The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance

Langhe, Bart de; Osselaer, Stijn M. J. van; Wierenga, Berend

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.003

Cited by 56 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, studies have shown that process accountability reduces escalating commitment to sunk costs (Simonson and Staw 1992), produces better-calibrated probability judgments (Siegel-Jacobs and Yates 1996), enhances performance on tasks requiring analytical processing (Langhe, Osselaer, and Wierenga 2011), enriches attentiveness and alertness in making judgments (Brtek and Motowidlo 2002), and motivates more thorough information search and analysis (Doney and Armstrong 1996).…”

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outcome accountability, however, is not without its advocates. For example, Langhe et al (2011) demonstrate that the benefits of process accountability accrue only for tasks with certain characteristics. They found that although outcome accountability decreased performance on simple tasks that required analytical processing, it increased performance on configural tasks that required more holistic processing.…”

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By contrast, decision makers under outcome accountability are often told that their performance evaluations will be based on comparison of their responses to predictions derived from statistical models (Arkes et al 1986;Langhe et al 2011;Siegel-Jacobs and Yates 1996), or to the judgments of fictitious subject matter experts (Brtek and Motowidlo 2002;Slaughter et al 2006), or to judgments of team members (Klimoski 1972), or based on the reactions of recipients of the decisions (Adelberg and Batson 1978;Fandt and Ferris 1990). In brief, the normative standards governing what constitutes a high quality decision were often known to the decision maker.…”

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies that did allow for an interview were only conducted so the participants could explain why they succeeded or failed in reaching optimal outcomes (Adelberg and Batson 1978;Brtek and Motowidlo 2002;Fandt and Ferris 1990;Klimoski 1972;Simonson and Staw 1992). In other cases, there was no face-to-face interaction with the interviewer, and decision makers only received monetary bonuses for reaching optimal outcomes (Arkes et al 1986;Langhe et al 2011;Siegel-Jacobs and Yates 1996;Slaughter et al 2006). If this analysis of the relational signals in each accountability condition is accurate, it suggests another possible explanation for the cognitive benefits of process accountability.…”

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Process Versus Outcome Accountability

Patil

Vieider

2014

The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private-and public-sector managers face a recurring organizational-design dilemma: the relative emphasis to place on process-versus-outcome accountability in evaluating employee performance. This chapter reviews experimental-psychological research that emphasizes the benefits of process accountability and then notes blind spots in that literature, especially the insensitivity to the relational signals that accountability manipulations convey about how evaluators view the evaluated. The chapter also examines real-world ideologically-driven debates over accountability design in which partisans tend to favor no-excuses forms of outcome accountability for those deemed untrustworthy and uncertainty-buffering forms of process accountability for the trustworthy. Finally, an integrative framework is proposed that examines how managers can balance the inevitable tradeoffs between decision-making control enhanced under process accountability and innovation fostered under outcome accountability, and sheds light on how agent empowerment can compensate for the deficiencies of both systems. Abstract and KeywordsPrivate-and public-sector managers face a recurring organizational-design dilemma: the relative emphasis to place on process-versus-outcome accountability in evaluating employee performance. This chapter reviews experimental-psychological research that emphasizes the benefits of process accountability and then notes blind spots in that literature, especially the insensitivity to the relational signals that accountability manipulations convey about how evaluators view the evaluated. The chapter also examines real-world ideologically-driven debates over accountability design in which partisans tend to favor no-excuses forms of outcome accountability for those deemed untrustworthy and uncertainty-buffering forms of process accountability for the trustworthy. Finally, an integrative framework is proposed that examines how managers can balance the inevitable tradeoffs between decision-making control enhanced under process accountability and innovation fostered under outcome accountability, and sheds light on how agent empowerment can compensate for the deficiencies of both systems.

show abstract

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Laboratory Literature On Process Versus Outcome Accountamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Process Versus Outcome Accountability

Patil

Vieider

2014

The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Managers likely rely on additional signals when their expectations are positive in the current period, and the activity level realization is high. They like to adjust capacity resources [4]. Moreover, many studies argued that relationship between cost and activity is not linear, but they depended on one driver to measure cost behavior [5], [6] found that traditional cost behavior model unsuitable to measure cost behavior, they provide an asymmetric response to cost and sales changes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Non-Linear Regression Modeling is used for Asymmetry Co-Integration and Managerial Economics in Iraqi Firms

Azeez¹,

Han²,

Mahmood³

2017

ijacsa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper analyzes the cost asymmetry through managerial expectations in a nonlinear regression function. Two development determinants, asymmetry co-integration and managerial expectations are also considered. The results revealed that managerial expectation had an impact on the wholesale cost asymmetry response. The managerial optimism is pronounced that show cost asymmetry response for sales, and inventory assets increased higher than decreased with the changing of the expectation basic coefficient and the values of contract parameters. Finally, the impacts of the managerial expectations, cost basic coefficient, and values of the contract parameters are analyzed for illustrating the results of the proposed nonlinear models with the help of numerical experiments. The research examined the short-run and the long-run effects of asymmetry co-integration and managerial expectation changes on the cost behavior in Iraq using the nonlinear regression function.

show abstract

More Eagerness, More Suffering from Search Bias: Accuracy Incentives and Need for Cognition Exacerbate the Detrimental Effects of Excessive Searching in Finding Romantic Partners Online

Lee

Chiou

2015

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic use of Web search tools to browse and evaluate recommendations is widespread. Such tools may be crucial for users to truly benefit from the enormous selection of options available online. However, a recent study demonstrated that a greater number of search options triggered excessive searching and led to inferior decisions (i.e., the more-means-worse effect; Wu & Chiou, 2009). Given that individuals who are motivated to make accurate choices (the accuracy incentive) tend to engage in broader and more exhaustive searches, Experiment 1 examined how the accuracy incentive influenced the search process. The findings indicated that the accuracy incentive led to excessive searching and poorer choices. Moreover, the search ratio, an indicator of excessive searching, mediated the negative effect of the accuracy incentive on choice quality. Experiment 2 investigated the role of the need for cognition (NFC) in the more-means-worse effect. High-NFC participants demonstrated an increased tendency toward excessive searching and exhibited poorer selectivity than did low-NFC participants. The current research indicated that the accuracy incentive of online searchers may serve as a determinant of excessive searching and that online searchers characterized by high NFC may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of excessive searching.Note: Confidence intervals were set at 95%. N = 30 for each experimental condition.

show abstract

The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance

Cited by 56 publications

References 73 publications

Process Versus Outcome Accountability

Process Versus Outcome Accountability

A Non-Linear Regression Modeling is used for Asymmetry Co-Integration and Managerial Economics in Iraqi Firms

More Eagerness, More Suffering from Search Bias: Accuracy Incentives and Need for Cognition Exacerbate the Detrimental Effects of Excessive Searching in Finding Romantic Partners Online

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About