A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors

Abstract

Widespread government contracting for nonprofit social service delivery has resulted in extensive reliance on networks of service providers, which involve complicated accountability dynamics. The literature has tended to emphasize formal aspects of accountability in contract relationships, focusing on the specification of contract terms, performance measures, reporting relationships, and stipulated consequences. Far less attention has been focused on the interorganizational and interpersonal behaviors that reflect informal accountability. This article examines the informal norms, expectations, and behaviors that facilitate collective action and promote informal accountability among nonprofit network actors. The data are based on in‐depth interviews with nonprofit senior administrators in four major metropolitan areas. Based on this research, the authors propose a preliminary theory of informal accountability that links (1) the shared norms and facilitative behaviors that foster informal accountability for collective outcomes, (2) the informal system of rewards and sanctions used to promote and reinforce behavioral expectations, and (3) the challenges that may undermine informal accountability.

The impact of co-production on frontline accountability: the case of the conciliation service

“…Especially in governance arrangements, more informal forms of accountability become significant for interorganizational and interpersonal cooperation. That is to say, they may become even more important than the more traditional forms of accountability (Romzek et al, 2012). …”

“…In this kind of environment, the issues of accountability become ever more important (see Bovaird, 2007;Fotaki, 2011;Hupe and Hill, 2007;Osborne, 2010;Rhodes, 1996Rhodes, , 1997Romzek et al, 2012). As Hupe and Hill (2007) point out, in multi-dimensional governance, public power and public accountability are exercised by various actors on various scales, including the street level.…”

A Cross-Organization Collaboration Framework of Nuclear Power Plant Accidents Emergency Management in Off-Site Area: A Case Study from S City

“…Among them, the important incentive of the cross-organization collaboration is the key driven factor (Romzek et al, 2012).…”

A qualitative approach to examining the rules of a community college and industry partnership.

“…Research (e.g., Mattessich & Monsey, 1992;Ostrom, 1990;Romzek, Leroux, & Blackmar, 2012) has provided a great deal of information as to what makes collaboration work. Few studies have applied collaborative research to case studies looking at inter-institutional collaborations (e.g., Ostrom, 1990).…”

“…In addition, these studies rarely look at how public and private organizations work together. Rather, the focus is on inter-organizational relationships between two public (e.g., a government entity working with a non-profit) or two private (two private companies; e.g., Mohr & Spekman, 1994;Romzek, Leroux, & Blackmar, 2012).…”