,
it’ll make everything easier for myself, and other people around me.”
146

Soldier spoke about operator morale and motivation during the COVID phase of the
program. He said,
I mean, this whole pandemic it got kind of. … Their morale, I guess their motivation in
the program kind of got killed off because we weren’t able to do the pass down shift,
shift huddles. … A lot of the team activity building, we weren’t doing no more because
of the pandemic.
NN perceived how COVID made the program more complicated by stating,
“Everything’s more complicated to get done. … We stopped having huddles as our personal
interaction. … Huddles was a big thing because that’s when we talk about the things that need to
get done on the shift.” NN also shared his unique perception that accountability did not change
when COVID impacted the program. He said, “I think people’s accountability level was the
same. … We just basically needed to be safe.” NN stated the question,
If you’re doing things, but everything is impacted greatly are people less
accountable? I don’t think so. … It’s more difficult for us to do certain things that had to
be done. … But now we got more alcohol spray bottles and it was just more
cumbersome.
Frank perception of the COVID phase was that “efficiency may have been lost” and
“relationships were sort of distant.” When COVID impacted the plant, Frank said, “COVID was
a big deal for everybody and especially accountability. … TPM was essentially gone by this
point. The ground we gained, I thought was a step back.” Noting his accountability, Frank said,
Internally me, I did not want to lose accountability. I did wanna maneuver through in a
147

whole new way. … You know the COVID way. … The best I could. Because we overall
did still have the bigger accountability and the government agencies that regulate us and
we can’t supersede that.
While Wyoming noted he was on medical leave from before COVID to early Fall, he
provided his perception about how COVID impacted the TPM program as he heard it from other
teammates and experienced it upon his return. His perception is that accountability diminished
with COVID, most likely due to communication being put aside. Additionally, Wyoming is also
the only participant who discussed the idea of equitable disciplining of operators and holding
operators accountable during the COVID time frame. Wyoming said,
So then obviously with COVID hitting, there was a lot that got put to this side. There
were no more huddles, there was no more of this, there was no more of that. … So, I
think once COVID hit, it made the accountability at the place even less. … It wouldn’t be
fair to take discipline on someone and over here trying their best not to get sick … So, it
was more of like. … Hey let’s just hold off. People are just trying to survive right now.
In summary, the perception of most participants is that COVID heavily impacted the
ability to continue the TPM program, and accountability was dramatically reduced when COVID
arrived at the manufacturing facility causing a huge shift in accountability behaviors.
Theme 5: Organizational Acquisition
As a major change event in 2017, the existing company was acquired by a large
international manufacturing firm. One of the episodic interview questions asked how participants
perceived this acquisitional change and how operator’s feelings of accountability shifted after
this new firm took over. Eight of the eight participants offered perceptions about the acquisition.
It is also important to acknowledge that the average tenure of these participants is 16 years. A
148

few operators mentioned that they participated in at least one prior acquisition at this
manufacturing facility. Overall, the participants had mixed perceptions about the acquisition and
whether the new acquiring firm brought more or less accountability.
Regarding whether they felt accountability had changed since the acquisition, Chad,
Coach, and Frank all agreed that accountability did not change. Chad said, “I really don’t think
there was that much change. It wasn’t really showing or coming down to our level. … It was just
change the logo and change the name.” Similarly, Coach shared, “It’s kind of just the same. …
No, no it’s the same. Like I said when it changed companies before there was a couple of
upgrades.” Frank said, “The day-to-day operations didn’t change much,” and the acquisition was
no more than a “facelift of the plant.”
However, Wylee explained that the acquisition created the perception of fear for him.
Wylee said,
Obviously, you get scared when a new company comes and buys us. … Because you
don’t know what their agenda is. Are they going to shut us down? So obviously, you get
that fear, that fear of what is this going to be about? Who are the people? Are they
going to come in and bring new people?
Wyoming said, “I think now it’s more different. It’s different.” He added that he felt the
new firm required additional accountability. However, Wyoming also felt that a combination of a
new supervisor and the acquisition may have created additional fear and pressure on him and his
department. Wyoming said that employees in his department lived under fear, but this may not
have all been caused by the acquisition. He explained, “Well, are they going to want to shut
down. … Because there’s better places to do this more efficiently?” According to Wyoming, at
the same time the acquisition happened, he also got a new supervisor. The new supervisor in his
149

department, was telling his employees, “Hey, we need to run. We need to run. We need to
perform.” To Wyoming, the acquisition plus the addition of a new supervisors in his department
occurring simultaneously, may have caused excessive fear. Wyoming identified that these fears
were probably specific to his team members, and he said, these were “external factors” of the
acquisition that “others might not see.” Soldier’s perception was that the new firm was holding
people less accountable, “I think as far as accountability, I think it became a lot more lax.”
Frank also said that there had been “consistent operational growth for the past 3-years,”
and the acquisition was “another way to redefine ourselves to the new boss (firm).”
Contrastingly, Frank also suggested that the acquisition may be an opportunity for some union
machine operators to create more space between themselves and their accountability with the
new firm, which could reduce employee accountability. Frank said, “Okay. Here’s yet another
opportunity to sort of distance ourselves from accountability. Uh, we have a new company.”
Wyoming shared his perception of the acquisition and how it affected accountability. The
perception of Wyoming is that “I think that changed it a little. So, we’re just ignoring certain
things now. And I think ever since then, it’s changed a lot of the line, and accountability has
slowly drifted a little bit away.”
NN believed that operators took more accountability because they were involved in the
creation of the TPM processes. Referring to accountability, NN said,
I think it (accountability) has changed. … We have for example the CIL’s, those are
important, and I feel that’s very important because those are put together or ideas from
the operators. And what works and what doesn’t work and we put them together as a
group, and made it a standard, so that we can perform better and be more efficient. … In
that alone there is a big improvement.
150

Chad’s original perception is that the acquisition did not create changes to the TPM
program as demonstrated by his statement that “there was no difference because we still had the
program going. … I see it as a good thing because they realized that this program was working
good.” However, like Wylee, Chad also shared some uncertainty and questioned, “Is this
something that the new company is going to pick up and continue with it? Is there gonna be
something else introduced that’s different from the current program?”
Girl Dad explained that he did not perceive any changes in his personal accountability
during the acquisition. He stated,
I mean what I did, I just kept on the same thing. What I did. … And how I thought about
accountability. As far as company to company, if there was a change, I didn’t see it
because it’s the way I was.” Girl Dad said, “I was still holding myself to a high standard.
That’s me. I mean, everybody is different, right?
In summary, the perceptions of union machine operators during the acquisition varied
from a simple name change, to fear, to the acquisition creating less and also more accountability.
Theme 6: COVID
Leadership first identified COVID in this plant in March of 2020. Eight of eight
participants perceived that COVID was a significant event that challenged and changed their
daily work routines. Each participant voiced their unique perceptions of COVID and also shared
the factors affecting their own perceptions of work-related accountability.
Contrastingly, Chad shared his perception of how overall accountability changed during
COVID. “It did. You know? Yeah, so I mean … I think we’re losing some of the accountability.”
NN explained his perception of accountability “Was mostly the same. … You are basically just
151

wearing more masks. … You are just basically providing them (employees) more tools, and your
time to give them answers and explanations.”
Regarding TPM program accountability, Soldier said, “I think it’s kind of hurt it, and the
people that were starting to buy into it now are not … The buy into the program just died
completely.” Soldier also perceived the differences between then and now and addressed the
ongoing frustrations other operators may have felt during COVID. Soldier said,
Oh, I think the biggest change from now on, to back then is a relief. … A lot of the
employees throughout the plant are relieved now that there’s a vaccine. A lot of the
employees now feel kind of frustrated because they felt they have been over the hump. If
they got vaccinated, they weren’t gonna have to wear the mask, they weren’t gonna have
to social distance and all that. And now, it’s being asked for them again, to continue
wearing the mask, continue to social distance. So, that’s the frustrating part now with the
whole COVID.
Soldier also shared how COVID and working during the pandemic affected his personal life and
family roles. He shared that COVID increased his overall accountability for work and home.
Soldier said,
I didn’t have to stay home. I had to still go out and do daily routine work, putting gas,
getting food. I ultimately ended up doing more routines than that of my significant
other, and my kids would do. I would be the one going to the grocery store, to
Walmart. … Everything that would be done I would do it since I was already out, to
lower the risk to my immediate family getting sick.
According to Frank, accountability took a step backwards due to COVID. Frank said,
“COVID-19, that was a big, scary anxiety time for everyone. … Yeah, it was a big impact for
152

accountability, a loss of accountability. The ground we gained, I thought was a step back. Team
operations, they slowed … And so did processes.” Frank said, “Um, we’re essentials. We have to
work, we’re important to the supply chain. … We had incentives to get to work.” Frank also
explained the fear and challenge of working during a pandemic environment, “Uh, a lot of
people didn’t wanna be at work. We didn’t really want to talk, you know?”
The perception of COVID shared by Girl Dad was that COVID made everything harder
and people were no longer being trained properly. Girl Dad said,
I know when COVID hit it was a little bit rougher. … Because we couldn’t be around
people, we were isolated, and we were apart working on stuff. It was a little bit hard to
show them things like accountability. … It was harder; it was harder doing things. It
was frustrating for people that if I was working with them, we weren’t in groups and all
that, so, if I had to show something, we had to be apart. … I could see they were
frustrated because they’re like, we’re not getting the proper training or knowledge that
we should be getting.
Girl Dad also explained that sometimes people do not want to be held accountable, which made
work during COVID more difficult. He said,
And if you got somebody that does not want to be accountable, well, it’s hard. It makes
everything harder. It makes what you’re trying to do harder, and it’s harder for you to get
them to understand. So, all around, I just thought this COVID thing was bad.
Additionally, Girl Dad explained that with COVID even where you sit and use computers was a
change that made working more difficult. “Everything I think was hard… It seems like your
hands were tied behind your back, and it was just rough on everything. Okay, you can’t sit there,
153

you can’t use that computer.” COVID did affect Girl Dad’s perception of accountability, Girl
Dad said,
I was more cautious with accountability. … At work, more than I was at home, to be
honest with you. … At work, I didn’t like the idea that we were in this situation where
we’re six feet apart, but I also look at, too I need to be careful for my own safety. When
you talk about accountability, it just seemed like it was so much harder to do …
Accountability with this COVID going on.
Wylee examined his feelings of fear and stress of associating with other team members
who may have tested positive for COVID. Wylee said,
I mean, the number one thing was just fear of all this unknown. That was felt. I felt it.
Having to wear a mask and the whole thing of us not knowing. If you’re in contact with
somebody, are you going to get sick? That was pretty stressful.
Wylee identified that he got sick because of another employee, however he was grateful that the
employee shared with him that he had contracted the virus. Wylee said,
But I guess that for me now, I know I got sick because of another employee, and luckily, I
mean … We try to do the right thing, which is … I mean, I know that if I was positive, I
would contact the people that I work with. I know there’s that whole, you don’t have to
say anything confidentiality, but you never know. Somebody might pass that on to a
family member and pass away, and I couldn’t live with that on my conscience. So, I’m
grateful that the employee did communicate to me, and I got tested.
Wylee also acknowledged his frustration with the supply chain issues created by COVID. Wylee
shared that he was surprised they were even able to run the business and make product with all
the supply shortages. Wylee said,
154

I know that there’s constraints with COVID. But I mean, I’ve never heard of us not
having pallets. I don’t know. I mean to me there’s some stuff that I can’t believe is the
supply chain. But then again there’s so many moving pieces in that front office where a
schedule will start and then schedule quit. … We run out of palm oil, sucrose, I don’t
even know how many times. I’m like, Holy crap dude. This is the business that we’re
running. It’s like how I told you before. I’m surprised. I’m really surprised how we’re
even running man.
Overall, operator perceptions of COVID created fear, uncertainty, frustrations with
daily routines and supply shortages, and all operators agreed that COVID took its toll on
organizational accountability.
Research Questions 1 and 2 Summary Discussion
In summary, the purpose of research questions one and two was to inquire about how
union machine operators perceived accountability within a dual organization and the impact on
their commitment and well-being. Research questions one and two sought to determine the
internal and external factors shaping participants’ perceptions of accountability during specific
corporate chronological events. Participants identified how the factors of communication and
commitment have reciprocal relationships with accountability. Participants shared how their
accountabilities were shaped and shifted chronologically through events and time through
multiple situational contexts. These union machine operators discussed different factors that
impacted their perceptions of accountability in their work environment. Participants identified
many interrelated personal and organizational factors related to their accountability choices.
These factors are related to past experiences, personalities, positive affect, and attitudes about
change. Factors such as personal motivation, relationships, leadership support and presence,
155

coaching, training, resource availability, change program buy-in and participation, groupthink
and teamwork, efficiency, working alone, and the effect of external governing agencies on
accountability all played essential roles during personal accountability episodes.
Findings Research Question 3
Research question three focuses on felt accountability and how it shapes participants'
views of culture, climate, and uneven practice. Understanding the organizational culture and
climate in dual settings requires looking at how participants interact within the systems
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Open systems have multiple levels that
interact with each other, and each system can affect the culture and climate of the other systems.
Individuals felt accountability decisions rely heavily on multiple factors within the culture and
climate of their work environment.
Uneven practice (Romzek, 2015) occurs when governance mechanisms are improperly
designed, misaligned, break down, or ineffectively implemented by leaders. Uneven practice
argues that accountability systems are designed through mechanisms and structures that are
based upon internal (relational/social) and external (institutional) factors, which must have a
foundation in the concepts of fairness, justice, choice, and ethics towards the employee(s) being
held accountable (Dubnick, 2014; Romzek, 2015). This section includes findings from the
participant's lived stories which discuss their perceptions of the culture and climate of
accountability within a dual organizational system and their shared voices regarding uneven
practice in their work environment. These participants shared that the concepts of fairness,
justice, choice, and ethics are essential. According to the participant’s perceptions, when these
key concepts are missing, there is personal cognitive confusion and potential conflict which
harms organizational relationships and diminishes standards of accountability.
156

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: How does the culture, climate, and context of
dual organizations and uneven practice impact employee felt accountability? This section
addresses the accountability culture, climate, beliefs, and how uneven practice impacted these
participants' perceptions of their workplace accountabilities. Eight of the eight participants
shared their voices, personal experiences, and reflections about how they perceive the culture,
beliefs, values, and uneven accountability practices with this dual organizational system. In this
study, participants' internal and external experiences shaped their perceptions about their
accountability toward the company and union in positive, negative, uncertain, and often
confusing ways. Table 4 shows the themes identified by participants for research question three
and each participant’s voice who identified the theme.

Table 4
Themes of the Qualitative Analysis Research Question 3
Research question 3 themes Participants’ who identified each theme

Culture, Values, Beliefs Noisn Nagant, Soldier, Wyoming
Uneven Practice Chad, Coach, Frank, Girl Dad, Noisn
Nagant, Soldier, Wylee, Wyoming

Theme 1: Culture, Values, Beliefs
Wyoming hypothesized that his ideal culture of accountability would be a culture of
equity. Wyoming said, “Accountability should be pretty much across the board.” However, his
current perception differs from his ideal. Wyoming stated,
157

I’ve seen where right now the accountability is very selective in the sense that if
it’s something to do that causes monetary loss, then right away we do jump on
that. … A PPE violation should just carry as much weight as running the same
code for three hours. It should warrant the same discipline. But it doesn’t right
now.
Wyoming’s perception is that the union plays a vital role in helping define the organizational
culture of accountability. He perceives that there is good and bad to the union’s different levels of
accountability. Wyoming said,
Not only does it (the union) play a role … There is a good and bad to it. It empowers us
as employees in the sense that we can bargain for better benefits, better pays, better
situations in general. The negative aspect of that, is that it gives you that opportunity to
just get by. And that is probably the worst part of the union, is that it allows people that
probably shouldn’t be able to get by, to get by.
Wyoming perceives potential clashes between the company and union work ideologies and their
participation in company new change initiatives. He said, “The bad part is that when there’s new
initiatives that they want to roll out, that comes head on with the union first. It’s well how are we
going to do that? Oh no, no… I’m not going to do that. No, no, no.” Additionally, Wyoming
identified one of the most significant accountability challenges for any organization, balancing
the scales of accountability. Wyoming said,
I think right now everything is a lot more relaxed. Which is a good and a bad thing. So,
when it comes to accountability, its good because to a regular employee, its good because
they (operators) feel like they (supervisors) are not going after me … Or they are not
going to give me a write-up, which is how we get discipline. But it’s a bad thing because
158

once you go too much that way then it takes away a bit of peoples drive to not do what’s
right, and to do the wrong thing and potentially get in trouble. So, you start abusing that
accountability. Then people start getting comfortable, and they start doing things that
certainly maybe they shouldn’t be doing. I think the fact that there’s a lot of leniencies
right now makes it more difficult to really have accountability at work.
NN shared his perception that the union cultural power differential helps maintain the
imbalance of organizational accountability. He said, “Union workers have more power in many
respects. Union workers have more power to defeat the purpose of certain things. They can get
away with more things. Union workers are harder to make accountable.” NN shared how
supervisors fear disciplining union workers. He said, “The union protects them (operators), and
union protection plays a big role in this. … A union worker can complain that you (supervisor)
are harassing me. … I (operator) can just go to human resources and they (supervisors) have to
deal with the union and the lawyers and representatives.”
NN perceived that more tenured employees may rely more heavily on union rules. He
stated, “If there are certain things, they (tenured employees) don’t want to do, they’ll find
everything, every excuse in the book. … And the union gets involved so they do not have to do
more work.” In a union environment, NN said “You have to make them (union employees) more
accountable because the demands are different.”
Soldier shared that there are cultural imbalances in equity between how specific shifts
and departments are held accountable. His perception of why this exists is because management
wants to avoid confrontation with union machine operators. Soldier said, “I believe in our
organization now, there’s a big difference in accountability across shifts and departments.”
159

Soldier added, “Certain operators get held accountable, some don’t. It affects the culture in the
department and in the shift.” Soldier said,
I work graveyard. … We’re held more accountable and we have more responsibility
because obviously, the off shifts don’t have the line-centric team (supervisors). Day
shift and swing shifts do. So, we’re asked to do a lot more and take in a lot more and
more responsibilities, not only in our department but across all the departments. We
have to get involved in the processing, the maintenance, with breakdowns, and stuff like
that. When it comes to discipline, a lot of the stuff that goes on in days is a lot more
lenient, and management tends to look the other way when mistakes happen on their
shifts to avoid any kind of confrontation. … The supervisors don’t want to have that
confrontation.
In summary, participants perceptions share that the culture, values, and beliefs show
inequity and imbalance of accountability systems. Additionally, that power differentials lean
more toward the union due to supervisor fear of operator confrontation.
Theme 2: Uneven Practice
The theme of uneven practice (Romzek, 2015) relates to how formal accountability
mechanisms and informal relationships create accountability inequities. A few specific factors
cause organizational uneven practice, including, an improperly designed accountability system,
failure to use the system properly, and inaccurate leadership accountability delivery. Eight of the
eight participants shared their perceptions of uneven practice.
Chad perception of why supervisors may or may not hold employees accountable
includes “favoritism,” and “making accommodations … to make all the employees happy.” Chad
said,
160

Each supervisor has their own style. Yes, we do have a company guideline to follow, but
it’s just like the law, you know, you can bend the law the way you want to. … I know that
you favor or treat one individual differently than the other and not hold this one
individual accountable and hold the other one accountable for the same issue.
Speaking about supervisors trying to hold employees accountable, Frank said, “I almost
see it happen in real-time, when a person doesn’t like to be told what to do, you know? And
would rather sort of tell their boss, hey man, uh, this is how we have to do it.” He added, “The
employee wants to have his voice heard. … We want to think, feel like, or believe we are doing
the right thing.” However, Frank perceives this is not always correct. Frank also perceives that
accountability can become a burden. He said, “I do think it is. It’s almost a burden. It seems like
it’s a burden to have accountability, and we all kind of don’t want to hear about it.”
When asked about supervisory uneven practice, Wylee’s perception is that supervisors
have their favorite employees and that supervisors pick and choose who to hold accountable.
Wylee said,
I definitely think that there is some picking and choosing. There are certain people that
get along with certain supervisors, and it’s just kind of like, oh, hey, you know? That’s
him, so they’re not really stressing on him or anything.
Speaking about non-favorites, Wylee said, “Those people, they’re the ones that are going to get
it.”
The perception of Wyoming is that uneven practice may be mentally challenging for
supervisors because they have to balance accountability standards with the threat of union power.
Wyoming said,
It may be very challenging being put into supervisors’ shoes, who often have to fight
161

tooth and nail to get an employee to do a certain thing … Which could eventually lead
to a union grievance. … It can get pretty discouraging pretty quick if you’re not
equipped for it mentally.
NN shared a similar perception that supervisors are limited by what they can do. NN said,
I’ve heard stories where supervisors … Some employees complain about them, and then
they get in trouble with HR. So, I think the supervisors, they’re limited, their hands are
tied to enforce or push harder towards being accountable. Because the union is there
they can only do so much.
Girl Dad’s perception is that supervisors need more training on accountability and that
that many supervisors have double standards. Girl Dad said,
Yeah, like I said, I do see it (double standards) in supervisors and managers and, to me,
it’s frustrating because I see it; other people see it. I’m thinking they have to see it. So, to
me I have always said that they need to have a class for themselves, to have more
accountability. They should be going to a course or going to a meeting for that, to have
themselves be more accountable for their actions. Because I have always in the past
brought up issues, that you hold us at a certain standard of what the company wants. But
do you guys ever look in the mirror and see what you guys do? Because you’re not
holding yourself to that same accountability, but you expect everyone else to do.
Coach shared a story identifying a lack of alignment between his supervisor’s
accountability expectations and his personal accountability standards which created stress,
conflict, and tension for him. Coach’s supervisor promoted him to be a lead in his department. In
his lead role he was responsible for working with line operators and maintaining standards in his
162

area. Coach’s perceptions of accountability standards appeared different from his supervisor.
Coach explained,
Now, this is how I have this (accountability) structure in my head. … It’s like you’re the
big dog (supervisor). I’m the lead man. … If I have an issue that I can’t handle on the
floor, I come to you with my issue, and you mediate. And if it doesn’t get taken care of,
you step in and do what you need to do. I mean you continuously let the same person
get away with whatever for how long. And even though its being spoke on, nothing
would happen.
Coach said, “I had recently stepped out from being the lead man, due to a lack of accountability
on supervisions.” Coach felt that when he tried holding operators accountable. he said, “I felt like
I had no support.”
Soldier also disappointingly shared his perception of the accountability culture in the
organization, saying “it just goes into the blame game.” Soldier identified that “scheduling, job
performance, attitude, and expectations” are all factors that play a role in creating uneven
practice. He said, “There is a big gap as far as the expectations of accountability.” He identified
that a lack of supervisor accountability across shifts creates “a whole different culture, and a kind
of conflict amongst the shifts.” He believed that this “Creates stress, tension, and conflict
between the shifts. … Which effects the morale and the team’s chemistry.” Soldier shared that
this is a significant area of frustration for him. Soldier said, “You feel like the line-centric team’s
putting us as the middleman and using us as their shield so that they don’t have to deal with the
operators.”
163

Research Question 3 Summary Discussion
Research question three uncovered participant perceptions of the accountability culture,
climate, beliefs, and why uneven practice exists within the organization. The culture includes the
beliefs and values of the participants towards organizational accountability and how they
perceive supervisors holding other employees accountable. Participants shared that the culture of
organizational accountability shows multiple accountability inequities and the inability to
balance accountabilities favorably (Dubnick, 2014). Participants perceived these inequities
occurred because of union power, shift to shift differences in accountability standards,
favoritism, fear of union retaliation, lack of follow-through, and lack of accountability training.
Chapter 4 Summary
In summary, the findings in chapter four shared perceptions of eight union machine
operators’. Their lived experiences highlight the culture, beliefs, and values that either support or
hinder accountability behavior and uneven practice. They discuss their perceptions of how
supervisors enact accountability within specific contexts and the impact of these decisions on
their work-related well-being. Their perceptions identify that uneven practice is problematic for
them. Chapter five identifies the themes from the qualitative analysis which align with the
previous literature and which participants give their voice to each theme.

164

Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
This study aimed to better understand union machine operators' perceptions of felt
accountability and uneven practice in dual organizational systems through Bronfenbrenner's
(1979) ecological model. In this study, using Bronfenbrenner's open systems model identified
two key factors. First, the model analyzes the reciprocal relationships of communication and
commitment between union employees and their environment. Second, the model views how
relationship interactions among the different system's impact employees through change
initiatives. It is within these dynamic interacting systems that employees exercise their rights of
power and choose to be held accountable or not.
The voices of the eight union machine operators interviewed for this study are addressed
by their pseudonyms in chapter four, and each theme identified which participants voices
addressed them. The participants and also the researcher’s perceptions offer rich descriptions of
the influences that shaped behaviors during accountability episodes and change initiatives.
Participants shared their personal perceptions of accountability in their work environment and
the factors that are either supportive or non-supportive of their choices of whether to be held
accountable. In addition, the researcher’s tenure within the organization provides additional
insights. Participants shared their perceptions of these experiences through three episodic
organizational change events. These events represent organizational changes that occurred
through the chronosystem over 5-years. Each change event identified various factors and multi-
level open system interactions impacting the participants' levels of felt accountability choices.
Additionally, participants identify organizational cultural misalignments and how the interrelated
systems interact to potentially reshape their perceptions of felt accountability within given
contexts.
165

The theory of change for this study is that if the organization provides higher levels of
relational or social accountability, union operators may be more likely to make better
accountability choices paving the way for improvements in organizational performance (Chen et
al., 2017; Royle, 2017). Employees are more likely to make improved accountability choices
when they perceive that the company and union co-exist in harmonious, equitable labor relations
acting as one entity. However, labor relations can be perceived as tentative and shift over time
through different union and company change events. Combining two completely divergent
organizational structures like a union bureaucracy and a flatter organizational structure can create
systemic challenges. Participants' voices identified that the company and union struggle to
provide clarity regarding the dual accountability system, making already complex accountability
choices even more difficult. The researcher working in this environment for over 6-years
witnessed the struggles of the company and union to collaborate on accountability standards, and
witnessed the many frustrations experienced by union machine operators.
Aligning two discrepant cultures can be extremely challenging, but nurturing the
perception that both the company and union are one unified entity for employees is essential.
When employees perceive one coherent, unified whole organizational culture, they experience
increased harmony and well-being, which leads to higher organizational performance levels
(Zalawadia, 2019). Dual allegiance is the term researchers have used to describe an employee
being equally committed to both entities (Angle & Perry, 1986). Additionally, when the dual
organizational systems are more effectively able to balance their interrelated accountability
systems, this improves organizational stability, creating a homeostatic balance that supports
employees' ability to balance better their own accountabilities (Salazar & Beaton, 2000). Eight of
eight participants felt a lack of clarity in accountability decisions at many levels, which created
166

instability for both the organization and employees' inability to maintain constant internal states
of control. Balance and stability are essential because when organizations are forced to confront
the dynamics of internal or external changes, there is less disruption within the organization,
reducing valence.
Eight out of eight participants shared their experience levels of high cognitive
complexity, confusion, conflict, and stress within different situational contexts inside the
organization due to the lack of a unified dual accountability system. According to the
participants, power, politics, imbalanced systems, frequent change, and uneven practice created
accountability uncertainty.
The study also sought to determine the levels of what HPB calls sustainable engagement.
Defined by the company sustainable engagement is the intensity of employees' connection to
their organization marked by a committed effort to achieve company goals in settings that
support productivity and maintain personal well-being (HPB, 2019). According to HPB (2019),
companies with high levels of sustainable engagement outperform organizations with low or
traditional engagements. Dual organizational commitment felt accountability, uneven practice,
and sustainable engagement appear intertwined as conceptual elements within the research.
While the TPM program showed significant gains in performance prior to this study which
required sustainable engagement, gains to the program leveled out in 2020, and participants’
current perceptions is that sustainable engagement fluctuates dramatically due to the conflict and
confusion they felt about their accountability environments. The participant perceptions showed
that the company’s goal of sustainable engagement is fluctuating, which appear related to
participant perceptions of the TPM program, the acquisition, and COVID.
167

These findings can assist organizational leaders in navigating and balancing more
equitable accountability systems in the future. This study is relevant in 2022 as employees seek
more union labor representation in the COVID era. Companies and unions can benefit from
understanding the need to create unification rather than adversarial relationships to have high-
performance cultures. Improved unification means that employees can have enhanced
psychological clarity during accountability episodes and are more likely to choose positive
accountability outcomes that support organizational performance. Dual organizations that are
willing to work together to create more equitable balanced accountability systems by analyzing
the most effective formal and informal accountability mechanisms can build improved cultures
of organizational accountability. Corporate performance, job satisfaction, and job involvement
increase with accountability system alignment because employees see accountability equity and
equal power distribution by organizational leaders.
This last chapter discusses the findings linked to the literature review and the conceptual
framework. The researcher makes four organizational recommendations to support the
improvement of accountability unification and the creation of an accountability system that
supports employees in navigating the cognitive complexities of dual organizational
accountability. The remaining chapter provides recommendations for future research into the
subject matter of felt accountability and uneven practice.
Discussion of Chapter 5 Findings
Chapter four presented the study findings on felt accountability and uneven practice from
research questions 1, 2, and 3 which identified eight themes. These themes are:
• definitions of accountability
• communication
168

• commitment
• TPM phases 1-2-3
• company acquisition
• COVID
• culture, values, beliefs
• uneven practice.
These themes identify within the accountability system the internal and external factors,
structures, or mechanisms that support employee's perceptions of being held accountable within
given contexts. Additionally, improving these factors within a dual organization system can
enhance employee well-being, the culture of accountability, and organizational performance.
The interrelatedness of these themes builds on others as accountability episodes occur
through Bronfenbrenner's (1979) systems over time and space. Participants describe their work
environments as chaotic and confusing, with frequent changes and disruptions that create a
climate of accountability instability. The researcher experienced similar perceptions of the
organizational environment and witnessed the frustrations of participants. These disruptions,
which are the building blocks of human development have the potential to support or diminish
employee psychological growth in the workplace. The chronological system identifies time
development, which characterized a participant's specific development during specific contexts
through time and space. The goal for any organization should be for employee accountability
development to be positive and stable despite changes within other systems. The voices of each
participant continually connect their ongoing perceptions of accountability. Participants shared
that there are multiple levels and intervals of negative accountability changes based upon the
employee's feelings within the context of each accountability episode. This employee instability
169

identifies a lack of organizational formal and informal accountability stability and potential
accountability mechanisms which may be out of alignment in this organization.
This research defines accountability as a social governance system that has existed since
the beginning of time in single biological cell organisms. Yet, accountability is clearly a subject
still requiring much attention. Today organizations create and administer multi-level
accountability systems that provide governance and social coordination, which aids
organizational order.
Union machine operators' perceptions of accountability differ based on their differences
in definitions of accountability. Participants' definitions of accountability vary from being
reliable and completing tasks to doing the job well, being responsible for their actions, having
ownership of tasks, and enforcing external governance policies. The differences in participants’
accountability definitions adds to the variety of behavioral accountability outcomes. Participants’
differences in accountability definitions share how they may make accountability choices based
upon potential sociocultural factors, personal values, environment, and situational contexts.
Participants conclude that each reach lower or higher levels of accountability based upon their
personal definitions of accountability and their individual perceptions of fairness, equity, and
justice within the context of the immediate governance environment.
The study findings align with the literature review and the study's conceptual framework
describing the predominant influential factors influencing participants' accountability behavior in
the workplace, including individual definitions of accountability. Figure 8 shows the revised
conceptual framework of a dual organization and how the systems of Bronfenbrenner (1979) are
interrelated in this accountability in this study. The conceptual framework in Figure 8 was
170

modified from the original from chapter three to include the participant’s additional theme of
communication.

Figure 8
Revised Conceptual Framework
Note: This conceptual framework is revised from the previous conceptual framework to include
communication as one of the key themes identified by study participants.

171

Balancing Dual Organizational Systems and Accountabilities
The conceptual framework builds upon the five levels of Bronfenbrenner's ecological
system theory. The conceptual framework and participant voices demonstrate how participants
accountability perceptions within the dual system shift across boundary lines, between the
company or union. Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model was used to identify how
participants develop accountability and the critical factors related to each participant's
accountability development.
Employee perceptions of accountability are at the core of felt accountability.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Lewin (1951) argue that a person's perception of their environment is
more valuable than reality. The findings show that participants perceptions within accountability
episodes drive their accountability behaviors. Participants' accountability behaviors are
subjective based on the situational contexts' (Hall et al., 2017). Scholars suggest that
accountability behaviors may be related to internal factors such as feelings, values, personality
characteristics, psychological empowerment, and external factors such as organizational support,
leader communication, politics, and uneven practice (Chen et al., 2016; Frink & Klimoski, 2004;
Hall et al., 2003; Romzek, 2015). In the study, these factors are identified from participant
voices.
Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model also demonstrates how changes or alterations
in one system, produce reciprocal changes within the other symbiotic systems. Any
accountability system should aim to provide employee stability and balance while living within
constantly changing internal and external environments (Regev et al., 2013). As participants
perceptions have identified these systems can be chaotic and confusing when imbalanced. The
systems addressed in this study dynamically interact to determine the perception of
172

accountability for each employee. Eight out of eight union machine operators work in the
microsystem, while frequent changes within the systems cross mesosystem boundaries from the
exo and macrosystems. Changes in the environment from other systems are referred to by
Bronfenbrenner (1979) as perturbations. The perturbations create instability for an employee for
a certain period until they determine how the new change fits cognitively into their new
environment. The participants in the study showed how they use either cognitive internal
resources or external environmental resources to rebalance their individual accountabilities.
The research identifies individual and organizational homeostasis as terms used to
identify how people and organizations seek to balance, develop constancy, maintain control, and
support the regulation of their personal accountability (Damasio, 2015; Lewis, 2019). How well
organizations maintain balance influences the well-being of the participants, which can alter their
accountability decisions (Regev et al., 2013). Eight out of eight participants shared that they
experienced situations where imbalanced accountability systems left them feeling uncertainty
rather than clarity in their accountability decisions. In addition, due to dual organizational
systems, each employee chose to commit to the company or the union based on how they felt
within each accountability context. Research identifies that the optimal situation would be for
each employee to be equally committed to the company and union, and good labor relations
between the company and union support positive accountability development (Gordon & Ladd,
1990; Magenau et al., 1988; Wombacher & Felfe, 2017). However, all eight participants found it
cognitively challenging to be equally committed to both entities, identifying the imbalances in
this organizations dual accountability system.
The findings of this study address five fundamental parts of the ecological model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1995b; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). These first include the
173

implications of biological factors such as genetics and heredity. Second, proximal processes are
discussed as the engines of accountability development. Third, the nature of molar activities
which are the powerful continuous manifestations of ongoing accountability behavior. The fourth
is how employees participate in dyadic relationships, which expand their accountability
development through power, relationships, and reciprocity. Fifth is the PPCT concept which
identifies the employees' personal characteristics, the relationship of the employee to their tasks,
the interrelated systems, and how change events develop them over time.
The research shows that employees perceive bringing personal characteristics, like
genetics, hereditary, and sociocultural identities into the work environment that directly affect
their accountability decisions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Scholars argue that individual-
level accountability is a product of socialization and transfers into the workplace from the
employee's values, standards, and common sense (Pan & Patel, 2020; Sinclair, 1995). Five
participants stated how they thought their sociocultural identities were ingrained into their
accountability choices. The researcher concludes that considering the many differences in how
employees enact their accountabilities, there may be a strong correlation between sociocultural
identity and accountability choices.
Proximal processes are the complex reciprocal relationships that endure over time
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Eight out of eight participants in this study identify that they had
developed deep relationships with the company, union, leaders, supervisors, and peers over time.
Participants demonstrate that the strength of these relationships determined whether they
promoted or detracted from their accountability choices. These proximal processes are evident in
the operators' differentiated perceptions, variations in accountability responses, how participants
174

control their accountability behaviors, accountability decisions, and how operators handle the
stress created by organizational accountability misalignments.
The reciprocation between participants shows the operator's willingness to actively and
positively participate in accountability episodes. However, many participants show a lack of
clarity in commitment levels and are at times unwilling to be reciprocal in these proximal
processes. Three out of eight participants shared the desire to feel positive personal affirmations
about the ending results of their accountability outcomes. Research from Bronfenbrenner (1979)
argues that proximal processes seek to affect human development whenever possible, but are not
always positive. Proximal processes can assist employees in developing the reciprocal
relationships that lead to positive accountability outcomes, which increases when dual
organizational alignment is higher.
Molar activities become present in how participants' ongoing accountability behaviors
become ingrained as continuous behavioral processes over time. How employees meaningfully
respond to current accountability episodes are created through the self-determination and
momentum of previous accountability outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In essence, previous
accountability outcomes and the persistence of accountability decisions support the development
of employee future workplace accountability behaviors. All eight participants voiced how past
personal perceptions toward the organization affected their current perceptions of accountability
behavior.
Dyadic relationships are reciprocal and may form through observing one another, joint
agreement of the two employees, or participants may develop primary dyadic bonds that may be
strong enough to help guide each other's accountably behaviors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In
manufacturing environments, dyadic relationships are well developed because operators work
175

together in close proximity relying on each other to complete their assigned roles and tasks. Each
participant shared relational experiences within their dyadic relationships and whether they
perceived their dyads with peers as having positive or negative situational outcomes. In referring
to uneven practice, dyadic supervisory relationships are perceived as functional or dysfunctional
based upon the supervisor's level of favoritism. Dual organizations may be more successful by
focusing on the dyadic relationships between supervisors and employees to drive higher levels of
accountability.
Lastly, PPCT is defined as a biopsychological condition where employees, jobs, tasks,
and relationships may vary but are a function of the joint environmental conditions, which
provide varying levels of accountability contexts even when standard organizational rules and
regulations apply (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Participants' biopsychological conditions within the
dual organizational accountability environment show varying levels of commitment to the
current dual organizational accountability system. Jobs, tasks, and relationships within the
complex systems with the pressures of internal and external factors create varying contexts of
accountability. Participants' voices highlight that processes, people, context, and time are all
factors of accountability choices that may align with personal values, union values, or company
values.
Relationships
The research identifies those dyadic relationships are at the center of commitment.
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) is a leadership approach that centers on the quality of
connecting interactions between the dyadic relationship of a leader and follower (Northouse,
2019). Team Member Exchange (TMX) identifies the proximal relationships among team
members and the quality of team members working relationships (Shkoler et al., 2019).
176

According to Banks et al. (2014) the LMX and TMX constructs are firmly related to the strength
of relationships which determine the strength of employee and team commitments.
Employees' positive perceptions of supportive social relationships between dual
organizations in the work environment promote higher levels of participation (Goedekke &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010). Additionally, workers develop relationships in the workplace to
provide emotional support. Organizational support is a catalyst for building these relationships
that bind employees together through dyadic relationships. These dyadic relationships invite
participation in complementary bonding activities between operators, leadership, and others
which develop the interactions that have the appearance of caring for each other. Five out of
eight participants perceived that when leadership shows they care and follow through on
problems, they are more likely to maintain higher levels of commitment toward accountability.
According to one participant, the ideal culture of accountability creates equitable
relationships. However, all participants imply that equitable accountability is not the
organizational norm. Many questioned why the culture of accountability was so inequitable and
offered possible perceptions of why inequities occur. These include unequal union distribution of
power, relational fear, the lack of company union agreement, and uneven practice. Four out of
eight participants agree that there is a culture of relational fear. If an employee complains to
human resources, the fear of union repercussions prevent leadership from holding operators
accountable and more easily dismissing an operator's behavior. This fear demonstrates the
relational power of the union over the company. Participants agreed that this is harmful to their
relationships and creates mistrust between leaders and employees.
Supervisory employee dyadic relationships are the primary catalyst of support and
mediation for operators. These relationships are vital to employee accountability. Eight of eight
177

participants comment on the lack of balance and inequity of supervisors holding employees
accountable. Six of the eight participants agreed that a supervisor's responsibility for holding
operators accountable would be mentally challenging. The main reasons identified by
participants is that inequity in accountabilities is due to the threat of union repercussions, trying
to make all employees happy, and favoritism.
Participant perceptions in this study demonstrate that the lack of communication from
leaders reduced commitment and accountability outcomes. Communication creates the reciprocal
relationship between the operator and leader necessary to build commitments to accountability.
This communication could be direct, through communication channels, passed down to leads, in
meetings, or groups. According to participants, leaders show they care for employees by being
present, communicating, supporting, and showing they are committed to organizational
processes. If any of these are lacking, then organizational accountability suffers.
Change and Balance
Since the 1980s, organizational leaders have been under pressure by shareholders to
adopt new lean manufacturing change initiatives and make them stick (Lewis, 2019). The TPM
program was a multimillion-dollar investment and lean change initiative for HPB. TPM was
initially rolled out in 2015. HPB implemented Kotter's 8-step change model (1995) well enough
to reach and maintain significant efficiency gains. After year 5, the TPM program reached
unprecedented efficiency gains of 23% (from 33% to 56%). While four out of eight union
machine operators share their perception that there was a lack of buy-in into the TPM program
by other operators, the 5-year organizational gains show the opposite. Four out of eight operators
additionally shared that they felt the TPM program held operators more accountable.
Accountability was created through new paperwork requirements which were complete daily,
178

checked daily by peers, and audited by supervisors. Based on the findings, effective change
management strategic implementation, improvements in paperwork, improved leader
communication and involvement are the most likely reasons for the TPM program's success.
While change happens constantly, it is stability that employees and organizations seek to
maintain (Church & Dawson, 2018; Ogden et al., 2006). Human beings need to balance their
physiological feelings, and change causes an imbalance in their mental states (Damasio &
Damasio, 2016). Typically, most employees are resistant to change because change causes
instability. The homeostatic balance discussed in this study requires employees to move beyond
their constancy levels, and explains why employees choose to accept or reject organizational
change processes (Damasio, 2018). Participants voices shared that they may reject or shift
behaviors around the change processes, depending upon current and past perceptions of the
change, what shifts in tasks may be required of them, and the mental and physical conditions
required.
Participants shared that the TPM program created dramatic changes to union machine
operators' daily work routines. The significance of these changes may have required union
machine operators to adopt the changes and implement at least parts of the program. Participants
however, shared that they had mixed perceptions of the implementation of the TPM initiative.
Four out of eight participants saw the benefits of the change program and were willing to adopt
new behaviors. Two participants let perceptions of past failing change initiatives within the
organization affect their current perceptions. Six out of eight perceived other operators did not
like the TPM changes and that they likely put personal limits on their levels of participation.
The structure of the TPM change initiative provided a more balanced accountability
system and an entire communication structure for all employees. Figure 9 was created by the
179

researcher to show how the TPM communication structure starting with the operator hand-offs,
cascades upward to the operator huddle meetings. Then, the line-centric team meetings, the
department meetings, ending with the site-wide meeting where the site leadership team meet to
discuss any issues that need support from the front-line operators.

Figure 9
TPM Communication Structure

Note: This model created by the researcher shows the communication hierarchical structure for
the TPM program which moves upward from the union machine operator handoffs and huddle
meetings, eventually reaching the senior leadership team at the site-wide meeting.

180

Change initiatives are difficult to sustain over long periods and the TPM gains stalled
after 5-years. Four out of eight participants shared the perception that union machine operators
were no longer participating in the program because they no longer felt leadership support.
Participant perceptions over time was that leadership support and follow-up for the program
decreased, which also diminished their program commitments. This highlights the need for
employees perceptions to see continuous leader support for change initiative success.
After Year 6, the impact of COVID had dramatic effects on the organization, participants,
and upon the continuation of the TPM program. COVID protocols required social distancing,
which means the communication structure established by the TPM program was no longer
viable. Eight of eight participants share a high level of frustration with the discontinuation of the
TPM communication structure. Participants perceive that the lack of communication
dramatically altered the way they continued their work routines. The lack of communication
impacted leaders and supervisors’ ability to follow through with daily TPM routines. Eight out of
eight participants explained that the lack of communication, lack of follow-up, and reduced
support from leaders reduced their program accountability during COVID. However, four
participants perceived that the lack of communication and leaders support occurred prior
COVID, which led to the program stalling out after Year 5.
In summary, the participants shared the challenges of trying to balance accountabilities
when the organizational accountability system is imbalanced. Balance appeared nearly
impossible to do and caused operator conflict, stress, and confusion. Dysfunctional dyadic
relationships with supervisors who showed favoritism and power differentials appeared to be the
primary source of frustration for union machine operators. While the TPM change program had
phenomenal success in the first 5-years, it stopped producing results after year 5. Participants
181

shared that their commitment to the TPM program occurred because leaders stopped being
present, connected to the operators, and dwindled communication. COVID eventually eliminated
the most important parts of the TPM program, which were the communication and accountability
structures.
The recommendations discussed in the next section should begin systematically with a
complete needs analysis of the accountability system. Reviewing the triangular model of uneven
practice will assist in the realignment of the accountability system. The company union culture
inclusion workshops will support improved alignment and understanding between these two
diverse cultures. Leadership accountability training can provide leaders with the knowledge and
tools to enact accountability more equitably. Lastly, HPB must reimplement the TPM program
because COVID has rendered it completely dysfunctional.
Recommendations
These four recommendations work together in sequential order. The ability to accomplish
each recommended change initiative is dependent on the practical completion of the previous
recommendation. Each recommendation builds upon the previous to support the scaffolding of
dual organizational common values, acceptable norms, agreeing on acceptable belief systems,
and creating alignment of company union cultures. These change initiatives create an enormous
challenge because the dual organizational cultural elements appear profoundly ingrained into the
current culture. Nevertheless, the recommendations also have the potential to recreate an
improved accountability system, create a more cohesive unified organization, improve dyadic
relationships and the psychological well-being of employees, and establish long-term job
stability for union members through performance improvements.
182

Recommendation 1: Accountability System Realignment
This study focuses on accountability systems and how the systems create employee
functional or dysfunctional accountability behaviors. The research suggests that incongruent
climates or a combination of misaligned accountability systems may lead to errors in employee
accountability decision making (Patil et al., 2016). Lerner and Tetlock (2003) conclude that
accountability systems can be structurally engineered by the organization to encourage desired
behaviors of judgment and choice and discourage undesirable forms of judgment and choice,
which is one potential goal of this study. Participants have shared that when system
misalignment occurs, it causes accountability confusion, frustration, and conflict for them. The
perception is that this creates a loss of trust in leadership and the accountability system as well as
a loss of motivation among participants. However, Learner and Tetlock (2003) identify that
accountability systems can be structurally engineered by the organization to encourage desired
behaviors and discourage undesirable behaviors. Re-engineering the current accountability
system through the uneven practice model has the potential to correct current misalignments, re-
build trust, motivation, and support improved informal accountability relationships between
leaders and operators.
The process for this recommendation includes off-site leadership meetings to discuss the
details of the current accountability system and familiarize leaders with the triangular model of
uneven practice in Figure 10 (p. 200). This recommendation has four main goals.
1. Complete an organizational needs analysis of formal and informal accountability
system design to help identify gaps in accountability.
2. Using the model of uneven practice, identify areas within the organization
experiencing problems associated with uneven practice and identify the positive
183

elements of accountability that may be used to improve and balance the formal and
informal accountability systems.
3. Review the elements of accountability that may work to fill the accountability gaps
identified to improve uneven practice.
4. Create a plan to improve the accountability system based upon the findings of the
accountability needs analysis.
Note: The triangular model of uneven practice was created by the researcher to assist in a needs
or capacity analysis for organizations analyzing why and where issues of accountability may lie.
Additionally, it adds the most consequential elements of accountability to assist in better aligning
and balancing organizational accountability systems. The model shows how the formal
governance mechanisms and informal relational accountability systems need balancing. It
identifies three reasons that uneven practice may exist. These include,
1. Insufficient organizational accountability design, which causes misalignment of
organizational accountability mechanisms,
2. Organizational failure to use existing governance systems properly, and
3. Inaccurate leadership use of accountability mechanisms.
In red are the potential organizational, leadership, and employee issues created by an imbalanced
accountability system. These include organizational misalignment, organizational confusion and
conflict, and leadership employee stress and tension. Additionally, the middle section elements of
accountability show how the five central interrelated elements of accountability may assist in
analyzing the imbalanced system and, if appropriately used, can rebalance the accountability
system to avoid uneven practice. These elements include:
1. Setting clear expectations
184

2. Creating equity and fairness within the system
3. Providing inspiration and motivation for employees
4. Creating a supportive accountability culture
5. Developing sufficient organizational capacity.
In summary, completing a needs analysis and correcting accountability system
misalignments is the beginning of improving accountability behavior. This recommendation will
inform and educate leaders about the triangular model of uneven practice and support the
amending an organizational accountability system that supports realigning the imbalances. The
following recommendations will continue to build on organizational accountability development.
Recommendation 2: Company Union Culture Inclusion Workshops
Historically, the relationship between organizations and unions has been categorized as
adversarial (Purcell, 1954). The existence of conflict between two organizational entities
increases the difficulty for workers to achieve dual commitment to both the union and company
(Angle & Perry, 1986). In addition, early research shows commitment patterns between union
and non-union workers are moderated by employees individual perceptions of the quality of
existing union and management relationships (Dean, 1954; Gallagher, 1984). Purcell (1954)
argued that most union workers want positive collaboration between the company and union.
The goal of recommendation two is to mitigate company union conflict so that employees’
perceptions of company union relationships are viewed as one positive entity.
Like system alignment, the company must also have cultural alignment to improve
leader, union, and operator accountability behaviors. Eight out of eight participants discussed
that the company and union show significant levels of cultural misalignment. Currently, the
company and union meet for two hours monthly to discuss and create alignment on company
185

union issues. These meetings appear to maintain the status quo and are ineffective for creating
long-term cultural alignment and the perception of one collective labor system for employees.
Company and union inclusion workshops can build more collaborative bonds and harness the
collective power uniting the company and union as one organizational entity. The main workshop
goal is to recreate a culture that gives employees the perception that they are working for one
unified organization aligned in thought and action. Collaboration, inclusion, and the alignment of
cultures could strengthen with a series of intensive collaborative workshops facilitated by
specialized consultants.
The Elrod and Kezar model for systemic institutional change (2017) originally identified
in figure 5 (p.72) will address the union's and company's current underlying beliefs and values
and provide meaningful evaluation of the two cultures to improve cultural alignment. The Elrod
and Kezar (2017) model supports systemic institutional cultural change at multiple levels by
collectively gathering leaders from both the company and union at multiple levels to harness the
collective knowledge and learning from each group.
The Elrod and Kezar model focuses on leadership, readiness, and action and follows the
flow of the activities listed below.
1. Create a vision of a new inclusive organizational culture which benefits both the
company and union, galvanize support through discussion, and mobilize the dual
leadership collectively.
2. Examine the current company union landscape and conduct a capacity analysis which
identifies the key issues, challenges, and opportunities.
186

3. Create potential strategies for change including the policies, processes, and
mechanisms required for dual accountability development and determine if the
company and union are ready for a collective implementation.
4. Begin implementation of strategic plans and measure results to see if the selected
plans are working. Change or adjust strategies by scaling up or down based upon
results, while creating incentives, and celebrating short-term successes.
5. Analyze and review results of previous activities and disseminate the results focusing
on correcting outstanding issues to assist in improving results for the future.
The stakeholders would be a collective group of company and union leaders from the top
up to the bottom down. The resources required would be consultant costs, off-site space rental,
meals, training supplies and materials, administrative expenses, and time and labor investment.
The challenges include:
• Breaking down the rigid bureaucratic union and organizational cultural barriers.
• Reducing power coalitions and negotiating power differentials.
• Finding common ground and new ways to communicate.
• Managing across both organizations
In summary, cultural alignment from both organizational entities is critical to the
success of building better accountability systems by company and union leaders for employees.
Complete cultural inclusion is the goal of these workshops. The Elrod and Kezar (2017) model is
the most relevant model for cultural change. It highlights the individual and collective cultural,
beliefs and values of both organizational entities that could bind them together to create one
organizational perception of one accountability system.
187

Recommendation 3: Leadership Accountability Training
From the researcher's perspective, better knowledge of how accountability systems work
supports employee well-being and organizational productivity. All participants who shared their
perceptions of accountability challenges within daily work routines and accountability episodes
identified the purpose of the leadership accountability training. Participants perceive frequent
episodes of uneven practice occurring within their work environments, the conflict and confusion
that arises from these episodes, and the experiences of unfairness and inequity created by current
leadership accountability practices. Participants also identified that uneven practice primarily
stems from a leadership failure to use accountability systems properly.
These findings show that informal accountability is lacking on the relational side of the
accountability scale. Providing informative leadership training on accountability systems and
behaviors may improve employees' perceptions and reduce uneven practice creating a more
balanced accountability system.
The training will provide situational awareness and teach leaders how to administer
accountability fairly to reduce employee conflict and confusion surrounding accountability.
Options for training include providing an overview of the organizational accountability system,
discussing participants' perceptions, analyzing current practices, introducing the model of uneven
practice, accountability behavioral role modeling exercises, and leadership alignment on new
accountability standards. The stakeholders are the leadership team, department managers, and the
line-centric teams, consisting of production supervisors, operational excellent leaders, reliability
leaders, and maintenance planners. This team works together, and all interact with operators
requiring them to enact accountability in their roles.
188

The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) in Figure 6 (p.73)
assesses and evaluates training results, and is the most appropriate model to assess leadership
accountability training. Furthermore, an explanation is provided as to how each level will be
assessed in detail. Using the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
allows assessment of both the formal and the informal training through the four levels of
evaluation. Level one can quickly and efficiently confirm that the program's quality and
instructor are acceptable to the leadership team. It measures the degree to which leaders find the
training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level
one will efficiently complete a quantitative questionnaire after the training. Level two evaluation
identifies how leaders acquired the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
accountability commitment based on their training participation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Level two evaluations will be completed during the training through knowledge checks,
group activities, behavioral role-playing, and discussion questions.
Level three is critical and evaluates the degree of on-the-job accountability behavioral
application as leaders return to their regular job roles. A list of critical behaviors will be created
prior to the level three evaluation. Each leader will have follow-up modules of critical behaviors
to complete within 20-days. Superiors will provide coaching support during work hours and
complete a 30-day assessment with each leader. This combination will provide self-monitoring
and additional mentoring measures to evaluate each leader's active use of behavioral
accountability changes. Behavioral changes will be rewarded, recognized, and encouraged by
superiors to reinforce the consistency of the leader's behavioral changes. Level four is the
evaluation of internal and external long-term leading indicators and how these change within the
organization over time. Internally these could be evaluated by improvements in monthly union
189

operator engagement and satisfaction surveys and plant efficiencies, and production outputs.
Externally this could be measured by customer satisfaction and increases in order volumes.
In summary, the value of accountability leadership training was identified by participants'
perceptions of uneven practice, inequity, and the unfairness they feel in the current accountability
system. The new world Kirkpatrick model (2016) will evaluate the details of training on each
level. Each level will ensure leaders are engaged in the training, learn the newly required
accountability skills, make behavioral changes on the job to improve the accountability system,
and measure long-term key performance indicators to improve accountability within the
organization.
Recommendation 4: TPM Program Reimplementation
The last recommendation is to reimplement the TPM lean manufacturing program. The
company saw significant efficiency gains and increased employee accountabilities during the
TPM program's first roll-out from 2015 to 2020. The lean program provided a new structure,
systems, and processes for the manufacturing plant, clearly defining roles, establishing a clear
line of communication, and new accountability levers like additional paperwork and paperwork
audit checks. Five out of eight participants state that they found the program effective in
improving organizational communication and accountability. It is essential to reimplement this
structure for continued organizational growth.
COVID required eliminating the program structure due to new safety and social
distancing protocols. Most operators are still familiar with the TPM program, and it would feel
natural for operators to reimplement this program. The reimplementation would need to start
with basic training for all leaders and operators. While this would be refresher training for many,
leaders and union machine operators are hired since COVID would need full training. Because
190

currently trained leaders and operators understand the program, there is a sizeable guiding
coalition of people who could help train and coach new hires less familiar with the program.
The TPM program's initial implementation plan used Kotter's 8-step change model
(Kotter, 1995) as identified in Figure 4 (p.70). This model will also be used for the TPM
reimplementation. Kotter's 8-step change model shows how shared processes between union
operators and the leaders work collaboratively to create change. Like the TPM program, Kotter's
model requires shared visions and strategies, relies heavily on communication, removes barriers,
and identifies short-term wins, which help continuously build change efforts. The TPM design
assists operators in taking ownership of their areas, understanding their equipment, helping
troubleshoot breakdown issues, and escalating any problems upward where they need leader
support.
The stakeholders include the company and union leadership teams and the union machine
operators. The program's goal would be to erect all the parts of the TPM program structure again.
Leaders will be actively engaged in showing commitment and supporting the program while
providing operators the resources required to make the program a success. Resources required
include a $3.5 million parts budget to repair and replace equipment defects found by operators.
Quick equipment repairs will help improve operators' feelings of planning and leader support.
Other resources include administrative budgets for learning and development, training, and
leadership's willingness to commit long-term, be present, and have regular follow-ups.
Participants shared that during the first TPM implementation, their perceptions were that leader
commitment, communication, and follow-up to the program waned, leading to a lack of operator
commitment.
191

One of the biggest challenges is that this manufacturing facility runs twenty-four hours,
seven days per week, with three shifts: day, swing, and graveyard. Graveyard shift support is the
most significant challenge during any change initiative and is critical for success. Support for the
graveyard shift requires leaders to alter their schedules, interrupt their family lives, and engage
off shift with operators for extended periods. The leaders must find ways to continue all shift
support for longer durations during reimplementation to sustain the operator behaviors required
for the desired efficiency gains. Based upon participant perception, the TPM program's success
rests on leadership completing the health checks and continuous leadership commitment.
The last challenge is that operators will feel that they have already implemented this
program, and many participants said it did not work or never bought in fully. Operators
explained that past perceptions of change initiatives interfered with their current perceptions.
During training, past gains and successes would need discussing to help operators see the
program's value and the 23% efficiency gains during the original 5-years of implementation.
Operators need to see how their hard work and engagement in the program made a difference. By
continuing the program, future efficiency gains could bring in more capital investment, make this
facility more valuable to corporate leaders, and build long-term stability for union operator jobs.
In summary, the TPM program needs reimplementation since COVID removed many of
the communication and accountability structures. A complete reimplementation is needed for the
organization to get a fresh start. The perceptions of participants shared that leaders need to
sustain more prolonged periods of perceived commitment so that operators stay committed to
reaching higher efficiency goals.
192

Study Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations within a study commonly refer to the weaknesses of the study or what is out
of the researcher's control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One fundamental limitation that bound
this study was that the local labor union leaders asked the researcher not to ask any specific
questions about how the union employees felt about the union. While the study tries to determine
how accountabilities may shift from the company to the union during episodic change events,
this limited the initial approach. Three initial semi-structured interview questions were revised to
state the union and company as the organization and not separate these organizational identities.
A few participants distinguished between the company and union in their interview answers;
however, direct union identification was limited within-participant interviews due to the union's
request. It is unknown why the union made this specific request in writing. However, the
researcher adhered to these union guidelines and elected not to make assumptions regarding the
union's request.
Another limitation was the organizational-wide 2019 ES was mandatory for all
organizational employees. Due to the mandatory nature of this survey, it may not provide
completely accurate information, as Robinson and Leonard (2019) state that mandatory
organizational surveys may provide misleading data and response bias. Response bias refers to
the likelihood that participants may not be truthful in their responses (Robson & McCartan,
2016). The ES survey is from 2019, and the researcher uses the ES only to help establish a
foundation for the research and present the organizational goal of sustainable engagement. The
researcher did not consider specific data points within the ES. Additionally, applying felt
accountability and uneven practice toward the organizational goal of sustainable engagement
also had its limitations.
193

Response bias may have occurred due to lapses in participants' memory and asking
questions about beliefs, perceptions, or attitudes from events occurring within the past 6-years
(Robson & McCartan, 2016). Nine of the semi-structured interview questions were episodic in
nature, which may have led to responses based upon perceptions of perceptions (Tulving, 2002).
To reduce response bias, probes and cues identifying the time and contexts of these episodic
events supported arousing each participant's memories of these events. Still, recalling past events
may have been interpreted differently at the time of the interview versus at the time of the event,
as ongoing events can alter the future perceptions of past events (Tulving, 2002).
Many questions, sub-questions, cues, and probes within the semi-structured interviews
highlighted specific episodic events and time frames which have occurred within the past 6-year
settings or contexts. Nine interview questions relate to three sequential change events occurring
over the past 6-years, requiring participants to use their episodic memory. Episodic memory was
first studied over 50-years ago and is defined as a neurocognitive process different from other
memory systems (Tulving, 2002). According to Tulving (2002), episodic memory enables
participants to remember past experiences and allows “mental time travel” (p. 5) possible from
the past to the present day. It allows humans the ability to re-experience their previous
experiences. Human memory is fallible, and the passage of time creates memory deterioration of
our past experiences (Robinson & Leonard, 2019; Tulving, 2002). Robinson and Leonard (2019)
explain that memory fallibility limits recalling whole events in interviews. These limitations
relate to memory change, as what participants can recall from memory is limited and is never an
“exact copy” (p. 62) or complete replication of the past event. Additionally, because events have
complexity, the recall of an event may not have all the exact and relative information given in
perfect order. Recalling past events requires the act of “construction and reconstruction” (p. 62)
194

of cognitive events, which may leave memories splintered with missing information (Robinson
& Leonard, 2019).
Emotions also play a prominent role in the act of memory retrieval (Robinson & Leonard,
2019). Participants may have improved autobiographical memory when the right probes and cues
are provided to elicit emotions when discussing episodic events. Emotions arise from hearing the
cues and probes and enhance the participant's episodic response, and this may assist participants
in recalling the episodic experiences more clearly and provide more details of these past events
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). This improved memory is called “autobiographical memory” (p.
63), which tends to be episodic, and participants may associate sharpened memories with events
when cued by strong emotions. For this study, participants were more likely to recall emotions of
accountability episodes when questions were placed within a sequential time period.
Additionally, Robinson and Leonard (2019) suggest that when referencing time-period events,
one identifies a specific time “reference period” (p. 57), like a year and month, to more easily
assist the participants in remembering past events within their cognitive episodic memory.
After explaining informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity, additional limitations
may be respondent answers to interview questions. Participants may not feel they can be open
and honest right away within the interview environment because of personal feelings about the
potential union or organizational repercussions. Additionally, participants may feel
uncomfortable discussing more personal accountability episodes with the researcher. From
personal experience in this research setting, the researcher's perception is that union members
have a strong sense of wanting to balance and not constrain union or organizational relationships.
For personal reasons or self-protection, union machine operators often appear to ride the middle
ground, which could hinder true and accurate responses. In addition, each participant's health,
195

mood, and external factors may affect the quality of each participant's responses (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Delimitations are defined as setting the research boundaries (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The design, sampling method, and semi-structured interviews all support establishing the
research boundaries in this study. Delimitations were created by aligning the qualitative
methodology, phenomenological design, and pragmatic paradigms. Additionally, using
Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, the conceptual framework, which combines the dual
organizations, felt accountability, uneven practice, and setting the individual participants at the
center, all helped create delimitations. Furthermore, the research questions were pilot-tested, and
interview questions altered to help improve the boundaries for this study.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future felt accountability research requires focusing more on the use of open systems like
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1977). As identified earlier in this research, the researcher
found only a few recent empirical articles published by leading accountability scholars
emphasizing the use of Bronfenbrenner’s model (Dewi & Riantoputra, 2019; Frink et al., 2008;
Johnson, 2008). Future research using Bronfenbrenner’s model can add significant
understandings of the internal and external factors that impact felt accountability behavior and
uneven practice. These scholars identify that accountability occurs within the mesosystem of
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1977) and that future research using this model will help
advance accountability theory.
Additionally, future research on uneven practice may provide a new understanding of felt
accountability in organizational settings. The term uneven practice (Romzek, 2015) is only found
once in all literature. Nevertheless, it is terminology that explains why accountability and where
196

accountability gaps between the organization, leaders, and employees can exist. Understanding
these gaps can support the building of more effective organizational accountability systems.
Uneven practice could be used as a model to help researchers determine where to locate felt
accountability gaps. Figure 10 illustrates the researchers potential model of uneven practice,
referred to as the triangular model of uneven practice. It identifies why and where organizational
accountability misalignments may exists and may be used to help complete a full or partial
organizational needs or capacity assessment by organizational leaders to identify why and where
potential accountabilities exist. As Romzek (20125) identified uneven practice may exist for the
following three reasons:
1. An insufficient organizational accountability design, which causes misalignment of
organizational accountability mechanisms.
2. An organizations failure to use existing governance systems properly.
3. The inaccurate leadership use of accountability mechanisms.

197

Figure 10
The Triangular Model of Uneven Practice

In the triangular model of uneven practice created by the researcher the red identified
words are the potential organizational, leadership, and employee issues created by an imbalanced
accountability system. These include organizational misalignment, organizational confusion,
conflict, and leadership employee stress and tension. The middle section identifies positive
elements of accountability and how the five central interrelated elements of accountability may
assist in analyzing and realigning an imbalanced system. When appropriately used, these
elements can rebalance the accountability system to avoid uneven practice. These elements
include (a) setting clear expectations, (b) creating equity and fairness within the system, (c)
providing inspiration and motivation for employees, (d) creating a supportive accountability
culture, and (e) developing sufficient organizational capacity.
198

Building effective accountability systems requires fine-tuning organizational formal
governance mechanisms and the informal relationship systems. Organizations must regularly
analyze the five elements of accountability to keep them balanced, as these are the foundational
principles of a well-run organizational accountability system. The organization benefits from a
well-run accountability system in that alignment supports higher levels of employee well-being
and opportunities to improve organizational performance.
Conclusion
Hall et al. (2017) postulate that the construct of accountability may be the most
permeating and one of the most powerful influences on human organizational behavior. The
impact of this study uncovers new insights into the varying levels of accountability function and
dysfunction within dual organizations from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) open systems theory. The
researcher selected the subjects of felt accountability and uneven practice because they support
the health of organizational systems. Additionally, the researcher views organizations from the
employee’s perspective and desires that employee well-being be enhanced through these
systems, which can improve organizational performance. Understanding employees’ perceptions
of accountability are critical to any organization, as is the need to study how dual organizations
can align to build better accountability systems. This study has identified that employee
psychological conditions are often the unseen tragedies of unionization, and they are essential to
address when dual organizations are required to align themselves.

199

References
Abrahamsson, B. (1977). Bureaucraccy or participation: The logic of organization. SAGE.
Adu, J., & Oudshoorn, A. (2020). The deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals in Ghana:
An application of Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological model. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 41(4), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2019.1666327
Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Awumbila, M. (2017). Seeking “conversations for
accountability”: Mediating the impact of non-governmental organization (NGO) upward
accountability processes. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(5), 982–
1007. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2015-1969
Akoto, E. O. (2014). Contexts of the commitment–citizenship link: A test of economic volatility
in a dual organization setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 332–344.
https://doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.005
Allen, M. W. (1992). Communication and organizational commitment: Perceived organizational
support as a mediating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40(4), 357–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369852
Ammari, G., Alkurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., Obeidat, B., Abu Hussien, A.-H., & Alrowwad, A.
(2017). Investigating the impact of communication satisfaction on organizational
commitment: A practical approach to increase employees’ loyalty. International Journal
of Marketing Studies, 9(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v9n2p113
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1986). Dual commitment and labor-management relationship
climates. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.5465/255858
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
200

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O’Boyle, Jr, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014).
What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team
and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 273–295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Bartlett, G., Johnson, E., and Reckers, P. (2014). Accountability and role effects in balanced
scorecard performance evaluations when strategy timeline is specified. European
Accounting Review, 23(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2013.809977
Bastedo, M. N. (2004). Open systems theory. In the SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational
Leadership and Administration. SAGE.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bastedo/papers/bastedo.opensystems.pdf
Beauvais, L. L., Scholl, R. W., & Cooper, E. (1991). Dual commitment among unionized faculty:
A longitudinal investigation. Human Relations, 44(2), 175–192.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247717423
Becker, C. (1987). Individual rights and collective action: The legal history of trade unions in
America. Harvard Law Review, 100(3), 672-689. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341116
Bergsteiner, H., & Avery, G. C. (2010). A theoretical responsibility and accountability framework
for CSR and global responsibility. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(1), 8–33.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20412561011038529
Beu, D. & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between accountability and
ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57–73.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011957832141
Birks, M., Chapman, Y ., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitiative research: Probing data
and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68-75.
201

http://jrn.sagepub.com/content/13/1/68.refs.html
Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exhange. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 7(4), 452-
457.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Framing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Josey-Bass.
Bovens, M., & Schillemans, T. (2014). Meaningful accountability. In Bovens, Goodin &
Shillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 673-682). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0038
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator
of the accountability - Job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies.
Journal of Management, 35(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318621
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments in nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995a). A bioecological model from a life course perspective: reflections of
a participant observer. In Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of
human development (pp. 599–618). American Psychological Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995b). Developmental ecology through space and time. In P. Moen, G. H.
Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of
human development. (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10176-018
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
202

perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Chen, C. H. V ., Yuan, M. L., Seifert, R., & Cheng, J. W. (2016). Linking transformational
leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt
accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 35, 234–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012
Church, A. H., & Dawson, L. M. (2018). Agile feedback drives accountability and sustained
behavior change. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-07-
2018-0063
Cohen, A. (2016). Are they among us? A conceptual framework of the relationship between the
dark triad personality and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Human Resource
Management Review, 26(1), 69-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.07.003
Collier, A. (1994). Critical Realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. VERSO.
Conrad, C. & Chency, G. (2018). Organizational Communication and Organizational
Rhetoric II: The Theme Division. In Ihlen, O., & Heath, R. L. (Eds.). The
handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication, (pp. 17-28). Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
method approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Crossan, M. M., Byrne, A., Seijts, G. H., Reno, M., Monzani, L., and Gandz, J. (2017). Toward a
framework of leader character in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (7),
986–1018. https://doi:10.1111/joms.12254
Ćulibrk, J., Delić, M., Mitrović, S., & Ćulibrk, D. (2018). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and job involvement: The mediating role of job involvement. Frontiers in
203

Psychology, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00132
Cummings, L. L., & Anton, R. J. (1990). The logical and appreciative dimensions of
accountability. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative management and
leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organizations (pp. 257–286).
Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Dai, Y . D., Hou, Y . H., Wang, C. H., Zhuang, W. L., & Liu, Y . C. (2020). TMX, social loafing,
perceived accountability and OCB. The Service Industries Journal, 40(5-6), 394–414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1500554
Dalla Via, N., Perego, P., & van Rinsum, M. (2019). How accountability type influences
information search processes and decision quality. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 75, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.10.001
Damasio, A. (2018). The strange order of things: Life, feeling, and the making of cultures.
Pantheon Books.
Damasio, A., & Damasio, H. (2016). Exploring the concept of homeostasis and considering its
implications for economics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 126, 125–
129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.12.003
de Langhe, B., van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Wierenga, B. (2011). The effects of process and
outcome accountability on judgment process and performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 238–252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.003
Dean, L. R. (1954). Union activity and dual loyalty. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 7(4),
526-536. https://doi.org/10.2307/2519102
DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and
204

consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445–470.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678704000704
Dewi, R. C., & Riantoputra, C. D. (2019). Felt accountability: The role of personality and
organizational factors. Journal of Management Development, 38(4), 312–322.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-12-2018-0375
Dey, T. (2012). Predictors of organizational commitment and union commitment: A conceptual
study. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4), 62–75.
Dodiya, R. K. (2010). A pschological study of job satisfactoin, job involvement and mental
health of sugar industry employees. An unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra
University Rajkot.
Dose, J. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (1995). Doing the right thing in the workplace: Responsibility in
the face of accountability. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8(1), 35–56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02621254
Dubin, R. (1961). Working union-management relations: The sociology of industrial relations.
Prentice Hall.
Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International
Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 6(3), 405–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-
06-03-2003-b002
Dubnick, M. J. (2011). Move over Daniel: We need some “accountability space.” Administration
and Society, 43(6), 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711424569
Dubnick, M. J. (2014a). Accountabiility as a cultural key word. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, &
T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. (pp. 23–38).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201
205

Dubnick, M. J. (2014b). The ontological challenge. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 649–654). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0042
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269430
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management
Science, 31(2), 134–149. https://jstor.org/stable/2631511
Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (2001). Values and organizational commitment. International
Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720110408967
Elrod, S. & Kezar, A. (2017) Increasing ttudent success in STEM: Summary of a guide to
systemic institutional change. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(4), 26-34.
http://doi: 10.1080/00091383.2017.1357097
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002).
Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino
& F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). Elsevier
Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation in data collection. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative data
collection (pp. 527-544). https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
Flinders, M. (2011). Daring to be a Daniel: The pathology of politicized accountability in a
206

monitory democracy. Administration and Society, 43(5), 595–619.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711403899
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 (V ol. 16, pp. 1–51). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., &
Royle, M. T. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27(8), 177–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27005-2
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice:
Introduction to the human resource management review. Human Resource Management
Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.001
Fukami, C. V ., & Larson, E. W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel models.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.69.3.367
Gallagher, D. G. (1984). The relationship between organizational and union commitment among
federal government employees. In Academy of Management Proceedings (V ol. 1984, No.
1, pp. 319–323). Briarcliff Manor, Academy of Management.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1984.4980663
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B. C., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in organizations:
207

Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management
Review, 14(1), 135-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.007
Goedekke, Jr, F. X., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2010). Perceived support in a dual
organizational environment: Union participation in a university setting. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.629
Gordon, M. E., & Ladd, R. T. (1990). Dual allegiance: Renewal, reconsideration, and
recantation. Personnel Psychology, 43(1), 37–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1990.tb02005.x
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Guidice, R. M., Mero, N. P., Matthews, L. M., & Greene, J. V . (2016). The influence of
individual regulatory focus and accountability form in a high performance work system.
Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3332-3340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.011
Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Accountability and extra-role behavior. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-
9148-9
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G.
(2003). Accountability in human resource management. In C. R. Schriesheim & L. L.
Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resources management (pp. 29–64). Information
208

Age Publishing.
Han, Y ., & Perry, J. L. (2019). Employee accountability: Development of a multidimensional
scale. International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 224–251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1690606
Heinric, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:
Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration
Review, 62(6), 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California: Rossier School of Education, 17–19.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007).
Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability - job tension effects on job performance
ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 102(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.003
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a
moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and
job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 517–534.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.324
HPB. (2019). HPB organizational employee survey.
Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization‐stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and
transparency. Journal of Management Development 25(10), 942-955.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710610708577
Johnson, E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model
of accountability in education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and
209

Education, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8777
Johnson, S. L. (2011). An ecological model of workplace bullying: A guide for intervention and
research. Nursing Forum, 46(2), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6198.2011.00213.x
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization
and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.5465/255141
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Ke, L., & Zhu, B. (2019). A review of the research on dual commitment [unknown]. 2019 3rd
Conference on Education, Management and Social Science, 26–30. Changsha, China.
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. Association for
Talent Development.
Klein, H. J. ., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace
commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisi ting assumptions and removing
confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 130–151.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0018
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change. Harvard business review, 2(1), 1-10.

Lanivich, S. E., Brees, J. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). P-E Fit as moderator of
the accountability - employee reactions relationships: Convergent results across two
samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 425–436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.004
Larson, E. W., & Fukami, C. V . (1984). Relationships between worker behavior and commitment
to the organization and union. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 222–226.
210

https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1984.4979013
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional
approaches to judgment and decision making: The impact of accountability on cognitive
bias. In J. Shanteau & S. L. Schneider (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and
Decision Research (Cambridge Series on Judgement and Decision Making, pp. 431–457).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609978.015
Leshem, S., & Trafford, V . (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93-105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081407
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science, selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin
Cartwright). Harpers.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change, creating change through strategic communication.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change, creating change through strategic communication:
Foundations of communication theory (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Li, M., Huang, W., Zhang, C., & Yang, Z. (2019). How union participation influences union
commitment and job involvement. Employee Relations, 41(6), 1348–1363.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2018-0170
Lichtenstein, (2002a). A time of troubles. In The state of the union: A century of american labor
(pp. 212–245). Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bbg3.11
Lichtenstein, N. (2002b). Reorganizing the house of labor. In The state of the union: A century of
211

american labor (pp. 247–275). Princeton University Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bbg3.11
Lichtenstein, N. (2002c). Rights consciousness in the workplace. In The state of the union: A
century of american labor (pp. 179–211). Princeton University Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bbg3.11
Lincoln, Y . S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y . S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging influcens, revisited. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4(2), 97-
128.
Lloyd, D., Aon, M. A., & Cortassa, S. (2001). Why homeodynamics, not homeostasis? The
Scientific World Journal, 1, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2001.20
Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E., & Peterson, M. M. (1988). Dual and unilateral commitment
among stewards and rank-and-file union members. Academy of Management Journal,
31(2), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/256552
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mearman, A. (2006). Critical realism in economics and open-systems ontology: A critique.
Review of Social Economy, 64(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760500529955
Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal
processes: What Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn’t mean, and what he should have
meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321–334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12373
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Werner, S. (2014). A field study of the antecedents and
performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management, 40(6),
212

1627–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441208
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Josey-Bass.
Messier Jr, W. F., Quick, L. A., & Vandervelde, S. D. (2014). The influence of process
accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo
heuristic. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(1), 59-74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.12.002
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J.(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 1(1), 61-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
Muuss, R. E. (1996). Theories of adolescense (6
th
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE.
O’Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning
imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountabiity Journal, 28(1), 1–38.
https;//doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1488
Ogden, S., Glaister, K. W., & Marginson, D. (2006). Empowerment and accountability: Evidence
from the UK privatized water industry. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 521–555.
213

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00600.x
Olsen, J. P. (2014). Accountability and ambiguity. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 106–123). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0013
Pan, P., & Patel, C. (2020). Formal accountability, perceived accountability and aggressive
reporting judgements. Accounting and Business Research, 52(1), 67-93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2020.1836469
Parker, L. D. (2014). Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporary insights from
British industrial pioneers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(8), 632–659.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.10.001
Patil, S. V ., Tetlock, P. E., & Mellers, B. A. (2016). Accountability systems and group norms:
Balancing the risks of mindless conformity and reckless deviation. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 30(2), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1933
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. SAGE.
Pearson, H., & Sutherland, M. (2017). The complexity of the antecedents influencing
accountability in organisations. European Business Review, 29(4), 419–439.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2016-0106
Peters, T., & Waterman Jr, R. H. (2011). McKinsey 7-S model. Leadership Excellence, 28(10).

Phillips, J. J., Phillips, P. P., & Smith, K. (2016). Accountability in human resource management:
Connecting HR to business results (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693675
Purcell, T. V . (1954). Dual allegiance to company and union management (a symposium). 2.
214

Dual allegiance to compay and union - Packinghouse Workers. A Swift‐UPWA Study in a
Crisis Situation, 1949–1952. Personnel Psychology, 7, 48–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1954.tb02257.x
Raymond, T., & Mjoli, T. Q. (2013). The relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment among lower-level employees at a motor-car
manufacturing company in East London, South Africa. Journal of Business and
Economic Management, 1(2), 25–35.
Redding, W. C. (1985). Stumbling toward identity: The emergence of organizational
communication as a field of study. Organizational communication: Traditional themes
and new directions, 13, 15-54.
Regev, G., Hayard, O., & Wegmann, A. (2013). What we can learn about business modeling
from homeostasis. In: Shishkov B. (Ed.), Business Modeling and Software Design.
BMSD 2012. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 142. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37478-4_1
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and re-conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465–476.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278960
Riggins-Caspers, K. M., Cadoret, R. J., Knutson, J. F., & Langbehn, D. (2003). Biology-
environment interaction and evocative biology-environment correlation: Contributions of
harsh discipline and parental psychopathology to problem adolescent behaviors. Behavior
Genetics, 33(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023434206261
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.
Romzek, B. S. (2015). Living accountability: Hot rhetoric, cool theory, and uneven practice.
215

Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001553
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the
challenger tragedy. American Society for Public Administration, 47(3), 227–238.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/975901
Romzek, B. S., Leroux, K., & Blackmar, J. M. (2012). A preliminary theory of informal
accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review,
72(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02547.x
Royle, M. T. (2017). The mediating effect of felt accountability on the relationship between
personality and job satisfaction. International Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 10(1), 19–44. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3050044
Rutter, M., Dunn, J., Plomin, R., Simonoff, E., Pickles, P., Maughan, B., Ormel, J., & Eaves, L.
(1997). Integrating nature and nurture: Implications of person-envionrment correlations
and interactions for developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 9(2),
335–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497002083
Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (1991). Person and environment interactions: Concepts, mechanisms,
and implications for data analysis. In T. D. Wachs and R. Plomin (Eds.),
Conceptualization and measurement of organism-environment interaction (p. 105-141).
American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10100-006
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of the mind. Huchtinson.
Salazar, M. K., & Beaton, R. (2000). Ecological model of occupational stress: Application to
urban firefighters. AAOHN Journal, 48(10), 470–479.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F216507990004801005
Schillemans, T., Overman, S., Fawcett, P., Flinders, M., Fredriksson, M., Laegreid, P., Maggetti,
216

M., Papadopoulos, Y ., Rubecksen, K., Rykkja, L. H., Salomonsen, H. H., Smullen, A., &
Wood, M. (2020). Understanding felt accountability: The institutional antecedents of the
felt accountability of agency-CEO’s to central government. Governance, 34(3), 893-916.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12547
Schlenker, B. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 19, 241–301.
Shkoler, O., Rabenu, E., Tabak, F., & Lebron, M. J. (2019). Leader-and team-member exchanges
and their relationships with organizational and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviors: Moderation by envy and group size in Israel and USA. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 35(3), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a19
Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., & Thompson, V . A. (1950). Public administration. Simon.
Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting
Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(93)E0003-Y
Sinha, D., & Sarma, K. C. (1962). Union attitude and job satisfaction in Indian workers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 46(4), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046185
Spitz‐Oener, A. (2006). Technical change, job tasks, and rising educational demands: Looking
outside the wage structure. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(2), 235–270.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499972
Sungu, L. J., Weng, Q. D., & Xu, X. (2019). Organizational commitment and job performance:
Examining the moderating roles of occupational commitment and transformational
leadership. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(3), 280–290.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12256
217

Tenbensel, T., Dwyer, J., & Lavoie, J. (2014). How not to kill the golden goose:
Reconceptualizing accountability environments of third-sector organizations. Public
Management Review, 16(7), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770054
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice.
Research In Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 297–332.
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/vita/Philip Tetlock/Phil Tetlock/1984-1987/1985
Accountability_Neglected Social Context of Judegment.pdf
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social
contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60287-7
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with
accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(4), 632–640. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.632
Tetlock, P. E., Vieider, F. M., Patil, S. V ., & Grant, A. M. (2013). Accountability and ideology:
When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 122(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.007
Tetrick, L. E., Shore, L. M., McClurg, L. N., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2007). A model of union
participation: The impact of perceived union support, union instrumentality, and union
loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 820–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.3.820
Thacker, R. A. (2015). The application of social exchange to commitment bonds of pro-union
employees: Cognitive calculations of reciprocity. Human Resource Management Review,
25(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.10.001
218

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris and M. T. Winn (Eds.)
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities, (pp.
223-248.). SAGE.
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
& Review, 1(4), 198–210. hppts://doi.org/10.111/j.1756-2589-2009-00026.x
Tudge, J. R. H., Odero, D. A., Hogan, D. M., & Etz, K. E. (2003). Relations between the
everyday activities of preschoolers and their teachers’ perceptions of their competence in
the first years of school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 42–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00005-X
Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114
Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19 (3), 349–376. htps://ssrn.com/abstract=1758546
Vibert, F. (2014). The need for a systemic approach. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodman, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 655–660).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0001
Visser, L. M., Bleijenbergh, I. L., Benschop, Y . W. M., and Riel, A. C. R. (2018). Prying eyes: A
dramaturgical approach to professional surveillance. Journal of Management Studies,
55(4), 703-727. https://doi:10.1111/joms.12283
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science,
111(2872), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.111.2872.23
219

von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/I.2.134
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological
empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt
accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 840–
850. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022227
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (2019). Building relationships through
accountability: An expanded idea of accountability. Organizational Psychology Review,
9(2–3), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878876
Wombacher, J. C., & Felfe, J. (2017). Dual commitment in the organization: Effects of the
interplay of team and organizational commitment on employee citizenship behavior,
efficacy beliefs, and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.004
Zalawadia, T. L. (2019). A study of job satisfaction organizational commitment and union
involvement. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(2), 987–982.
DIP: 18.01.119/20190702
Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement, commitment,
satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism
Management, 41, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.013
Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on
change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management
Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 515-566.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0893318900134001
220

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Preamble
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study. I appreciate your time. As I
mentioned during our last conversation, this interview will last approximately 60 minutes. Does
this still work for you? Before we get started, I want to let you know that I will be interviewing
12 machine operators from various business departments for this study. This interview is entirely
confidential. No names will be used, and no one will know whom I am interviewing. The
company and union are allowing this study; however, this is my research which is not part of the
organization. The union has asked that I do not ask specific questions about your feelings about
the union. During this interview, I will refer to the organization as both, the company, and union.
Do you have any questions about confidentiality? I want to record this interview so that I can use
it to capture your perspectives. Is that OK with you? No sharing of this recording will happen. It
will be used solely for my research purpose. I provided you with an information sheet previously
to introduce the study. Do I still have your consent for the interview?
Since you have experienced accountability events within the organization firsthand, you
are the perfect person to help better understand my research. I am mainly interested about your
perceptions of personal accountability within three specific organizational events. I want to
understand how your accountability and loyalty to the organization may shift or change over
time. I will be asking you questions about three specific significant events that have happened
here within the organization over the past 5-years. I would like you to share your feelings,
opinions, and related experiences with me during these events as they related to your
accountability and loyalty. Do you have any questions before we start?

221

Interview Questions
Interview
Questions
Probes and Cues Research
Question
Key Concepts Question
Taxonomy
Introduction
1. Describe
what the term
accountability
means to you?
What does it
mean for you to
be accountable
here in your
workplace?
Accountability
Definition
Individual
Microsystem
Knowledge
Episode 1:
TPM
Implementation

2. I would like
to take you
back in time a
few years and
ask you to
remember the
implementation
of the TPM
program in
2015.
This was the time
we started the
operator handoffs
and department
huddles.
A recollection
and
perceptions of
past events
Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
3. Describe
how the impact
of internal and
external factors
that may have
shaped your
perceptions of
accountability
during this
time?
By internal
factors I mean
feelings within
your control.

By external
factors I mean
feelings outside
your control.
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
4. Describe any
differences and
how you may
feel now about
the culture of
the
organization
that you may
not have felt
prior to this
change being
implemented?
What internal or
external factors
may have led you
to feel these
changes?
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
222

Episode 2
HPB
Acquisition

5. I would like
to take you
back in time
and remember
the
implementation
of the large
company
acquisition in
2017.
That was the time
when HPB was
acquired by the
large
international
manufacturer.
A recollection
and
perceptions of
past events.
Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Knowledge
6. Describe
how the impact
of the internal
and external
factors may
have shaped
your
perceptions of
accountability
during this
time?
By internal
factors I mean
feelings within
your control.

By external
factors I mean
feelings outside
your control.
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
7. Describe any
differences and
how you may
feel about the
culture of the
organization,
that you may
not have felt
prior to this
change being
implemented?
What internal or
external factors
may have led you
to feel these
changes?
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
Episode 3:
COVID-19

8. I would like
to take you bac
in time a few
years to ask you
to remember
when COVID-
19 hit the plant
in March of
2020.
This is when we
were first learning
of COVID-19 and
how the
organizational
responded.
A recollection
of perceptions
or past events.
Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Knowledge
223

9. Describe how
the impact of
internal and
external factors
may have
shaped your
perceptions of
accountability
during this time
period?
By internal
factors I mean
feelings within
your control.

By external
factors I mean
feelings outside
your control.
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
10. Describe
any differences
and how you
may felt now
about the
culture and
climate of the
organization
that you may
not have felt
prior to the
change being
implemented?
What internal or
external factors
may have led you
to feel these
changes?
RQ 1 / RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value
Uneven Practice
(UP)

11. How does
the climate,
culture, and
context of
supervisors
holding or not
holding
employees’
accountable
impact your
own
accountability
behaviors
within the
organization/
Let’s discuss how
you feel when
they hold other
operators
accountable.

Let’s discuss how
you feel when
they do not hold
other operators
accountable.
RQ2 Individual
Microsystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Chronosystem
Episodic
Feeling
Opinion
Sensory
Value

Conclusion
224

I would like to thank you for your time today and participating in this interview. I
appreciate you sharing your perceptions, thoughts, and opinions about how events within the
organization impact your personal accountability. After I review our interview if I have any
additional questions or need further clarification about your feeling, would it be all right if I
contact you directly for clarification? If I contacted you by phone, would that be, OK? Thank
you.

225

Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research Question Theoretical Framework Interview Questions

1. 1. What internal influences
impact employee felt
accountability at HPB inside the
immediate environment?

ecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner,
1977)

system theory
(von Bertalanffy,
1950)

Interview Questions:
(E1) 2, 3
(E2) 2, 3
(E3) 2, 3
(E4) 2, 3

2. 2. What external influences
impact employee felt
accountability at HPB within the
distal environment?

ecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner,
1977)

system theory
(von Bertalanffy,
1950)

Interview Questions:
(E1) 4
(E2) 4
(E3) 4
(E4) 4

3. 3. How does the culture, climate,
and context of dual organizations
and uneven practice impact
employee felt accountability?

ecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner,
1977)

system theory
(von Bertalanffy,
1950)

Interview Questions:
(I) 1
(UP) 1, 2

226

Appendix C: Informed Consent for Research
University of Southern California Phillip Katich, Rossier School of Education 3470 Trousdale
Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH

Study Title: Examining Felt Accountability and Uneven Practice in Dual Organizational
Systems: A Bioecological Study Toward Improving Organizational Accountability
Principal Investigator: Phillip Katich
Department: Rossier Department of Education
24-Hour Telephone Number: XXX-XXX-XXXX

INTRODUCTION

My name is Phillip Katich. I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California
working with Dr. Tobey, Dr. Lynch, and Dr. Canny in the Rossier School of Education. We
would like to invite you to take part in my research study, which looks at union machine
operators within dual organizations and how their perceptions of accountability impact and
change their commitments to the company or the union over time. Please take as much time as
you need to read the consent form. You may want to discuss it with your family, friends, or
anyone else you would like. If you find any of the language difficult to understand, please ask
questions. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the signed
form will be provided to you for your records.

KEY INFORMATION

The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you should
participate. More detailed information is listed later in this form.

1. Being in this research study is voluntary–it is your choice. You have the right to
refuse to participate or to withdraw from this research at any time without penalty. That is, you
do not have to participate in completing the interview, and if you should choose not to
participate, this will have no negative impact on you or your position within the company or the
union.

2. You are being asked to participate in this study because your experiences as machine operators
within this organization can provide the study with information about how employees perceive
accountability and commitment within the organization. The purpose of this study is to examine
employee’s perceptions of accountability within dual organizational systems (company/union).
Specifically, we would like to hear about your perceptions, thoughts, opinions, and feelings
about accountability during four specific organizational events occurring over the past six years
and how these events may have affected you personally and potentially shifted your work-related
accountability and commitment within the organization. University of Southern California,
Phillip Katich, Rossier School of Education 3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA
90089.
227

The events you will be asked to consider include the start of a specific manufacturing program,
the company acquisition, the ending of a recognition program, and the impact of COVID-19.
Additionally, you will be asked to describe a time when you felt you were not held accountable
by a supervisor, and a time you felt you were held accountable in error. These events have helped
shape your perceptions of accountability and commitment to the organizational culture over the
past six years.

Your participation in this study will last approximately 60 minutes. Procedures will include a
brief introduction to the study, your rights as a participant, and a confidential anonymous
interview with a total of 19 open-ended interview questions. The interviews will be conducted on
Zoom and recorded and transcribed by the researcher for research purposes only. No names will
be used in the collection of data for this research. Only the researcher and you will know you are
choosing to participate in this research study.

3. There are risks from participating in this study. The most common risks might be discomfort
with the questions, and a potential breach of confidentiality. However, the researcher will not use
your name and will take all precautions necessary to ensure your identity is kept confidential and
anonymous. More detailed information about the risks of this study can be found under the “Risk
and Discomfort” section.

4. You may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in this study. However, your
participation in this study will help the researcher learn more about how organizational
employees perceive their work-related accountabilities.

The possible benefits to you for taking part in this study may include providing a better
understanding of how employees feel about and perceive their accountabilities within dual
organizations and potentially providing a more meaningful accountability system for employees.
Additionally, it may further future external research on organizational accountability by other
scholars.

5. You have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw from this research at any time
without penalty. That is, you do not have to participate in completing the interview, and if you
should choose not to participate, this will have no negative impact on you or your position within
the company or the union.

DETAILED INFORMATION

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine employee perceptions of accountability within dual
organizational systems. This study examines accountability by looking at accountability through
human development, organizational commitment, systems theory, and a bioecological
framework, with the purpose of providing a more meaningful balance of informal and formal
accountability systems for individual employees and organizations. We hope to learn from each
participant, their personal perceptions of accountability through four organizational events, and
how employees choose to balance their commitment and accountabilities during these specific
228

events. You are invited as a possible participant because the researcher feels that you have
valuable information, feelings, opinions, and perceptions, which are important to answer the
questions necessary to this study. Additionally, you have been with the organization for at least
six years, and you are a machine operator who has a meaningful contribution to make to this
research study. Approximately 12-14 participants will take part in the research study interviews.

PROCEDURES

The standard of care that will be used for participants in this research are confidentiality and
anonymity. Only the researcher and the participant will know about their participation in this
research, and no names will be used. Neither the company nor the union will know you are
participating in this research, nor will they be granted access to any part of your interview or
transcripts. Any potential identifying personal information will be excluded from the research
data. You will be free to withdraw from the research at any time during the interview if you
decide you would not like to participate further. The total length of your interview will be
approximately 60 minutes. There will only be one interview, although the researcher may ask
you confidentially by phone or email later for further clarification of things you said in the
interview to minimize potential researcher bias.

If you decide to take part, this is what will happen.

• The researcher will confidentially contact potential participants within the workplace to discuss
their willingness to participate in and the purpose of this study.
• If you choose to be a potential participant, the researcher will ask for your phone number and
email address to connect with you outside the work environment to discuss the confidentiality
and purpose of the research study further.
• If you decide to participate, the researcher will send this Informed Consent Form to your email
for you to read. At this time, you may ask the researcher any additional questions by phone or
email that you consider relevant to your participation.
• if you decide to participate in this study, you will be required to sign this informed consent
form and return it to the researcher’s email address.
• Once the researcher receives your signed Informed Consent Form, he will return a copy to you,
and then discuss the most appropriate time for the 60-minute interview based upon your
availability.
• Once a date and time for the interview are determined for the interview, the researcher will send
you a Zoom link for the scheduled interview time and assist you with any computer information
or assistance you may need for using the Zoom platform.
• The researcher will meet you at the agreed-upon time on Zoom or will reschedule if something
arises with your schedule.
• At the start of the interview, the researcher will provide an introduction to the study, verify your
choice to participate, and then ask to record the interview.
• The researcher will ask you 19 interview questions about your knowledge, feelings, opinions,
perceptions, and/or values about work-related accountability, and ask for clarification and
additional thoughts as needed during the interview.
229

• The researcher will conclude the interview by asking if you have any additional information
you would like to share about the subject, and the researcher will then turn off the interview
recording.
• The interview will then be transcribed using Zoom and interviews and transcripts will be
encrypted on the researcher’s personal computer for further use in this study only.
• The final research document will be completed in May 2022 as the researcher’s dissertation. It
will combine the researcher’s problem of practice, literature addressing the problem, the
methodology, and a collection and of all the ideas, thoughts, feelings, opinions, and perceptions
of all the participants who have elected to participate in this study.
• If you would like a copy of the final dissertation, the researcher will kindly provide you with a
free digital copy.

RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

Possible risks and discomforts you could experience during this interview include discomfort
with the questions and the feelings of potentially sharing personal work-related information with
the researcher and privacy concerns.

Interviews: Some of the questions may make you feel uneasy or that you may be revealing
personal work-related information. You can choose to skip or stop answering any questions you
don’t want to.

Breach of Confidentiality: There is a small risk that people who are not connected with this
study may see your interview transcripts. We want to ensure you, that we will take all necessary
measures to ensure that your name, demographic information, and responses will be protected.
Only numeric codes will be used to identify each participant after the interview. The recorded
interviews and transcripts will be encrypted and kept in a password protected file on the
researcher’s personal computer.

Unforeseen Risks: There may be other risks that are not known at this time.

BENEFITS

There are no direct benefits to you from taking part in this study. However, your participation in
this study may help us learn more about how employees in dual organizational systems perceive
their accountabilities, help create a more meaningful balanced system of accountability for
organizations and support future research on this subject.

PRIV ACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. Efforts will be
made to limit the use and disclosure of your personal information, including research study and
medical records, to people who are required to review this information. We may publish the
information from this study in journals or present it at meetings. If we do, we will not use your
name or other identifying information.
230

The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human Subject’s
Protections Program (HSPP) may review your records.
The Department of Defense (DOD) or Federal representatives may also access research records
for the purpose of protecting human subjects.

Your responses are also called ‘data’. Your interview and interview transcripts or ‘data’ will be
encrypted and retained for three years on the researcher’s personal computer and then deleted.
No one else will have access to the researcher’s personal computer or your ‘data’.

Your data collected as part of this research will not be used or distributed for future research
studies, even if all your identifiers are removed.

ALTERNATIVES

The only alternative would be to not participate in this study.

PAYMENTS / COMPENSATION

You will not be compensated for your participation in this research.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

It is your choice whether to participate. If you choose to participate, you may change your mind
and leave the study at any time. If you decide not to participate, or choose to end your
participation in this study, you will not be penalized or lose any benefits that you are otherwise
entitled to.

If you stop being in the research, already collected data may not be removed from the study
database. You will be asked whether the investigator can continue to collect data from your
records. If you agree, this data will be handled the same as the research data. No new information
will be collected about you or from you by the study team without your permission.

If withdrawal must be gradual for safety reasons, the study investigator will tell you. The study
site may still, after your withdrawal, need to report any safety event that you may have
experienced due to your participation to all entities involved in the study.
personal information, including any identifiable information, that has already been collected up
to the time of your withdrawal will be kept and used to guarantee the integrity of the study, to
determine the safety effects, and to satisfy any legal or regulatory requirements.

WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY INSTRUCTIONS

You may withdraw from this study at any time before or during the interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

231

If you have questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, talk to the study
investigator, Phillip Katich at pkatich@gmail.com or XXX-XXX-XXXX.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a
research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a
research participant or you have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB at
XXX-XXX-XXXX or by email at irb@usc.edu.

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a
chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this form, I am
agreeing to take part in this study.

Name of Research
Participant Signature
Date Signed (and Time*)

232

Appendix D: Thematic Coding
Open Codes Axial Codes Themes
Definitions of accountability Participant’s definitions Definitions of accountability
Accountability Accountability gaps
Accountability balance
Accountability episodes
Internal accountability
External accountability
Systems of accountability
Accountability outcomes
Accountability processes
Episode 1: TPM program Organizational change TPM Phases 1, 2, 3
Episode 2: Acquisition Organizational change Organizational acquisition
Episode 3: COVID Organizational change COVID
Episode 4; Uneven Practice Relationships Uneven practice
Dual Organizations:
Company & Union
Communication & conflict Communication
Commitment & reciprocity Commitment
Culture, values, beliefs Culture, values, beliefs
Psychological bonds
Relationships
Support
Sustainable engagement
Instrumentality

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research adds to the current literature on felt accountability and the newly examined concept of uneven practice by looking at union machine operators in one manufacturing setting with a dual organizational system. For this study, a dual organization is defined as an organizational setting with multi-foci, a company, and a union. Dual organizations require multiple commitments with complex relationships and are psychologically more challenging for employees. This research examines how union machine operators’ perceptions of accountability impact and shift their accountabilities and commitments to one organizational entity or the other and determines how internal and external factors and change initiatives affect employees’ accountability perceptions over time. The goal of this study was to provide a more meaningful balance of formal and informal accountability mechanisms and aims to reduce uneven practice in dual organizational settings. These misaligned systems can create cognitive confusion, organizational conflict, and stress. Both employee well-being and organizational performance are improved when accountability systems are balanced. Based upon the participants voices the researcher was able to identify key themes and areas where the organization could improve felt accountability and uneven practice. Additionally, the researcher created the triangular model of uneven practice as an organizational analysis tool to help organizations complete a full needs analysis of organizational accountability by examining the mechanisms out of alignment, potential causes of these misalignments, and corrective elements to build healthier systems of accountability by improving the balance of formal and informal mechanisms of organizational accountability to provide improvements in employee well-being and organizational efficiencies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Internal affairs: understanding challenges low-income college students face in unpaid entertainment industry internships

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Taking the pulse on accountability: an innovation study

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Perceptions of U.S. Army first-line supervisors on first-term soldier attrition

PDF

Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

A phenomenological study on cultural taxation and racially minoritized students in graduate postsecondary education

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

Asset Metadata

Creator Katich, Phillip (author)

Core Title Examining felt accountability and uneven practice in dual organizational systems: a bioecological study toward improving organizational accountability

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/02/2022

Defense Date 06/01/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,Bronfenbrenner,Commitment,dual organizational system,felt accountability,homeostasis,OAI-PMH Harvest,open system theory,uneven practice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Lynch, Douglas (committee member)

Creator Email pkatich@gmail.com,pkatich@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375976

Unique identifier UC111375976

Legacy Identifier etd-KatichPhil-11069

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Katich, Phillip

Type texts

Source 20220802-usctheses-batch-966 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu