The group accountability literature over the past two decades is reviewed in this article. Results are organized according to the theoretical accountability framework proposed by London, Smither, and Adsit (1997). The reviewed literature suggests that group accountability is more dynamic than current conceptualizations allow, and that the priority of accountability demands shifts over time. Building on these insights, the authors extend London et al.’s model to accommodate group accountability as a dynamic interpersonal process. Specifically, they propose that group accountability is an emergent state that derives from group interactions as well as from external sources of accountability expectations. In this extended model, both the person within the group who is held accountable as well as other group members play key roles in transforming individual accountability up to the group level. Based on the combined results of the empirical review and expanded conceptual model, the authors identify directions for studies of group accountability.

Boomerang employees—previous employees who return to an organization after an absence—offer unique value in the talent pool, representing external employees with internal job experience. Utilizing a sample from a professional services firm in the United States, we draw from the literature on talent management and renegotiated psychological contracts to compare the compensation, satisfaction, commitment, and performance of boomerangs to similar employees who never left the firm. We find that reentry yields improvements in compensation, satisfaction, and organizational commitment for boomerangs relative to matched internal employees. Archival analysis of hours worked reveals that boomerangs spend significantly more hours on extra‐role projects rather than in‐role billable client hours. Boomerang performance is, however, on par with that of matched internal employees who never left the firm. Implications for adopting a boomerang talent management strategy and the renegotiation of disrupted psychological contracts are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract