Accountability, entitlement, tenure, and satisfaction in Generation Y

Abstract

Purpose – Given the entitlement and job mobility associated with Generation Y, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the moderating effects of psychological entitlement and tenure on the felt accountability-job satisfaction relationship. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data from a sample of resident assistants were examined using hierarchical moderated regression analysis. Findings – Entitled employees responded to accountability favorably, demonstrating lower job satisfaction than non-entitled employees when accountability was low, but nearly equal levels when accountability was high. All participants reported higher job satisfaction when job tenure was lower, but entitlement-driven satisfaction differences were observed only when accountability was low. Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional data warrants longitudinal replication to establish causation and to give insight into how much time must pass before accountability begins to reduce the negative effects of entitlement. Practical implications – Findings suggest that managerial tactics that increase employees’ felt accountability could reduce the negative impact of psychological entitlement on job attitudes and related outcomes. Originality/value – Using a unique sample of Generation Y employees, the results provide an indication of how supervisors from earlier generations can improve the workplace attitudes of younger workers.

The complexity of the antecedents influencing accountability in organisations

“…This supports the concept of the dark side of accountability as raised by Laird et al (2015) that accountability imposed by the systems can act as a stressor and potentially have a negative effect. One participant stated the importance of felt ownership of the systems, indicating that systems can drive specific behaviours through felt accountability.…”

“…Patil, Tetlock & Mellers (2016, p. XX) suggest that "accountability systems have a large impact on how people think" based on where attention is given and how information is processed. However, Laird et al (2015) highlight that despite accountability systems often being linked to rewards, employees, who have similar roles, responsibilities, demands and expectations, don't necessarily deliver the same level of accountability. Where focus is placed on how well the process is executed rather than the success of the actual outcomes (Patil et al, 2016).…”

“…A number of the interviewees stressed that employees need to be "both willing and able regardless of how well the job description is formulated, if the individual does not have the skills to do the job, then it makes it difficult to hold them accountable". Laird et al (2015) and Wikhamn & Hall (2014) place emphasis on the concept of felt accountability and the need for clarification of role expectations and behaviour criteria. Wikhamn & Hall (2014) highlight the risk of inconsistencies and subjectivity occurring due to individual subjectively interpreting the demands placed on them.…”

“…This is of significance and introduces the concept of a critical threshold when considering accountability and suggests that a factor could have an effect up to a point after which another factor needs to be introduced to enforce accountability. Laird et al (2015) states that despite implementation of system mechanisms, individuals don't necessarily deliver to the same level of accountability inferring that additional factors need to be at work in order to ensure the equality of levels of accountability among employees.…”

A review of entitlement

“…Employees who are highly entitled are also more likely to create stress for colleagues (Hochwarter, Summers, Thompson, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010), experience lower job satisfaction (Laird, Harvey, & Lancaster, 2015), and enact lower levels of citizenship behaviors at work (Hochwarter, Meurs, Perrewé, Royle, & Matherly, 2007). Thus entitlement at work is a phenomenon that has significant implications for workplaces, including individual, team, and organizational functioning, with high associated costs when effectiveness is compromised.…”