Accountability When Hierarchical Authority Is Absent

Abstract

What function does accountability serve in public–private partnerships where one partner has no authority over others and no control over results? This article aims to shed light on this question by studying participants of partnerships formed between K-12 public schools and private and/ or nonprofit organizations. Findings support the notion that accountability plays a greater role in public management than indicated by the idea of answerability. Five potential functions of accountability are identified: mapping and manifesting expectations, mobilizing and motivating (ex-ante), monitoring and measuring progress and performance, modifying, and mobilizing and motivating (ex-post).

Ecological Governance: Organizing Principles for an Emerging Era

“…For example, instead of assuming that accountability must be achieved through top‐down mechanisms, there is growing recognition that, in the context of uncentralized networks, it takes place more effectively through bottom‐up and peer‐based approaches. In fact, the whole concept of accountability expands in this context, to include such functions as identifying partner expectations, aligning goals, adjusting strategies, assessing implementation, communicating performance, and facilitating learning (Acar, Guo, and Yang 2008). While ecological thinking clearly challenges the hierarchical mind‐set, the point is not that ecological governance would always and inevitably be superior to the bureaucratic mode of organizing activities.…”

Obstacles and Motivators for Partnership Formation in a Multidimensional Environment

“…As such, there is significant scrutiny of contracts that might provide public services below expected quality (Bedard and Frech ). Successes and failures of cross‐sectoral partnerships tend to be explained by organizational capacities for managing incompatibilities and holding partners accountable (Acar, Guo, and Yang ; Gazley and Brudney ; Hodge and Greve ; Skelcher ). Managers wary of program or resource misuse or of attracting heightened scrutiny from stakeholders concerned about conflicts of interest are likely to be unwilling to engage cross‐sectoral partners.…”

Public caseworkers' strategies coping with accountability demands

“…A majority have talked about a conflicting nature of accountability to which managers have to respond (Schillemans & Bovens, ). The important implication is not solving the tension inherent in the demands to address conflicting expectations but rather managing to “fulfill the public's expectations” (Cooper, , 604), which provides a more realistic picture of today's organizations and their environments (Acar, Guo, & Yang, ).…”