.. ”EFF...
. .2 a1 , ‘

. I .
. l
13.“!ng \n.
(3»..- Am.» 5:3 a...»
... .. .

.n

.l .
v2.4 ‘! ....
‘5‘}! is

 

*u ;j
.5‘.

.

. ‘tehé‘éugri. . . A..+Jm.d..w.u H ‘ , 2.5%.)?" égﬁzﬁxa , m. t .....‘ .. ..._...v

3.2.?“ 3.... .2... I \ . .23 .7123» , ‘
‘ ‘ .

 

:a .. x .. . .

 

 

 

 

f M LrleRARY
, io igan State
2W5 University

 

 

wm.‘—_

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ON
MOTIVATION TO RATE ACCURATELY

presented by

TIERNEY ANN ORFGEN

has been accepted towards fulfiilment
of the requirements for the

EhQ;_____ degree in Communication

 

Ma 0 Q/U

Major Pryéssor’s Signature

 

..-_..--.-—_ ._..--——

January 22, 20Q8

 

Date

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

t. -_. _...—— ..—._-_------“—._

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K‘IProilAccaPres/ClRCiDateDue indd

THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ON MOTIVATION TO RATE
ACCURATELY

By

Tierney Ann Orfgen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2008

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ON MOTIVATION TO RATE
ACCURATELY

By
Tierney Ann Orfgen

A critical role of supervisors in the workplace is to guide and motivate the
behavior of front-line employees, particularly those employees whose primary job entails
customer service interactions. However, if accountability is not communicated and
enforced to supervisors, they may be less motivated to adhere to organizational policies.
The current experimental study examined how accountability systems and their
implementation inﬂuence the motivation and behavior of those rating behavior
accurately. Of unique interest is the use of an objective and non-dichotomous measure of
the outcome behavior of accuracy. Participants (N = 174) were randomly assigned to one
of 3 experimental conditions (accountability vs. no accountability vs. control) and then
trained to evaluate vignettes of customer service interactions. In the pre and posttests,
participants completed measures related to the constructs of the theory of planned
behavior, perceived accountability, behavioral intention, and accuracy. Structural
equation modeling and regression analyses were performed to test the utility of a theory
of planned behavior (TPB) model and a modiﬁed TPB model that includes perceived
accountability in the area of ratings accuracy. Results indicated that the TPB variables
were predictors of behavioral intention, which was a subsequent signiﬁcant, though
weak, predictor of improved ratings accuracy. In addition, a perceived accountability
instrument was created and tested for convergent and divergent validity and an extended

TPB model with the inclusion of perceived accountability was tested. Perceptions of

shown to inﬂuence attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.
Perceptions of accountability were not found to inﬂuence increased ratings accuracy or to
be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions to rate accurately. Key limitations of this
research include the student sample used, as well as the lab setting, and induction

effectiveness.

Copyright by
TIERNEY ANN ORFGEN
2008

DEDICATION

To Moya Clarke Mulqueen and Herbert J. Mulqueen, Sr., my Nannie and Poppop — I
wish you were here. You both have inspired me greatly; I couldn’t have done this without

the lessons you taught me.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“You must do the thing you cannot do.” --Eleanor Roosevelt

If I had a clue about what this process would fully require, 1 might never have
started down this path. Though, at long last, this hoop has been jumped and I ﬁnd myself
pondering on the lessons I have learned and the people who inspired me to reach the
ﬁnish line. I would like to thank those who played an integral part in the achievement of
both my academic and personal goals.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Kami Silk, my fearless advisor for her
mentorship, support, and friendship. You are an incredible person. I cannot thank you
enough for your unfaltering conﬁdence in my ability to ﬁnish. I truly appreciate all the
time, energy, thoughtfulness, and timely kicks in the pants you gave to me throughout
this process.

I would also like to thank my other committee members, Carl Borchgrevink,
William Donohue, and Hee Sun Park. To Carl Borchrgrevink I appreciate not only you
being an insightful committee member but also for your mentorship throughout my
graduate school process. Thank you Hee Sun for your methodological insight and
statistical prowess. To Bill Donohue, I thank you for real world perspective and the
stimulating conversations that helped me get my head wrapped around my topic.

Special thanks to the faculty, staff, and students in the Department of
Communication. To Chuck Atkin, thank you for your support. I extend thanks to Frank
Boster for your time and energy spent on me during my program, your mentorship was

invaluable. Marge Barkman. thank you for all of your help—l couldn‘t have collected

vi

this data or ﬁnished this without your assistance. Janet Lillie and Gwen Wittenbaum,
thank you for your assistance during my data collection process.

Thanks should also be extended to the faculty and staff of The School of
Hospitality Business at MSU. To Ron Cichy, I thank you for your support and guidance
throughout my time here at MSU. Special thanks to Bonnie Knutson and Jeff Ellsworth
for your support during my program as well as your assistance with my data collection.

An enormous amount of thanks goes to friends and family who supported me and
helped me keep my sanity throughout this process, as it was no easy feat. To my brother,
Adam, thank you for being there in many ways, but especially for comic relief,
encouragement, and being my extra set of eyes on the beast. Thank you, Pete and Becky
Semig. for your support, encouragement, friendship and offering a welcome escape of Al

and entertaining storytelling. A great deal of appreciation to Anna Osborn, Katie Klein, &

 

Alysa Lucas your friendships kept me from the brink, especially during the last push.
Rebecca Klinger, thank you for keeping me physically sane. I owe Bill Morgan an
enormous amount of gratitude, if it weren’t for your suggestion I would have not taken
the path to MSU, and for that I am truly grateful.

Last but certainly not least, to my amaZing Mother and, Father, Jane and Lynn
Orfgen—l can't possibly begin to thank you enough for the inspiration, strength,
encouragement, and support you have given to me. Mom, thank you for everything,
especially your superhuman level of patience and understanding during this process—l
am forever in your debt. Dad, thank you especially for your unﬂinching conﬁdence in my

abilities and for pushing me to ﬁnish. And, yes. Dad, I think I'm done with school. . .for

DOW.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review ..................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 3
Method ................................................................................................ 31
Pilot Study ............................................................................................ 31
Main Study ........................................................................................... 34
Research Design ............................................................................... 34
Participants .................................................................................. 34
Institutional Research Ethics ..................................................... 35
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................... 36
Experimental Materials ........................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4
Results ................................................................................................. 49
Data Screening and Preparation .......................................................... 49
Testing of Hypotheses ..................................................................... 50
Post hoc Analyses .......................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 5
Discussion ................................................................................... 6O
Interpretation of Results ........................................................... 6]
Implications .................................................................................. 65
Implications for the Theory of Planned Behavior ............................. 65
Implications of accountability ................................................... 67
Practical implications .......................... ' ................................... 67
Limitations .................................................................................. 69
Future Research ............................................................................ 72
Conclusion .................................................................................. 73
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 75
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 94

viii

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

LIST OF TABLES
Factor loadings and reliabilities .................................................. 43

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and coefﬁcients for study

variables ............................................................................. 52
ANOVA results .................................................................... 9]
Regression results for behavioral intention and accuracy .................... 92

ix

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:
Figure 4:

Figure 5:

LIST OF FIGURES

The Theory of Planned Behavior ..................................................... 13
The Theory of Planned Behavior model with the inclusion or perceived

accountability ............................................................................ 30
Tested model with path coefﬁcients .................................................. 55
Post hoc l ................................................................................ 56
Post hoc 2 ................................................................................ 58

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION

Communication in the context of supervisor and employee feedback is a complex
dynamic, with supervisors oﬁen providing incomplete and/or inaccurate feedback to
employees (e. g. Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden, 2005; Eder & Fedor, 1989; Tziner, Murphy,
& Cleveland, 2002). Organizations create policies that communicate procedures for
employees and supervisors that give structure and guidelines for the performance
feedback interaction to encourage accurate feedback from supervisors (Leﬁon, Buzzotta,
Sherberg, & Karraker, 1977). Unfortunately, upper management does not always enforce
the policies or standards. which creates a context where both supervisors and other
organizational members know they will not be held accountable for certain actions
(Curtis et a1., 2005). Accountability, deﬁned as being held answerable to one’s actions
(Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, F rink, & Hopper, 1995) can become a “slippery slope” where
quality and standards begin to erode, impacting the bottom line, customer satisfaction,
and of particular interest in this research proposal, employee motivation. This issue is of
signiﬁcant interest to the service industry where service interactions are frequent, varied,
and somewhat difﬁcult to control (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990). It is also of value
to organizational communication researchers who are interested in how accountability
can be effectively communicated to organizational members.

Understanding what drives members of organizations to perform desirable
behaviors and to be productive contributors to the organization’s goals has been a ripe
area of study. Research has demonstrated that those organizations that select and

maintain a motivated staff are those that are the most successful and have a sustainable

competitive advantage over those that do not (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003; Heskett,
Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997; Walker, Johnson, & Leonard, 2006). However, maintaining
a motivated staff is a complicated venture of organizational culture and superior human
resource management. One key factor that may contribute to supervisors’ ability to
motivate employees is the aforementioned accountability system used to enforce
organizational policies, or how their own managers hold employees accountable. One
strategy used across organizations to monitor employees and hold them accountable for
their actions is how performance feedback is communicated (Ferris et a1., 1995).
Performance feedback not only gives the supervisors a chance to monitor and guide the
behavior of the employee, but also a time for the employee to receive information about
what he or she can do to improve or to receive encouragement to repeat behaviors that
have been successful. Furthermore, subjective performance assessment or performance
ratings is a critical (e. g. Arvey & Murphy, 1998), and one of the most widely used
measures of job performance (e.g. Dierdorﬁ‘ & Surface, 2007; Pulakos, Schmitt, & Chan,
1996). Performance evaluation decisions are made with social and political inﬂuences
that may cause inaccuracies in evaluations (Judge & Ferris, 1992). A person can only be
motivated to perform a behavior if they have the desire, the ability, and the knowledge of
the proscribed standards to do so. The current research is interested in the relationship
between the implementation of accountability systems and motivation to engage in
accurate performance appraisals in the workplace as being accurate in rating behavior is

also required for providing accurate performance feedback.

Is.)

Performance Appraisals and Accountability

The area of performance appraisal has been studied extensively and the literature
spans a number of diverse disciplines such as management (e. g. Earley, Northcraﬂ, Lee,
& Lituchy, 1990; Jaworski & Kohli, 1991; Longenecker, Sims, & Gioia, 1987),
industrial-organization psychology (e. g. Decotiis & Petit, 1978; Korsgaard, 1996;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2006; Kozlowski, Kirsch, & Chao, 1986; Murphy & Anhalt, 1992),
sociology (e.g. Frink & Ferris, 1996) and social psychology (O'Leary & Hansen, 1983) to
name just a few. Each discipline addresses the issue of performance appraisal and
individual behavior in a variety of organizational contexts and through slightly different
lenses. Despite the disparate viewpoints, what is agreed upon is that performance
feedback is an integral element to monitoring and guiding behavior in organizations
(Mohnnan & Lawler, 1983). Only through holding organizational members accountable
to the standards and rules of behavior set forth by the organization can the organization
perform successfully. Performance appraisals are critical to the motivation of employees
(Hale, 2002; Lefton et al., 197 7), because the feedback sessions are supposed to provide
employees with performance information that includes areas of excellence, areas for
improvement. and organizational expectations. What is problematic and what makes this
element such a competitive advantage for organizations, is that holding others
accountable and giving performance appraisals are an inherently difﬁcult tasks and not
easy for competitors to duplicate.

At the heart of this research is the assumption that in order to guide and motivate
the behavior of front-line employees the behavior of the supervisor must be monitored

and motivated (Argyris, 2000; Covey, 1988). In other words, it is not enough to focus

directly on the behavior of front-line employees to move the organizational needle in a
positive direction, it is critical to understand the motivation of supervisors in performing
behaviors that cannot be easily or objectively monitored, like performance feedback. Of
interest here is to examine how accountability systems and subsequent implementation of
these systems inﬂuence the motivation and behavior of those performing ratings tasks.
Thus, it becomes important to examine models and theories that might inform how
organizations and individual supervisors can inﬂuence employees in meaningful ways.
A Persuasive Framework

Attempting to explain behavior through attitude change is nothing new in the
persuasion literature, and the use of social inﬂuence theories as a theoretical framework
in the context of organizations can be illuminating (e. g. Tubbs & Ekeberg, 1991). A
social inﬂuence framework can offer a great deal of insight into the motivation of
employees as there appears to be an inherent connection between intention and work
motivation (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Intention is often the target outcome in studies
of cognitively based motivational techniques such as goal setting (Locke, 1968);
however, goal and intention have frequently been treated as interchangeable ideas
(Hughes, 1965; Locke, Shaw, Sari, & Latham, 1981), when they are actually separate
constructs. There have been some studies within the organizational context that utilize the
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (F ishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and Theory of Planned
Behavior (Aj zen, 1991) to explain different behaviors in organizations (Arnold, Loan-
Clarke, Coombs, Wilkinson, Park, & Peterson, 2006), including feedback communication
(Fedor, 1991) and information system usage (Huang & Chuang, 2007). And there have

certainly been plenty of studies that have examined speciﬁc constructs of the theories,

without testing the entire model. Within studies that have tested the theoretical
framework as a whole in the vocational realm, the core concepts of the TRA and TPB
have generally, but not consistently been supported (e. g. Armitage & Conner, 2001;
Tubbs & Ekeberg, 1991).

Accountability

In addition to the TPB framework posited by the persuasion literature there are
also other concepts of note that could help explain aspects of motivation in the
workplace. The idea of accountability is nothing new, especially in the area of social
psychology and industrial-organizational science (cf. Tetlock, 1985). Perceived
accountability, or the expectation to have to explain or justify one’s decisions or behavior
(Sedikides, Herbst, Hardin, & Dardis, 2002) is an important concept in social
cooperation, social norms, and organizational effectiveness. Despite its importance in
both lay and academic study, accountability has differential impacts on behavior,
especially behaviors associated with rating employee performance accurately (Tetlock &
Kim, 1987). Brieﬂy, accountability maintains social cooperation in that it is central to
impression management; being held accountable taps a person’s inherent need to avoid
being negatively evaluated by others (Schlenker, Weigold, & Doherty, 1991; Tessor &
Rosen, 1975).

While there has been much study of personality traits that inﬂuence impression
management behavior (e.g. self-monitoring) (Fandt & Ferris, 1991), and behavior in
reaction to accountability (e. g. Antonioni, 1994; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Schlenker et al.,
1991), understanding personality traits can only explain some of the reactions to being

held accountable (Tetlock, 1985). In the workplace, it might be taken for granted that

employees know what is expected of them and know that they are held accountable for
performing up to the expressed standards as part of their social contract with the
organization (Ferris et al., 1995). Problems arise when people are not held accountable
and there are no consequences associated with performing or avoiding a certain behavior.
For instance, it is a rare occurrence for upper management to consistently hold
supervisors of frontline employees accountable for how they evaluate the frontline
employees. Therefore, the frontline supervisors, knowing that they will probably not be
asked to justify their performance ratings to upper management, might choose to risk
being inaccurate in their evaluations in order to focus on other tasks that are seen to have
greater consequences or greater expectations of being held accountable. In other words,
unless the supervisors feel accountable for being accurate in their ratings of their
employees, they are likely to be less motivated to be accurate in rating their employees’
behavior, consequently not holding their employees accountable for their performance.
Accountability can only be a motivational force when the expectation of being held
accountable is present. In other words, the expectation of accountability can be
communicated by organizations through policies and standards, but it is only through
consistent implementation of the accountability system by leadership that behavior can be
inﬂuenced consistently.

In summary, the problem of employee motivation is inherent to all types of
organizations. Whether organizations are small or large in size, a motivated workforce is
critical to the success of the organization. It is important that researchers investigate
factors that inﬂuence employee motivation, especially factors associated with

performance appraisal. The current proposal uses the Theory of Planned Behavior as well

as the construct of perceived accountability to predict behavioral intention to perform
accurate ratings of customer service interactions and actual ratings behavior.
Accountability is included in the model as contributing unique variance to behavioral
intention, a predictor of subsequent behavior. Unlike most previous research in
organizational settings using the TRA and TPB (e. g. Arnold et al., 2006; Becker, Randall,
& Riegel, 1995; Cherry, 2006; Dubinsky & Loken, 1989; Hill, Mann, & Wearing, 1996;
Kolekofski & Heminger, 2003; Slocombe, 1999) this research incorporates an actual
behavioral outcome for which to test the utility of the theory and the role of
accountability within the performance evaluation organizational context as well as

measuring the actual outcome behavior.

CHAPTER II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to develop the rationale for the study, a review of pertinent literature is -
presented. First, an overview of the motivation literature as it relates to organizational
communication is provided. Second, the theoretical framework for the current research
on employee motivation and accountability, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991), and the concept of accountability are explicated. Then a review of the
impact of accountability on intentions and ratings accuracy is forwarded. Finally, the
proposed model and hypothesized relationships are presented.
Motivation in the Organizational Context
Employee motivation, a fundamental area of study across disciplines, has been
studied through the examination of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Gagne &
Deci, 2005). Intrinsic motivation is generally deﬁned as a person’s drive to perform a
certain behavior because they ﬁnd the activity interesting and derive a level of
satisfaction from performing the behavior (e. g. Deci & Ryan, 1980; Porter & Lawler,
1968). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is engendered through a person’s
perception that there is a connection between performing a behavior and certain rewards _
or consequences, satisfaction Stems from the outcomes rather than from performing the
activity itself (e.g. Gagne.& Deci, 2005; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Motivation, both
intrinsic and extrinsic, is a critical area of study for organizations and academics because
of its links to individual worker satisfaction (c.f. Katz & Kahn, I978; Miner, 1980),
organizational productivity (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and organizational citizenship

behaviors (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000). Performance

appraisals have differential effects upon both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and
effects are inﬂuenced by how and why the feedback information is conveyed (Ryan,
Mims, & Koestner, 1983).

The difﬁculty lies in the idea that for most employees, supervisors subjectively
evaluate their performance, and it is this inherent lack of objectivity that creates room for
bias, impression management, and other interpersonal inaccuracies. It is uncomfortable
to give appraisal information whether it is positive or negative (Tessor & Rosen, 1975),
and an effective manager must balance the need to convey feedback with the need to
maintain a positive relationship with the employee (Eder & F edor, 1989). The balance
between providing honest and accurate performance feedback and relational needs is a
difﬁcult one to juggle, which can create a tendency for evaluators to be more lenient,
especially if there are consequences for the ratee as a result of the score (J awahar &
Williams, 1997). Adding to the challenge is that it is usually the manager who must not
only make the decision about the consequences for the ratee, but they must also
implement the consequences as well. Therefore, having to give potentially negative
feedback to an employee not only leads to consequences for the employee, but can also
be perceived as a consequence to the manager. Overall, the feedback session itself is a
complicated dance between the supervisor and the employee where each party must
balance multiple goals. “At stake for the employee is the foregoing of impending
punishment and/or the acquiring of social and material rewards. At stake for the
supervisor is the maintaining of employee relations and/or enhancing employee
performance that reﬂects positively on the supervisor.” (Eder & Fedor, 1989, p. 331).

Part of what makes an effective leader is their ability to make difﬁcult choices and

possibly ignoring their individual need to be liked and/or bearing the discomfort giving
negative feedback to employees in order to fulﬁll the needs of the organization (Salaman,
2004) — this balance of individual and organizational needs is challenging when it comes
to providing evaluative feedback to employees. It is imperative that organizations
understand and act upon what motivates their managers to be accurate in performance
evaluations of their subordinates, and to minimize the sources of ratings distortion.

There are many sources of distortion of performance ratings in organizations.
Such distortions have focused on qualities of the rater (e. g. halo bias, rater training,
leniency biases) and strategies to minimize the impact of rater distortions, long sources of
inquiry in many academic disciplines (e. g. Industrial organizational psychology,
sociology, organizational behavior, communication, applied psychology, cognitive
psychology). Halo has been thought to impact the accuracy of ratings in that raters
inﬂuenced by halo assign ratings based on the overall impression of the ratee rather than
differentiating on individual’s performance on various levels (Kozlowski, et al, 1986;
Murphy, 1982; Murphy & Balzer, 1989; Palmer & Feldman, 2005). Rater training to
reduce halo and other biases can inﬂuence accuracy of ratings (Baltes & Parker, 2000;
Borman, 1979, Latham, Wexley, & Pursell, 1975). Leniency biases, or the tendency for a
rater to be lenient, has been found to be a stable tendency of the rater (Kane, Bemadin,
Villanova, & Peyreﬁtte, 1995; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). However, it is also important
to note that context matters, and raters tend to be more lenient in their ratings when the
scores have real consequences for the ratee (Jahawar & Williams, 1997). Of interest here
is the distortion associated with the contextual inﬂuences that inﬂuence a rater’s

motivation to be accurate. It is also important to acknowledge that while some raters may

10

have intrinsic personality traits that allow them to be unencumbered by the competing
demands to be lenient, organizational systems can still make efforts to foster ,
environments that prioritize accuracy .

The leadership skill of being able to balance the possible competing interpersonal
goals comes not only from personality traits, but also from experience. This need for
experience to be effective as a leader is especially problematic at the supervisory or front-
line manager level of organizations as generally, they have the largest number of
employees to manage and the least amount of managerial experience and training (Brown
& Benson, 2005). Furthermore, supervisor level employees must also perform front-line
tasks with technical skill along with guiding the workﬂow of a number of employees.
Much of a supervisor’s time is spent performing administrative duties such as payroll,
scheduling, ordering, and other tasks that have immediate and objective consequences for
the organization (Hales, 2005). The lack of managerial experience combined with
competing time-consuming administrative tasks that have clear, immediate consequences
(i.e., payroll, scheduling, requisitions) increases the likelihood that more time-consuming
and subjective tasks like providing quality performance feedback will be perceived as
less important or secondary to all other tasks. Put another way, when juggling multiple
tasks people are more interested in performing tasks and behaviors when there is an
immediate and concrete consequence for performance of the behavior (Locke & Latham,
1990)

One approach that supervisors may use as a time saving strategy to meet the
competing demands of their positions, is to evaluate employee performance more

favorably than deserved. Supervisors may inﬂate performance feedback to avoid conﬂict

ll

or to manage impressions, and unfortunately, this sort of performance evaluation
inaccuracy is not uncommon in the organizational context and can be difﬁcult to identify.
Organizations must trust that they have trained their managers sufﬁciently, expressed the
importance of giving accurate evaluations and feedback, and motivated their managers to
perform comprehensive performance appraisals. Therein lies the paradox; organizations
must trust employees to perform difﬁcult tasks, but the difﬁcult tasks can be avoided
easily if organizational members are not held accountable.

In sum, motivating supervisors to provide accurate feedback to employees is a
challenging task due to relational concerns, competing responsibilities that create time
constraints, lack of managerial experience among frontline supervisors, and lack of
effective communication from upper management regarding the essentiality of providing
accurate performance feedback. One persuasive framework that may have explanatory
power for understanding how supervisors are inﬂuenced to provide accurate feedback is
the Theory of Planned Behavior.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (T PB)

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (F ishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its
extension, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) have been widely
applied in the study of human behaviors. Both models aim to explain the psychological
processes and causal relationship between people’s attitudes and their performance of
volitional behaviors. Volitional behaviors are deﬁned as those behaviors that are
performed by voluntary, conscious choice and not those that are borne out of habit,
impulse, or mindlessness (e. g. Eagley & Chaiken, 1993; Langer, 1989). The TRA

presumes that a person’s behavior is best predicted by a person’s intentions, which are

12

comprised of the attitude and subjective norm constructs, while the TPB also adds the
perceived behavioral control construct (Ajzen, 1991) (see Figure 1). The theory states
other factors that might inﬂuence behavior do so indirectly through attitude, subjective
norms, or perceived behavioral control (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). However,
the TPB also allows for the addition of other variables that may provide unique variance
apart from those included in the model (Ajzen, 1991).

Figure I .' The Theory of Planned Behavior (A jzen, 199.1).

 

Attitude

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Norms _ Behavioral Intention ............. Accuracy

 
  

 

Perceived ...................
Behavioral """""""
Control

 

 

 

The TRA has been shown to explain fairly well the role of attitudes and intention
on subsequent behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and is a rather
robust model of the psychological processes at work between attitudes and behavior
(Hale, J. L., Householder, & Greene, 2002). Since its introduction, the TRA has been a
source of academic inquiry and the model has been adapted and elaborated upon in .many
areas of persuasion and communication campaigns. The models and their individual links
have been tested and continue to be used as a theoretical framework for a wide variety of
empirical studies in many subject areas, particularly in the areas of health, consumer, and

different pro-social behaviors. For example, TRA has been used to study condom use

13

(Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein & Muellerleile, 2001) AIDS prevention (e. g. Finlay,
Traﬁmow, & Moroi, 1999; Vanlandingham, Supresert, Grandjean, & Sittitrai, 1995);
recycling (Park, Levine, & Sharkey, 1998); consumer behavior (see Sheppard, Hartwick
& Warshaw, 1988 for an excellent review). Despite the broad reaching scope of the
applicability of the models, comparatively little research has been performed of the whole
of TRA or the TPB models in the organizational arena (Amold, et al., 2006).

Arnold et al. (2006) examined the usefulness of the TPB in understanding
complex workplace behaviors associated with occupational intentions and vocational
decision behaviors and found that there was indeed utility in the theory in its explanation
of both simple and complex behaviors. However, it was found that one caveat to using
the TPB in the organizational context, is that attention should be paid to the differences in
people’s circumstances, especially regarding past vocational decisions and behavior and
existing obstacles to implementing intention (Arnold et al., 2006). Like occupational
intentions and vocational decisions, rating accuracy and rating decision making is a
complex workplace behavior that is impacted by many factors. Of interest here is to test
the utility of the TPB model in studying a complex behavior like ratings accuracy as well
as to gain understanding of how the TPB constructs work in conjunction with
accountability to explain behavioral intention and the behavioral outcome of ratings
accuracy.

Attitude

According to the TPB, a person’s attitude is inﬂuenced by the strength or

certainty of their beliefs about an attitude as well as the valence of their evaluation of the

behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The valence of the behavior is the extent to which the

14

action or behavior is judged to be positive or negative. In other words, the mere
positively that a person evaluates performing a certain behavior, the more likely that he
or she will intend to perform said behavior (F ishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This notion that the
beliefs that a person has regarding a speciﬁc behavior has inﬂuence on whether he or she
performs the behavior appears innate to most studies of workplace motivation as well as
the study of all behavior, in general.

Critical and somewhat ubiquitous to the current study of workplace motivation is
the examination of the inﬂuence of attitude on behavior as demonstrated by the
expectancy theory (V room, 1964), self-determination theory (Deci, 1975), and theory of
behavior in organizations (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980), which all show the
importance of an individual’s beliefs in his or her motivation to perform a behavior. That
being stated, it is critical to implement strategies that reduce bias heuristic processing,
and increase the desire or attitudinal motivation to perform accurate ratings, such as
increasing personal outcome dependency (N euberg & Fiske, 1987) and engendering
personal accountability (Baltes & Parker, 2000). Such strategies to inﬂuence the desire
and attention to perform accurate ratings have included increasing the perception of
personal accountability (e.g. Corrigan & Hauenstein, 1996; McCallister, Mitchell, &
Beach, 1979; Mero & Motowidlo, 1995; Mero, Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003) and attaching
rewards to rating accurately to increase the perception of personal outcome dependency
on being accurate in ratings (e.g. Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Neuberg & F iske, 1987).
Feedback and performance appraisal plays a major role in the maintenance about
behavior outcomes, in that in the absence of information about performance, a person is

leﬁ to infer what is in fact desirable behavior (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). It has also

15

been found that the purpose of the performance rating inﬂuences the rater perceptions of
the importance of being accurate and rating accuracy (Beckner, Highhouse, & Hazer,
1998; Longenecker et al., 1987; Williams, Denisi, Blencoe, & Cafferty, 1985). As stated
before, performance ratings for administrative purposes tend to lower motivation to be
accurate (e. g. Longenecker, et al., 1987), and those appraisals with concrete outcomes or
purposes (e. g. raises, promotions) tend to have inﬂation of scores (e. g. Jawahar &
Williams, 1997). In sum, most of the aforementioned strategies to inﬂuence the attitude
of the employee to be accurate in rating performance, attempt to do so through observing
or controlling the context (i.e. purpose, consequences, rewards) in which the rater is
performing the ratings.
Subjective Norm

Subjective norms are deﬁned as individuals’ beliefs about how important or
signiﬁcant people in their lives feel that they should perform the behavior. In the
organizational context, the supervisor’s important others that inﬂuence their perceptions
about performing a workplace behavior would likely include managers, peers, and
subordinates, but may also include non-workplace individuals like friends or parents who
also exert inﬂuence over work-related perceptions and behavior. Subjective norms are
inﬂuenced by a person’s normative belief. the perceived expectation of their important
others regarding the behavior and their own motivation or pressure to perform the
behavior (Ajzen & F ishbein, 1980). In other words, subjective norms encompass the
expectations of behavior communicated by referent others (Ferris & Judge, 1991 ).

For example, if a supervisor perceived that her important others would want her to

rate/evaluate her employees as accurately as possible, this perception potentially could

I6

inﬂuence the supervisor to do so; conversely, a supervisor might perceive that a referent
other does not value accuracy in evaluating employees, which might also inﬂuence the
supervisor to not value the task. It is also possible that subjective norm would not be at all
inﬂuential on behavioral intention, leaving other factors to predict behavioral intention to
perform accurate performance ratings. It is important to note that referent groups will
vary by individual such that peers at work may help determine subjective norm for one
group, while family members or other signiﬁcant others (e. g. church groups, college
friends) may inﬂuence subjective norm for other groups. The subjective norm component
of the TPB can also be related to perceived social pressure to perform a behavior because
individuals may perceive more or less pressure from important others to engage in a
given behavior.

Perceived Behavioral Control.

According to Ajzen (1991) a person’s perceived behavioral control is determined
by beliefs about available resources, opportunities, barriers, ability that are weighted by
the perceived ease of performing the behavior. Put another way, the ease or difﬁculty in
performing a behavior (Aj zen, 1991). PBC comprises the availability of ability, skills,
resources, and opportunities required to perform the target behavior (e. g. Bandura, 1997;
Van den Putte, Hoogstraten, & Meertens, 1996). The PBC construct is conceptually
similar to perceived choice and perceived competence constructs deﬁned in self-
determination theory of motivation (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994), which states
that to be self-determining means to perceive a sense of choice in insti gating and

controlling one’s own behavior (Deci, Connell, & Ryan. 1989).

17

PBC encompasses barriers speciﬁc to the individual, but other barriers might be
associated with the organizational environment. If workers perceive that the
organizational structure inhibits the performance of a behavior, it is less likely that the
behavior will be performed effectively. Or if workers are not trained appropriately on a
task, this also will impact perceived behavioral control, as they may not feel they are able
to complete the task. While some organizational literature suggests that it is the
responsibility of the organization to design jobs properly so tasks can be achieved easily
(Herzberg, 1966), it may be the case that organizations have not achieved a high level of
effectiveness for how work is conducted and monitored, thus impacting employees’
perceptions of control. If management's role is to ensure that the worker is capable of
performing desired work behaviors (McGregor, 1960), then appropriate training and job
design are critical factors that may become barriers, impeding work performance and
perceived behavioral control.

Perceived behavioral control may also be inﬂuenced by the level of direction and
supervision provided in the workplace, which varies considerably across organizational
contexts. In the hospitality context, many workers adhere to the proscribed standards
imposed by the organization, while they simultaneously seek autonomy in their work as
they strive to deal with customers in a personalized way. It has been shown that
management styles and organizational designs that promote greater ﬂexibility in
performing one’s job are positively related to increased employee satisfaction and
organizational effectiveness (Deci, et. a], 1989; Lawler, 1986), illustrating the beneﬁts

that high levels of perceived behavioral control may confer in the workplace.

18

Many workers have high levels of motivation and will perform activities that they
feel free to do without external contingencies (e.g. Ryan, Koestner, & Deci, 1991). This
idea of free choice being integral to the ideal of intrinsic motivation is the quandary that
managers in organizations face: providing employees with the illusion of choice in an
organized environment where contingencies are part and parcel to social order. In
Herzberg’s (1966) Motivation-Hygeine theory, the idea of motivating employees through
satisfying the social and psychological needs of workers through task design is
problematic when the concept of free-choice is included (e. g. Miner, 1980). In order for
the work to be satisfying, it helps that the worker feels as though there was a sense of
ownership (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) and choice involved (Deci, et al., 1985). In order
to motivate employees to rate performance behavior accurately, the employees must
perceive that they are capable of performing accurate ratings (i.e. self-efﬁcacy) (Kane,
Bemadin, & Villanova, 1995), and feel as though they have made the decision to do so
willingly (Deci et al., 1994). Therein lies the paradox; ideally, management should
encourage, and foster an environment where employees perceive high behavioral control
and ownership of their work tasks, while they also monitor and sanction employee
behavior to satisfy the need to conform to organizational standards and requirements of
the organization. This balance of choice with organizational requirements inﬂuences
perceptions of control which subsequently impact employees’ behavioral intentions to
engage in rating performance behavior accurately.

Behavioral Intention
Behavioral intention, deﬁned as the representation of planned action (Locke &

Latham, 1990), is inﬂuenced by a person’s attitude, subjective norm, and perceived

19

behavioral control regarding the target behavior. Intentions are assumed to capture the
motivational factors that inﬂuence behavior and to indicate how hard people are willing
to try or how much effort they would exert to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181 ),
and are considered the best predictor of future behavior in the TPB. Behavioral intentions
have been used in performance appraisal research with regard to goal-setting (Ilgen,
Fisher, & Taylor, 1979), occupational intentions (Arnold, et al., 2006), organizational
commitment (Becker, et al., 1995), ethical judgments (Chang, 1998; Cherry, 2006;
Dubinsky & Loken, 1989), benchmarking (Hill, et al., 1996), information sharing
(Kolekofski, 2003) and polychronicity (Slocombe, 1999). For example, behavioral
intention to perform ethical behavior was inﬂuenced more by perceived behavioral
control than attitude (Chang, 1998), while perceived behavioral control was a better
predictor of behavioral intention to perform ethical decision-making (Cherry, 2006). In
other words, depending on the behavior under consideration, behavioral intention to
perform the behavior will be differentially impacted by the subjective norm, perceived
behavioral control, and attitude constructs. In sum, behavioral intention is perceived to be
the largest predictor of actual behavior in the TPB. The theory does, however,
acknowledge that other variables beyond the TPB constructs can add unique variance to
the model for certain behaviors within certain contexts. Speciﬁcally, within the
organizational context, how workers interpret and react to conditions of accountability
may play a signiﬁcant role in how they decide to perform different behaviors.

Much of the theory of planned behavior research does not measure the target
behavior of interest, and the research reveals varying effect sizes of the intention-

behavior link (c.f. Sutton, 1998). Many studies do not measure behavior and instead

20

focus on the antecedents of behavioral intention (e. g. Chang, 1998; Kulkami, 2007;
Swaim, Perrine, & Aloise-Young, & 2007). If the study does have a measure of
“behavior” , it is in the form of a self-report or the outcome variable of interest is
“implementation intention” (e.g. Gollwitzer, 1999; Gratton, Povey, Clark-Carter, 2007);
both are widely used in lieu of an objective measure of behavior. Self-reports of behavior
are problematic in that there are social desirability and consistency concerns that may
affect results of the study (e. g. Fisher & Katz, 2000; Mench & Kandel, 1988). If, indeed
the outcome behavior is measured objectively ﬁ'equently the measure is dichotomous in
that the person either did or did not perform the behavior (e. g. wearing a seatbelt,
recycling, blood donation, breast self-exam, etc.), and thus may attenuate the strength of
the intention-behavior relationship due to a restriction in range (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Often times, desired behavior is not dichotomous in that quality of the performance of the
behavior does matter. For example, in terms of the behavior of recycling, there are
varying levels of commitment and performance (i.e. from performing the bare minimum
of returning aluminum cans for deposit to the most extreme and composting and not
throwing in the trash any item that has the potential to be recycled). This study offers
unique contribution to the ﬁeld in that it not only measures intention but also offers an
objective measure of behavior that addresses the quality difference in performance of
behavior.

A goal of this research was to test the TPB model in its entirety, including actual
behavior, to explore the attitude behavioral connection with ratings tasks. It is posited

that the TPB constructs of subjective norms, attitude, and perceived control will be

predictive of both behavioral intention and ratings behavior. The following hypothesis
based on the TPB model (Figure 1) is proposed:
H1: In the TPB, (a) the constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control will be predictive of behavioral intention to perform accurate ratings, and (b)
behavioral intention will be positively related to accurate ratings. .
Accountability in the Organizational Context

As stated before, accountability is critical to the maintenance of organizational
standards and organizational members holding each other accountable provides a main
mechanism of social control. It is through mechanisms of social control (e.g. performance
evaluations, sanctions, rewards) that individuals are held accountable to performing up to
stated expectations (Beu & Buckley, 2001 ). A critical element to the success of the
performance evaluations is that the evaluator accurately assesses the performance of the
ratee, in that without accurate behavioral observation, the validity of subsequent ratings
and performance feedback is called into question. As critical as accountability is to
organizations and society in general. it is a complex, multi-faceted construct that has
varying deﬁnitions and subsequent impacts on behavior. In the following section the
concept of perceived accountability will be deﬁned and its impact on ratings accuracy
also will be elucidated.
Deﬁnition of Accountability

Accountability has been deﬁned several ways, and depending on the context,
certain dimensions are emphasized over others. Most commonly used in this vein of
research is Tetlock’s (1985) aforementioned deﬁnition that describes accountability as

“the social pressures that a person feels to justify one’s views to others.” However, some

22

deﬁnitions expand social presSures to imply that it is the consequences that are also
important. For example, in the performance appraisal context, accountability means that
there are consequences that depend on some aspect of the ratings or judgment given
(Palmer & Feldman, 2005), while within the employment interview context, individuals
are said to be accountable for their judgments whenever their performance is monitored
and there are consequences (either tangible or intangible) associated with that
evaluation (Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996). This lack of differentiation of justiﬁcation and
accountability was acknowledged in a footnote “Although we generally prefer the term
“accountability, ” we do not intend to distinguish it conceptually from a need to “justiﬁ/ ”
one ’s actions.” (Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996, p. 1). Despite the differing conceptual
deﬁnitions of accountability, the manipulation of the construct is fairly consistent in the
studies performed.

To be sure, accountability and consequences are two separate constructs that
depending on a number of variables can have differential impact on performance
appraisal ratings and decision-making. It is not the intention of this research to
oversimplify the impact of accountability on a person’s behavior; it is indeed more
complicated than previous literature implies. Therefore, it is posited here that it is not
merely the pressure to justify one’s decision that motivates people or wholly deﬁnes
“accountability,” but rather accountability as a motivator encompasses the myriad of
perceived consequences of the decisions, judgments, or actions that the person feels as
imminent from their actions. Being required or asked to justify one’s own decisions,
judgments and/or actions is not solely the motivator, but rather it is how the person must

justify and the potential social consequences for the decision and justiﬁcation. This

23

requirement to justify his or her decisions, judgments and/or actions to others is only one
of many consequences that a person may perceive as imminent and inﬂuences feelings of
social pressure.

A number of seminal theoretical papers in organizational literature have explored
the impact of perceived social pressure on workplace behaviors, frequently through the
lens of leadership style (e.g. Deci, 1976; Schein, 1975), while empirical studies have
examined the perceived social pressure construct to mixed results (e.g. Monge, Cozzens,
& Contractor, 1992; Van Hooﬁ, Born, Taris, & van der Flier, 2005). On one hand,
perceived social pressure to perform certain behaviors has been found to increase
attention and motivation to perform a task and subsequently positively inﬂuence
performance (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995; Mero, Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003). Conversely,
perceived social pressure has also been found to negatively impact performance by
increasing anxiety and display of impression management tactics, especially when the
person is not conﬁdent that their performance will be evaluated positively by others
(Schlenker et al., 1991; Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989)

It has also been found that uncertainty about the consequences and outcomes of
performing behaviors and subsequent performance evaluations by supervisors can
inﬂuence behavior in the workplace (e.g. Eder & F edor, 1989, Fandt, 1991; Fandt &
Ferris, 1990; Fedor, 1991). For example, Eder & Fedor (1989) found that priming the
self-evaluations of ratees through supervisor communication of the purpose of the ratings,
yielded responses to feedback that varied in impression management tactics. Fandt (1991)
also found that impression management behaviors like bolstering and excuse making

increased when job ambiguity was high. Perceptions of job ambiguity, in turn, is strongly

24

inﬂuenced by ambiguous supervisory communication (Behrman, Bigoness, & Perreault,
1981). Uncertainty about the possible evaluation of behavior by signiﬁcant others may
inﬂuence the recipient of the evaluation to formulate strategies to minimize any negative
effects that the evaluation may generate (e.g. Tetlock, 1987; Wood & Mitchell, 1981).
This tendency to act politically and manage impressions in the workplace appears to be in
response to the perceived social pressure to perform certain behaviors and to avoid
negative outcomes (e.g. Curtis et al., 2005; Fandt & Ferris, 1990). This tendency to act
politically and manage impressions in reaction to perceived social pressure may lead to
the distortion of ratings accuracy of raters.
Accountability and Accuracy of Performance Ratings

Previous research on the effects of accountability on the accuracy of behavior
ratings is inconsistent. Some studies imply that accountability enhances accuracy of
ratings because people attend more carefully to information when they are held
accountable (e. g. Feldman & Lynch, 1988; Kunda, 1990) or accountability debiases
judgment (Kennedy, 1993). Accuracy is enhanced because accountability motivates the
rater to engage in thoughtful processing as opposed to automatic processing (Feldman,
1981). However, most research implies that the outcome of the processing depends on the .
nature of the accountability consequences (Klimoski & Ash, 1974; Palmer and F eldman,
2005). It is the possible consequences that depend on the ratings or judgments given that
impair or enhance accuracy of ratings (Decotiis & Petit, 1978). Thus, when attempting to
understand the complexities of motivation to perform accurate performance appraisal it is
important to understand the relationship between perceived or felt accountability and

accuracy of ratings.

25

As stated before, there are a number of sources of distortion of performance
appraisals and most studies focus on the rater and the design rating instruments (e. g.
Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden, 2005) to reduce unconscious biases
and improve accuracy. For example, Cleveland & Murphy (1992) examined performance
appraisal behavior and suggested that behaviors that were typically determined as rating
errors (e. g. leniency or consistently giving all subordinates high scores) could be viewed
as adaptable responses to forces in the rating environment. Robbins & DeNisi, (1994)
conducted research on ratings accuracy and found that affect towards the ratee can impact
the acquisition and processing of information. Despite the study and reﬁnement of the
instrumentation, inaccuracies still occur and it has been found that managers are
cognizant of their rating errors and knowingly bias rating scores for political reasons (e. g.
Bemardin & Villanova, 1986; Longenecker et al., 1987). For example, Bemardin &
Villanova found (1986) that characteristically, performance raters felt that they had
inadequate time to devote to the task and this lack of time was perceived as a source of
rater inaccuracy. One such political bias is inﬂation of scores to improve interpersonal
relationships with subordinates (e.g. F andt & Ferris, 1990; Longenecker, et al., 1987) It is
therefore important to not only create an environment that allows the time and
encourages the motivation to be accurate in performance ratings.

Accountability and TPB Constructs

There may be some question as to the distinctiveness of perceived accountability
with the TPB constructs. To be sure, accountability has a normative element in so much
that perceived social consequences and the perception that one may have to justify their

own decisions to others, depends in part on the desire for social approval as well as the

26

perception of social pressure, which are related to subjective norm. However, the focus of
the accountability construct is on the social outcomes or consequences associated with
the performing or not performing a behavior (e.g. being judged by others, being
evaluated, having to justify oneself, etc.). The measure of subjective norms as
recommended by Ajzen (2006) is to elicit perceptions of important others’ expectations
for an individual’s performance of a behavior, and is not a measure of perceived social
consequences for performance of the behavior. The subjective norm construct may
encompass social pressure to perform a particular way in the workplace because it would
inﬂuence how an organizational member interprets the value that other organizational
members place on the behavior. However, subjective norm does not include the perceived
or tangible social outcomes that a person perceives as imminent for performance of the
behavior, which is the key component to measuring accountability.

Perceived behavioral control and accountability are also related but distinct in that
accountability does not tap a person’s ability, skill, or conﬁdence in performing the target
behavior. PBC, as deﬁned and operationalized, is comprised of the perceptions of the
availability of ability, skills, resources, and opportunities required to perform the target
behavior (e. g. Bandura, 1997; Van den Putte, 1993). Perceived accountability, as deﬁned
previously, addresses a person’s perceived consequences, social outcomes, and social
pressure to perform the target behavior. The two constructs might be correlated because
being held accountable by a supervisor may impact an employee’s perceptions of control
over a given task. In other words, an employee may perceive more or less behavioral
control depending on whether or not they believe their supervisor will hold them to a

speciﬁc performance standard.

27

Proposed T PB Accountability Model

In summary, in organizational environments, it is critical to the success of the
business to provide accurate performance appraisals. The problem is that the task of
performance appraisal or providing feedback exists in an environment whereby managers
must balance priorities of the organization (i.e. giving accurate feedback) with the
oftentimes, competing, political needs of the workplace. One such way that this situation
is balanced is through inaccuracies of rating performance. If the manager does not make
efforts or place importance on being accurate, it is likely that the performance ratings will
not be accurate (Tetlock, 1985). Therefore, to ensure that those rating employee behavior
place importance on enacting accurate ratings, they must perceive that they are
accountable for doing so by their own supervisors. In other words, the organization must
create a context of accountability for rating accurately to inﬂuence the desired behavior
in their employees.

It was posited that as perceived accountability increases, so should the intention to
perform accurate ratings, as perceived accountability is indicative of greater perceived
importance of the task and greater interest. Conversely, when perceptions of being held
accountable are low, behavioral intention to perform accurate ratings should decrease. To
examine the relationship between accountability and behavioral intention, the following
hypothesis is posited:

H2: Higher perceptions of accountability will increase behavioral intention to

provide accurate performance ratings.

Just as higher perceptions of accountability should positively inﬂuence intention to rate

accurately, it should also directly inﬂuence rating behavior as accountability has been

28

found to inﬂuence observational accuracy (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995) ) and rater
decision making (Klimoski & Inks, 1990) through increasing attention and interest in the
task:

H3: Higher perceptions of accountability will be positively related to the accuracy

of performance ratings.

Though the testing of the whole TPB model with a behavioral outcome is not
overly common in the study of workplace behaviors, the attitude, perceived behavioral
control, and normative inﬂuences have been shown to individually have a relationship to
workplace behaviors (Arnold et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Thus, the
theoretical framework of the TPB was used to examine the relationship between the
context of accountability and rating behavior. In essence, the proposed model indicates
that in the case of non-volitional behaviors in organizational environments, perceived
accountability will account for unique variance in behavioral intention and actual
behavior (performance ratings) than the traditional TPB model.

H4: The TPB model that includes perceived accountability (Figure 2) will explain
more variance in the accuracy of ratings than the TPB model without perceived

accountability.

eha Vioral
Control

 

Hla

Hla

 

Hlb

 

30

H2

HIb

H3

H4b

CHAPTER III

METHOD
Chapter Overview

The current chapter discusses the research methods used in this study. First, the
pilot study and its results will be discussed. Second, the main study will be discussed,
with the research design, participant description, experimental procedures, and measures
described in detail. Finally, effectiveness of training and induction procedures will be
presented.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted prior to the main study. The pilot study served
several purposes: to assess the appropriateness of the measures to be used in the main
study, to assess the clarity of the training and induction procedures, and to examine the
utility and effectiveness of different types of induction messages. Four sessions were
conducted with participants (N = 50, 15 males, 35 females; average age 20.24 SD = 1.6)
recruited from undergraduate communication courses. Participants were assigned to one
of 4 message conditions: justiﬁcation (i.e., induction message indicated that those
participants that were not accurate would have to explain or “justify” their scores to the
experimenter, no mention of the gift card), no justiﬁcation (i.e., induction message
indicated that regardless of the accuracy of participants’ scores, no one would have to
justify their scores to the experimenter), justiﬁcation with a giﬁ card incentive, and no
justiﬁcation with a giﬁ card incentive.

A goal of performing a pilot was to assess the study measures, including the well
established attitude, perceived control, subjective norm, and intention measures and the

newly created perceived accountability and adapted accuracy measures. The measures

31

demonstrated anacceptable level of reliability (i.e. Cronbach’s Alpha of greater than .70)
with improvement shown when some items were removed. However, a number of items
were exhibiting a level of heteroskedaskity that needed to be addressed. In addition to
removing those items that were grossly non-normal, it was also determined that the
length and repetitiveness of the survey instrument might be causing a level of fatigue and
inﬂuencing participants’ responses. Items that were repetitive were removed for the main
study (e. g. “I plan to rate the customer service interactions accurately”). In addition, it
was determined that all items should be converted or presented in the same scale to
reduce possible confusion; therefore, semantic differential items were modiﬁed or
removed so that all items were Likert scaled (e. g. For me to rate the vignettes: (1)
Informative (7) Uninfonnative was altered to a Likert scaled “I think it is informative to
rate the vignettes accurately”)

Items that sought to examine the relationship of speciﬁc referent others were also
included in the pilot survey instrument. Though it was determined that the items were
superﬂuous to the subjective norms items, an interesting result was that the target
referents of the participants were primarily friends and family. A

In addition to the modiﬁcation of the survey items, the accuracy scale was
assessed and subsequently modiﬁed for the main study. The original accuracy measure
(Appendix A) was adapted from an actual employee behavior assessment tool used by a
large casino organization. It was determined that in spite of the measure being used in a
real-world organization, there were inherent confounds within the items (e.g., double-
barreled questions) and the instrument was confusing to the participants. Based on the

results of the pilot, all of the items in the original measure were broken down into their

32

individual objective behavioral components and measured on a scale of 0-4, where 0 or
an “F” indicated a failure to perform the behavior and 4 or an “A” indicated that the
behavior was performed extremely well. Twelve items were created that assessed the
objective assessment of behavioral performance and ﬁve items were included (e. g. “How
would you rate the overall greeting?”) that assessed the subjective impression of the
overall performance of each behavior, but were not used for assessment of accuracy. This
inclusion of subjective evaluation items aimed to maintain similarity to the original
instrument. The inclusion of both subjective and objective measure of performance is
consistent with recommended formats of performance appraisal instruments (e. g. Hobson
& Gibson, 1984).

Another goal of performing the pilot was to assess the clarity of training and
induction procedures. It was originally anticipated that each of the experimental sessions
would be 45 minutes in duration; however, through piloting it was determined that the
session lasted closer to one hour. It was determined that part of the time discrepancy was
the accuracy instrument that the participants were being trained to complete was
somewhat confusing and ambiguous. Furthermore, it was determined that the practice
vignettes were overly simple and were not adequate in preparing the participants for the
certiﬁcation ﬁnal ratings exercise. Therefore, different vignettes were chosen to use for
practice, while the same two vignettes were used for the certiﬁcation and accuracy
measures.

The ﬁnal goal of the pilot test was to examine what types of consequences were
necessary to induce perceived accountability. Speciﬁcally, the researcher wanted to

determine whether requiring verbal justiﬁcation was sufficient by itself to induce

33

perceived accountability and would the “threat” of not being entered into a cash prize
drawing be necessary. It was determined that there were no differences across
experimental conditions of accountability whether the money inducement was included
or not. It was determined that not only did the threat of the losing a chance to win the gift
card create the potential for a number of IRB issues and possibly induce reactance, the
threat did not add increase the strength of the accountability induction. Hence, in the
main study the induction message addressed only the consequence of having to justify

answers to the experimenter to induce perceived accountability among participants.

MAIN STUDY

Research Design

In order to investigate the role of perceived accountability within the context of
the Theory of Planned Behavior, a between subjects design with a pre- and post-test was
used. Participants (N = 174) were randomly assigned to one of 3 experimental conditions
(accountability vs. no accountability vs. control) and then trained to evaluate vignettes of
customer service interactions. In the pre- and post-tests, participants completed measures
related to the constructs of the theory of planned behavior, perceived accountability, and
a behavioral measure of performance accuracy.
Participants

A convenience sample of N = 174 undergraduate and graduate students
participated in the main study. Participants were recruited from communication courses
in the Department of Communication and courses in the School Hospitality Business at

Michigan State University (MSU). Participation in the study contributed towards

34

fulﬁllment of a research participation requirement or course credit offering. Furthermore,
participants were entered into one of three drawings for a cash prize. Thirty-six percent of
the participants were male (n = 63) and 64% were female (n = 111). Participants ranged
in age from 18 to 33 years (M = 19.63, SD = 1.91). Ninety-seven percent of all
participants were citizens of the United States, with the remaining 3% being international
students. All participants were current students at MSU, 47% of the sample was
comprised of lowerclassmen (e.g. 46 freshmen, 50 sophomores) and the remaining 53%
were upperclassmen (e.g. 46 juniors, 29 seniors, and 3 unreported). Participants were
asked to report their ethnicity, which included 119 European Americans or Whites, 20
African Americans or Blacks, 5 Asian Americans or Paciﬁc Islanders, 5 Latino(a)
Americans or Hispanics, 1 Native American, and 24 of mixed or other ethnicity (e. g.
Indian, Arab American, Korean, Chinese, and Jewish). Fifty-two percent of participants
reported that they were currently employed (n = 90) and of those, 41 participants reported
that their current position was in the foodservice or hospitality industry, and 33
participants reported that they currently worked in a customer service capacity. Sixty-four
percent of the participants reported that they had worked in a hospitality service company
(n = 111) and 74% reported that they had work experience in a position that was
primarily customer service oriented (n = 129).
Institutional Research Ethics

In adherence to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) at Michigan State University (MSU) all participants were provided a
statement of informed consent which included necessary information outlined by MSU

Appendix B. This information included: the title of the research project; a statement of

35

the purpose of the research; anticipated total participation time, a description of the risks
associated with participation; a statement describing conﬁdentiality of records associated
with identifying the participant; contact information about the research; information and
contact information about rights of human subjects; and a statement that participation is
voluntary, and refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which
the subject is otherwise entitled. After reading the statement of consent, they signed and
dated the form to indicate their consent.
Data Collection Procedures

Participants attended one of 16 experimental sessions that were held in a
classroom on campus over the course of 2 weeks. Sessions were scheduled throughout
the day and different days of the week to maximize opportunities for students to attend.
Session attendance ranged from 6 to 26 participants (M = 12.44, SD = 6.95), with most
sessions having approximately 9-1 1 participants in attendance. When participants arrived,
they were instructed to take a seat where they could clearly see the screen set up in the
front of the classroom and were given a consent form, survey packet and a card with their
assigned participant number. Once the session began, doors were closed and the
experimenter asked the participants to read and sign the consent form (Appendix B) and
to complete a note card with their contact information (name, address, phone, email) so
that the experimenter could submit their name for a cash prize drawing. Participants were
told verbally that the purpose of the research was to examine motivation and attitudes in
the workplace and to evaluate a training program for performance assessment. Participant
contact information was kept separately from the data and discarded after completion of

data collection to maintain conﬁdentiality. Each participant was assigned a code number

36

that was recorded on each survey packet to ensure that data were correctly entered for
each participant and also to ensure conﬁdentiality.

Once participants read and signed the consent form, they were asked to turn to
and read the ﬁrst page in the survey packet which provided the organizational culture
statement (Appendix C) that included the condensed history, culture, and context
customer service philosophy for a large casino company. The researcher introduced
herself to the group and brieﬂy reviewed the culture statement, highlighting main points
for the participants to consider. Participants were then asked to turn the page and read the
purpose and expectations page in the packet (Appendix D) that explained brieﬂy what the
participant could expect during the experimental session. The experimenter again
reviewed the main points of the purpose and expectations page. Speciﬁcally, she verbally
reinforced what to anticipate during the experimental session, the purpose of the exercise
they were to perform, and that participants should consider themselves to be in a
supervisory position. Participants were instructed that their ﬁnal scores would be
examined and evaluated by the researcher at the conclusion of the session and that those
with inaccurate scores may be asked to remain afterwards to explain and justify their
ratings with the experimenter. This message served as the initial induction of
accountability as the goal was to ensure that all participants perceived that there were
consequences for their participation in the study.

Once everyone had read the organizational statement, they answered questions
about the information what they had just read (Appendix E) and signed a statement that
indicated they had read and understood the organizational culture statement and the

expectations of the study. The researcher also then reviewed the correct answers to the

37

questions about the organizational statement and study expectations with the participants
in order to verbally reinforce learning. For the purposes of this study, it was essential that
the participants took the task seriously, and that there were possible consequences
associated with how they performed on the ratings task.

Training and certification phase. After completion of the induction check,
participants were instructed that they were to begin actual training on rating the vignettes.
In essence, all participants were led through a truncated version of the same training that
employees of the modeled casino company. All participants were “trained” by the
researcher to score the vignettes across 6 aspects of customer service interactions (i.e. the
greeting, attitude, use of name, anticipation of guest needs, appreciation for business and
the farewell), using an instrument adapted from previous training efforts of a large casino
organization (see Appendix B). After the 6 aspects of customer service interactions were
described to participants, they were exposed to the ﬁrst practice vignette, which was
shown on a large screen at the front of the classroom. Participants then rated the vignettes
using the evaluation instrument. The vignette was played again to provide participants
with ample opportunity to examine the vignette. To complete the ﬁrst practice vignette,
the experimenter elicited verbally the responses of the participants and provided the
correct answers. This procedure was repeated for a second practice vignette to ensure that
participants understood evaluation criteria and how to apply them correctly.

After repeating the training on the two vignettes, participants were “certiﬁed”
using a third vignette. It was important that individuals be trained and certiﬁed (i.e., able
to perform at a speciﬁed standard) so that they all could demonstrate a minimum ability

to rate customer service interactions accurately. To be certiﬁed participants had to score

38

at least 9/ 12 (75%) behavior items correctly; all participants was well above the
minimum (M = .96 , SD = .061) with most participants scoring 100% correctly. The
purpose of the certiﬁcation was to ensure that all participants could demonstrate a
minimum ability to assess the behaviors. If there had been scores less than 75% their data
would not have been included in the analysis.

Pre-test phase with accountability induction. After training and certiﬁcation,
participants completed a pre-test survey (Appendix F) with measures of attitude,
subjective norm, perceived control, behavioral intention and perceived accountability.
Once they completed the pre-test survey, participants completed a word ﬁnd distraction
task as a strategy to reduce carryover from pre—test measures and to also provide an
opportunity for the second accountability induction to occur. Speciﬁcally, while
participants completed the distraction task, the experimenter behaved as though she had a
telephone call and left the room for one minute where the induction message was given to
the participants in the form of an overheard scripted conversation between two
confederates. In the control condition, the experimenter remained in the room. In the no-
accountability condition, an enlisted confederate, once the experimenter left the room,
told another confederate in a voice loud enough for all participants to hear, that her
roommate participated in this study last week and that it did not matter how accurate the
mrticipants were: no one had to stay later and justify their answers to the experimenter.
In the accountability condition, an enlisted confederate, once the experimenter left the
room, told another confederate in a voice loud enough for participants to hear that her
roommate participated in this study last week and that it did matter how accurate the

Larticipants were: the roommate had to stay an extra 10 minutes and explain her ratings

39

to the experimenter. In the control condition, the participant simply left the room and no
confederate conversation occurred.

Post-test phase. Following the distraction task and accountability induction,
participants completed the next section of the survey packet, the post-test portions of the
survey which included the same items as the pre-test survey. Once participants had
completed the survey items, they completed a second distraction task comprised of a
word ﬁnd activity. After approximately three minutes of completing the distraction task,
participants viewed a ﬁnal vignette twice and evaluated it using the same evaluation
instrument. Participants also then completed demographic and work experience questions
(Appendix G). Participants submitted the survey to the experimenter, and in all
conditions the experimenter examined the ﬁnal ratings page to ensure that all items were
completed and handed the participant a slip of paper (Appendix H) that instructed the
participants to not discuss this experiment with anyone, and that they should expect an
email debrieﬁng them in no more than 3 weeks. An example of the debrieﬁng email can
be found in Appendix 1.

Experimental Materials

Vignettes of service interactions. Rather than create videos for this study, portions
of a training video for casino customer service employees were used to train participants
on how to rate the performance of employees. The video used previously for customer
service employees, included those employees who work with guests directly as part of
their workday (i.e., security guards, hotel receptionists, beverage servers, bartenders, slot
attendants, table games personnel, and restaurant servers). Each vignette in the video

consisted of one complete customer service interaction between an employee and a

40

 

customer and each was approximately 30-45 seconds in duration. In the videotaped
interactions, actors portrayed employees and guests in scenes around a casino that are
common to casino guests (e. g. a security guard greeting a lost guest). These carefully
scripted, professionally produced videos included actors performing interactions that
vary in performance quality from excellent to poor according to the organizations
pre-determined criteria of customer service quality. These criteria were based on six
basic behavior markers that have been shown to affect a customer’s perception of overall
service quality: 1) the greeting, 2) portrayal of an upbeat and positive attitude, 3) use of
customer’s name, 4) anticipation of needs, 5) appreciation for the customer’s business,
and 6) the farewell. While videotaped interactions is not the same as viewing the
behavior in the organizational environment, Ryan, Daum, Bauman, Grisez, Mattimore,
Nalodoka, & McCormick (1995) found that viewing performance on videotape rather
than directly does not affect the accuracy of ratings.
Measures

The survey packets consisted of items that measure Theory of Planned Behavior
constructs (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral intention)
for the behavior of being accurate in rating the videotaped interactions. TPB items were
adapted from previous literature based on Ajzen’s (1991) measurement design
recommendations, for intemal consistency, question formation and ordering of items
(Francis, Eccles, Johnston, Walker, Grimshaw, F oy, Kaner, Smith, & Bonetti, 2004).
Accuracy, and perceived accountability were also measured along with demographic

information. Unless reported otherwise, all items were measured on a 7-point scale.

41

Furthermore, standardized alpha coefﬁcients are reported throughout. Measurement items

and scales are detailed in Table 1 and Appendix G.

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. .5. SEE. 9:83:80

cm. 3.. 88.8%? 05 mo 3288 5: 2 8838 on 8 :83 _

ow. mm. .8883? 05 no 8288 .9: 2 8838 820: :o 882 _

mm. mm. .80 _ 80p 05 828882 0228 8:883 05 88 8 82.8 weobm 8 008.: E3 _

S. 3. .58838 888%? 805 888 2 80: >8 20 8 “0:82 _ .238:—

wh. 2.. 83:. 9:82:20

mm. 3.. .88 $288 25 2 =03 8.5.80: f: 8:838 0n E3 _ 85 0.25 _

me. me. .288 $28.. 25 22 88:58 am:— 08 805 85 .08 _

2.. oo. .88 25 :0 E020: _ :03 30: :o 8: 08290 2 wEow 2 85088 00—: .08 _

3.. Se. 88:88 2: 282. 8 08: 8 8098 _

on. 3. .58838 888%? 88: 88 8.3: _ .2 80803830 08 805 85 8098 _ 2.385.003.

on. ov. 80:8 8 038308 on 88: 02w _ 8282 8: 85 03:8. _ $020020.—

wh. on. 83?. 9:03:80

no. mm. 58838 88833 05 88 8 028.822 2 2 x25 _

5V. 2.. .8288 b: 2 8838 8:09 2 88:3 0.8 0205 0—25 _

2». 3. 8.28882 0228 20888.3 no 8288 5: 2 8838 8. 8 0.: 22 voow 20> 2 z

3. a. 58838 828882 0228 8:583 05 88 _ 85 8: 8 88:82 2 2

on. 3. 682032 58838 888:8.» 05 88 _ 8o: .8 850.3 288:. 8: 8.02. = 02552

2.. Eu 22¢. 9:85:80

v». S. 58838 828882 0228 8:083 05 88 E30 _ 8 .0883 _ .2 85 8:03:80 :8 _

K. 2.. 58838 8.28882 0228 208083 88 8 @0238 2 8.3 “03880:: _

No. mm. .8288 5: 2 8838 MEX 20>: 38:3 0.8: _ .9330

ms. «0. 508.308 828882 0228 .8383 88 2 03: :8 _ 320020.—

mw. an. 02—7.. 9:03:20

:.. .w. 803:8.» 05 828.. 2 8838 8. 2 88832 2 2 85 0.25 8:05 5: .8: 8:2

3. 3.. .8288 b: 2 8838 0a 238 _ 0—25 8: 8 8888:: 0.8 8.3 0—30: 832

cc. 3.. 8.28882 0228 .8383 «o 828.— »E 2 8838 0: 8 8: :83 233 2.53 8 800: .9: 0—25 _

2.. mo. .58838 828882 0228 208880 88 2 :8: .3 2 0.: :83 E33 3080.. _ 802.3 0.33 82.3 0.30a— 8.82

8. S. .3 _ 88 8 838885 838 208983 88 8 8.8 2:2: _ 8:: 08 9 .5882 28 2? 0.88 82 8:00.38
88.8.0.— 88.0.5

 

36$.»th EEG 3&7ng Ru hQNQkaﬁk LO\.%N.C.-.~QQ.-®¥ “SB BMQNBBQN LOFQQHN ..N NNQQR

43

TPB Measures

Subjective norm. To measure subjective norm, using a revised version of Ajzen
(1991) items. Each participant was asked to indicate their level of agreement strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) with 5 statements about how important others in their
life would think about being accurate rating the service interactions (e. g. “Most people
who are important to me think I should strive to rate customer service interactions as best
as I can” “People whose work values I respect. . .”, “I think my peers at work would. . .”).

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis of the revised scale was conducted and the model

was found to be valid in both the pre-test and post-test measures. For example, in terms

of the pre-test, the one factor model exhibited a good ﬁt, 386, N = 174) = 13.96, p =

.016, xz/df = 2.792, CFI = .964, RMSEA = .10. Moreover, the Cronbach coefﬁcients for

the revised scale measuring subjective norms (a = .79, pre-test; u = .85, post-test) were
reliable.

Perceived behavioral control. In order to measure perceived behavioral control
four questions using a 4 item Likert type scale, each participant was asked to indicate
their level of agreement strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) with statements about
how they perceived their ratings were with their ability and control. Example of items
include: “I am able to rate customer service interactions accurately”; “1 have control over
being accurate in my ratings”; “I understand what is required to rate the customer service

interactions accurately.” The measurement model was found to be valid for both the pre-

test and post-test. For example, the post-test exhibited a good ﬁt, x2(2, N = 174) = 3.822.

44

. s'T

 

p = .148, xZ/df= 1.911, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .073.The scale was found to be reliable

for both the pre-test (a =.77) and the post-test (a = .79).

Attitude. To measure panicipants’ attitudes towards rating the customer service
interactions accurately, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) to 5 statements regarding their attitude towards
rating the customer service vignettes accurately. Examples of items include: “It is
important that I rate the customer service interactions accurately”; “It is very good for me
to be accurate in my ratings of customer service interactions,” “I like to be accurate in my

ratings.” The measurement model was found to be valid for both the pre-test and post-

 

test. For example, the post-test exhibited a good ﬁt, x2(5, N = 174) = 5.844, p = .322,

xz/df = 1.169, CFI = .996, RMSEA = .091.The scale was found to be reliable for both the

pre-test (a =.76) and the post-test (a = .78).

Perceived accountability. A six item seven-point Likert-type scale has been
created to tap perceptions of accountability anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree ( 7). Examples of items include “I expect to justify my ratings;” “I believe that the
ratings I give must be acceptable to others,” and “I feel like someone is going to evaluate
me on how well I perform this task.” A conﬁrmatory factor analysis supported the model

for both the pre-test and post-test. For example, for the post-test the exhibited a good ﬁt

x2(9, N = 174) = 4.860, p = .352, xz/df= 1.109, CFI = .996, RMSEA = .025. The scale

for perceived accountability was found to be reliable for both the pre-test (a =.70) and the
post-test (a = .78). Conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CF A) was also performed on the three

TPB constructs and perceived accountability to evaluate the discreteness of the items that

45

measured the subjective norms. perceived control, attitude, and perceived accountability.
C FA results supported that perceived accountability was indeed a distinct construct from
the TPB.

Behavioral intention. Four Likert type items were used to assess the participants’
intentions to perform accurate ratings. Each participant was asked to indicate their level
of agreement strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) with statements about their
intentions to be accurate in rating the customer service vignettes. Examples of items
include: “I plan to be accurate in my ratings the vignettes”; “I intend to do my best in
rating these vignettes accurately”; and “I will make a strong effort to rate the customer
service interactions the best I can.” The scale was found to be reliable for both the pre-

test (a =.90) and the post-test (a = .91). The measurement model was found to be valid

. 2
for both the pre-test and post-test. For example, the pre-test exhiblted a adequate ﬁt, x (2,

N = 174) = 11.127, p = .004, for: 5.563, CFI = .980, RMSEA = .162.

Accuracy. The difference of the participants‘ score from the true score of the
videotaped interactions determined the level of accuracy. The accuracy measure
(Appendix E) consisted of 18 (12 objective and 5 subjective) items that ask the
participant to assess how the service provider in the vignette performed up to the
expressed standard, from (0) behavior absent to (4) behavior performed quite well. The
measure includes the standard and what behavior is necessary to achieve the given score
to reduce confusion. An example of accuracy questions include “How well did the
employee initiate the greeting with the guest?” and “How well did the employee offer

friendly verbal greeting to the guest?”

46

The true score for the vignettes was calculated via an assessment of what the
vignettes were designed to portray as well as previous expert ratings that identify the
correct answers. An index of accuracy items was created to determine how accurate
participants were in their assessments of vignettes according to the true score of the 12
objective items. A perfect accuracy score would be zero deviations from the true score or
100 percent accurate on the 12 objectively scored items. The accuracy scores ranged from
.5 to 1.0 (i.e. 50% to 100% correct) (M = .78, SD = .102). In other words, greater scores
meant increased accuracy in ratings.

Demographics. Participants were also asked to provide basic demographic
information such as age, gender, ethnic background, and level of education. They also
provided a brief description of their work experience, including work experience in a
customer service capacity, supervisory experience, and current work status as they may
be important covariates to consider (Appendix 1).

Induction checks. A series of questions were asked to ensure that individuals read
and understood the Organizational Culture Statement (e. g., “How many key attributes
have been found to be important to an excellent customer service interaction?”)
Additionally, it was important to assess the induction of perceived accountability across
conditions. Thus, a question assessed whether or not participants perceived they would
have to justify their answers to the experimenter (e.g., “True or False, contingent upon
the accuracy of my ﬁnal ratings score participants may be asked to justify their answers
verbally to the experimenter?”) as well as requirement to sign a statement that conﬁrmed
that they had read and understood the organizational culture statement and expectations

sheet. Please see Appendix D for the complete list of questions.

47

Effectiveness of Training. In order to control for ability, part of this experimental
design included a certiﬁcation or pre-test. Though there was no speciﬁc hypothesis that
addressed the differences between the pre-test and post-test results, but analyses were
performed to determine whether or not the transfer of training by participants was
effective. The results of the certiﬁcation as discussed previously were very high in that
the average score of all participants was well above the minimum standard (M = .96 , SD
= .061) with most participants scoring 100% correctly, which is an indicator that training
was successful. The ﬁnal ratings task yielded a greater range of and signiﬁcantly lower
scores, they ranged from .5 to 1.0 (i.e. 50% to 100% correct) (M = .78, SD = .102) with
most participants scoring .83 or 83% correct. Based on these results, the training
component of the experiment was deemed successful.

Effectiveness of the induction. Unfortunately, despite the induction being effective
in the pilot, during the main study, it appears that there was no signiﬁcant difference
between the accountability and no accountability conditions. The largest difference
between groups for the post-test mean of perceived accountability was found between the
control group (N = 56) and those found in the no-accountability condition (N = 60)
exhibited. Scores in the control group exhibited higher means in perceived accountability
(M = 4.27, SD = 1.27) than the no accountability condition (M = 3.77, SD = 1.40), which
was in the opposite direction than what was planned. Though there were differences, they
were small (t =2.012, df = 114, p< .05) and the overall difference between conditions was

not signiﬁcant (see Table 3 in Appendix L).

48

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter ﬁrst presents steps taken to prepare the data for analysis including
data screening, data preparation, and measurement model testing. Then, results for each
of the hypotheses will be described. Finally, post hoc analyses were also conducted to
examine alternative models not hypothesized in the original study.

Data Screening and Preparation

Missing data. Prior to analyses, the data were examined for missing values using
the missing value analysis (MVA) option in SPSS 15.0, which pinpoints missing values
and assesses the pattern of missing values across all cases. The MVA indicated that data
were complete and no missing values existed.

Normality. Data were ﬁrst analyzed for univariate normality of distributions
(Agresti & Finlay, 1997) as they are integrally important to the validity of statistical
assumptions (McClendon, 1994). Two indicators of univariate normality are skewness
and kurtosis. The results reveal that some of the data in the main study were
heteroskedastic (i.e. univariate nonnormal) whereby skewness ranged outside the normal
range (i.e., between -1 and +1). Further, kurtosis of items also ranged outside the
acceptable range (i.e., -3.00 to +3.00) In order to address these problems, transformations
of affected variables were performed so that assumptions of normality were not violated
when conducting data analyses. Testing was performed on both transformed and
untransformed data; it was found that the variables did not exhibit signiﬁcant behavior

differences prior to or after transformation.

49

Testing the measurement model. Second, a conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CF A)
was performed on the variables in the models including: attitude, perceived behavior
control, perceived accountability, subjective norms, and intentions in order to assess the
adequacy of the measurement model by using the AMOS structural equation modeling
program. Final CFA results were reported previously in the methods section along with
the explanation of speciﬁc items to measure constructs.

Testing Hypotheses

To compare the TPB and the hypothesized model including perceived
accountability, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to conduct complete and
simultaneous tests of all the relationships (Tabachnick & F idell, 2001). First, the model
was speciﬁed (see Figure 2), and then the measurement and structural models were
estimated, evaluated, and modiﬁed (Anderson and Gerbing, 1991). Evaluation of the
adequacy of the TPB model was based on several criteria, some of which concern the
model as a whole (e. g., ﬁt indices) and some of which relate to the ﬁt of individual
parameters (path coefﬁcients) (Byme, 2001). Speciﬁcally, to test the ﬁt of the
measurement and structural models, the appropriate cut-offs of the ﬁt indices offered by

Hu and Bentler (1998) as well as Knoke and Borhnstedt (2002) including Chi-Square

. . . . . 2
(non-Slgniﬁcant values desued). the who of chi-square to degrees of freedom (x /df; less

than 3 desired), Comparative Fit Index (CF I; greater than .90 shows good ﬁt) (Bentler,
1990), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; greater than .10 shows
poor ﬁt), were utilized. Furthermore, it was the ﬁt of the individual parameters that
provided the test for two of the hypotheses. The zero-order correlation between all the

variables tested in the TPB model including perceived accountability are presented in

50

Table 2. Regression analyses were performed (see Table 4 in Appendix M) to examine
the path coefﬁcients. Path coefﬁcients were assessed in regards to the magnitude,
direction, and statistical signiﬁcance (i.e. p < .05) with hypothesized relationships. The

following section will describe the results of speciﬁc testing of each hypothesis.

51

2.30me E 932 £2355

5. Va .1an. Va ...
.=o:m::£m:mb 9 corn m=o_§>on Emucﬁm use mama—2 +

 

 

 

 

— ..&2. m3. 112. ml. m:. 31. ..&.2. .52. .52. :l. *mMZ. N25 wwd hash—594% N~
ma. 1.3%. aimmm. "LON. 3&3. 00o. autumn. sin—cm. **mmm. we. *iuom. v.9 no.0 act—.02: :
wk. 3.55% ELLN. simmv. *NhT two—v. .Ibmw. 1.34». *__N. fwmmv. mmwd N6 0—5334‘ c—
an. *mb_. fwmvm. *NmZ. 1,53% 3.6mm. **wa. wwod *Lthm. ﬁned mmd 35:00 EQZQQLQA— &
mh. .Inomm. 35. 2.0 TRON. *wt. “Inwoh. .1.wa om:— hoé E_—_Aa~==cuo< w
QO>mQULQAm
mm. hue. .ILMM. .3..ch **.\..wN. .Iﬁwm. elbow. w_._ wvﬁ mELOZ ozuoossm h
HWQUIHmOA—
— Ito. *mw_. 350—. Vmo. **m©—. God 006 acmusuwztonvw
ca. 1.3%. .3..me E _. **ovM. To and act—5:: m
or. 355$ **_NN. sin—0v. wood ﬁfe ot==3< 9
Nb. vmo. “gown. Ngd wmé _c.5:cU ﬁo>moeom m
E... **:N. mm; XXV b___£5==cuu< N
323.5;
2.. mo; mum 2.:ch ozuooqaam — .
N— — — A: a a b 0 m 9 M N — .K—m +2 _ amen-oun—
«mouuumcm «mowuohn— 035:5»

 

$633.5; 335m. S\8=m.§.\\meb 38 25:33er .wee.:e.~>mQ Bgeheaum £233 .N ﬁgs

52

Hypotheses

Results of Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1a predicted that the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) constructs (e.g. Attitude, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Control)
would be predictive of behavioral intention to perform accurate ratings. In addition,
Hypothesis 1b also predicted that the TPB constructs would be predictive of increased
accuracy of ratings. The results of the regression analyses indicate that behavioral

intention was positively inﬂuenced by the overall model of all three TPB constructs

2 .
F(3,173) = 46.799, p< .001 , adj. R = .443, p < .001. Regression results are presented 1n

Table 3 in (Appendix M) and the results using SEM of the modeled relationships are
illustrated in Figure 4.
As for ratings accuracy, the regression analysis testing model including all three

of the TPB constructs as a direct predictor of increased ratings accuracy was not

. . . 2 , .
s1gn1ﬁcant, F(3,173) = 1.935, adj. R = .016, p = .126. Therefore, Hypothes1s 1b was not

supported.

Results of Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 posited that higher perceptions of
accountability will increase behavioral intention to provide accurate ratings. The results
of the regression analysis without the TPB variables indicate that the factor perceived

accountability was a weak, but signiﬁcant predictor of behavioral intentions to rate more

accurately F(2,174) = 7.228, p < .05, adj. R2: .035. (B = .202, p < .05). Thus, hypothesis

2 was supported.
Results of Hypothesis 3. It was predicted in Hypothesis 3 that perceptions of

accountability would be positively related to the accuracy of behavioral ratings. The

53

results of the regression analyses indicated that perceived accountability was not a
signiﬁcant predictor of increased ratings accuracy F(2,174) = 1.506, p = .221 (B = .135, p
= .221). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Results of Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 posited that the TPB model that included
perceived accountability would explain more variance in ratings accuracy than the TPB
model without perceived accountability. Two methods of comparison were used to
determine if this hypothesis was supported assessment of the path coefﬁcients and the ﬁt
indices of the models in SEM. Despite the regression analyses of the individual path of
perceived accountability conﬁrming a signiﬁcant relationship behavioral intention (See
Hypothesis 2), when perceived accountability was included with the TPB variables, the
relationship was not exhibited in the complete model (Figure 4).

The direction and magnitude of four of the seven standardized path coefﬁcients
were consistent with the hypotheses (see Figure 4).The results of the model test that the

proposed model that extended the TPB to include perceived accountability did not ﬁt the

data well {(9, N = 174) = 108.356, p = .000, xz/df= 12.040, CFI = .513, RMSEA = .253

in part due to the high multicollinearity of the TPB predictors.

54

Figure 3: Tested model with path coefﬁcients

 

Attitude

 

 

 

  
 

7 2
R‘= .452*** R = ~033

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Norms Behavioral Accuracy

 

 

  

 

.19“

 

 

 

Intention -l5* ,,,,,,

  

 

 

.....
......
....
..--
.....
.....
......
....
..c-
..
.....
.a-
.-
.......

Perceived
Behavioral
Control

_..¢
.......
.....
......
.......

 

 

 

 

Perceived
Accountability

 

 

 

Note: {(9, N = 174) = 107.312, p = .000, xz/df= 11.924, CFI = .518. RMSEA = .251
*p <.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

By examining the relationship of perceived accountability with both intention and
accuracy, it does not appear to be a signiﬁcant predictor of either variable and therefore

Hypothesis 4 is not supported. Examination of the ﬁt indices of the model with the
inclusion of perceived accountability: x2(9, N = 174) = 107.312, p = .000, xz/df = 11.924,
CF I = .518, RMSEA = .251. The results of the model without the variable of perceived
accountability were as follows: x2(5, N = 174) = 78.873, p = .000, xz/df== 15.775, CFI =

.589, RMSEA = .292. Although comparison of the ﬁt indices provides ambiguous results,

2
as the model including accountability yielded improved RMSEA and x /df outcomes, the

more parsimonious model without the additional variable demonstrated an improvement

on the CFI index. However, hypothesis 4 was not supported.

55

Post hoc Analyses

In addition to testing the previous hypotheses, post hoc analyses were also
conducted to further investigate alternative models for the data. First, an alternative
model that addressed the multicollinearity of the TPB variables was analyzed. Then, an
altemative model that identiﬁes accountability as mediated through the TPB constructs
was tested. Finally, a model that identiﬁes accountability as a predictor of the TPB
constructs was tested.

Post hoc Model I. As found in previous studies, there is a relationship between
the TPB variables and covariances are to be expected, however the exact relationships
tend to vary from behavior to behavior. Attitude generally has a relationship with both

perceived control and subjective norms, and therefore the inclusions of these

. . . . 2
relat10nsh1ps 1mproved the overall ﬁt of the proposed model (Figure 5), x (7, N = 174) =
22.692. p = .002, xz/df= 3.242, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .114

Figure 4. Post hoc 1: Proposed TPB model with the inclusion ofPerceived
Accountability and Covariance relationships

 

Attitude

 

2 2
.29*** .23" R = .41 R = 0

 

 

 

.39m

 

 

 

Behavioral Accuracy

Subjective _ 1 6*
Intentlon -

Norms

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived
.33*** Behavioral
Control

 

 

 

Perceived
Accountability

 

 

 

’7
Note: x2 (7, N = 174) = 22.692. p = .002. x‘/df= 3.242, CFI = .923. RMSEA = .114
*p <.05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

56

Post Hoc Model 2. A second post hoc model was proposed to examine the
relationship that perceived accountability should have on the TPB variables in that by
deﬁnition, accountability focuses on the tangible or imminent outcomes associated with
performing a behavior. As stated before, subjective norms are inﬂuenced by a person’s
normative belief, the perceived expectation of their important others regarding the
behavior and their own motivation or pressure to perform a behavior. The perception of
accountability should inﬂuence subjective norms in that the level of perceived level of
social consequence should be indicative of the certainty of or the perceptions that a
person feels about their referent others beliefs about the behavior. Perceived
accountability should also be predictive of a person’s attitude, or the extent to which the
action or behavior is judged to be positive or negative. A person’s level of perceived
accountability should be indicative of the person’s belief that performance of the
behavior is positive or negative. Perceived behavioral control, or a person’s beliefs about
available resources, opportunities, barriers, ability to perform a behavior ought to be
inﬂuenced by a person’s level of perceived accountability. Contexts of accountability
should inﬂuence the level of control that a person feels about performing a behavior,
whether or not performance of the behavior is voluntary or under their own control.
Therefore a model that included perceived accountability and the theory of planned
behavior variables was tested (Figure 6), but with accountability included as a predictor
of the three TPB constructs rather than having a direct relationship with behavioral

intention.

57

.So. v 644...... .8. v m 1.2? m ..
.95. 1 $9.? $6. 1 Eu .83 15% 53. u a .mamd 1?: u z .0va “262

 

6.5.50
Eowiﬁom
338.5;

         

 

 

 

LN.

 

 

:2285 mctoz 4.2km. b. _ m E88
35323 038033 . ._.o. H <
32023

   

:3.” N

 

 

 

$33.23: mag \e 35$me 3 .3 \SNSSNSQPSV Nemimcxmm .N we: Eek .m. 3:me

58

The inclusion of perceived accountability improved the ﬁt indices of the model of TPB

constructs x2(6, N = 174) = 12.593, p = .050, xz/df= 2.099, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .080

and strengthened the relationship between intention and accuracy.

59

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

The buzzword accountability, or lack of, is often touted as the blame for failures
in many organizations in that employees are simply not being held accountable to
proscribed standards. Ubiquitous to social organizations, accountability is not a simple
idea to deﬁne or to operationalize. Furthermore, gaining understanding of what motivates
employees to perform certain behaviors has long been the source of lay academic inquiry,
a holy grail of sorts. The critical role that managers play in the workplace with the level
of impact that they have on the motivation of employees and their potential to inﬂuence
the behavior of front-line employees is critical to the success of many organizations,
particularly those employees whose primary job entails customer service interactions.
However, if accountability is not communicated or enforced, employees may be less
motivated to adhere to organizational policies. This research aimed to not only gain
understanding of the concept of accountability and create a perceived accountability
scale, it also sought to test and extend the Theory of Planned Behavior with the inclusion
of the perceived accountability construct and, more importantly, the inclusion of an
objective measure of behavior.

The current experimental study examined how accountability systems and their
implementation inﬂuence the perceptions of accountability, motivation, and behavior of
those who were required to assess the behavior of others. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of 3 experimental conditions (accountability vs. no accountability vs.
control) and then trained to evaluate vignettes of customer service interactions. In the pre

and posttests, participants completed measures related to the constructs of the theory of

60

planned behavior, perceived accountability, and accuracy. Both structural equation
modeling and regression analyses tested the utility of a theory of planned behavior (TPB)
model and a modiﬁed TPB model that includes perceived accountability in the area of
ratings accuracy.

First, an overview of the results from each of the four hypotheses will be
discussed followed by alternative models posed by the post hoc analyses. Then
theoretical contributions and practical implications for the TPB in the organizational
context will be discussed. Finally, limitations of the current research will be identiﬁed
and directions for future research will be proffered.

Interpretation of Results

Generally, the results of the main study supported the model of the constructs
identiﬁed by the theory of planned behavior better than the same model with the
inclusion of perceived accountability. However, subsequent analyses indicated that there
was indeed a relationship, albeit a weak one, between accuracy of scores and perceptions
of accountability. Indeed, most of the variables of interest were not signiﬁcant predictors
of rating accuracy success and illustrates that rating accuracy is indeed a complex
behavior worthy of more inquiry. Furthermore, by including an objective measure of
behavior the results illustrated that, at least for the complex behavior of rating accuracy,
the intention behavior connection is somewhat weaker than in previous inquiries. A more
in-depth discussion of key ﬁndings is presented below.

Hypothesis 1. Similar to other complex behaviors like occupational intentions and
vocational decisions, rating accuracy and rating decision making is a complex behavior

that is impacted by many factors. This study sought to perform a test of the TPB model

61

and hypothesized that the TPB constructs would be predictive of both behavioral
intentions to be accurate as well as actual ratings behavior. Consistent with the
assumptions of the attitude-behavioral relationship posited by the TPB (Aj zen, 1991) this
hypothesis was partially supported. Furthermore, results indicated that behavioral

intention was indeed inﬂuenced'by subjective norms, attitude, and perceived behavioral

. 2 . . . . .
control (adj. R = .452, p < .001). However, the strength of the 1ntent1on-behav1or 11nk

was not as strong as meta-analyses have indicated in that the average correlation for that
relationship is r = .53 (Sheppard, Hartwick & Warshaw, 1988), and the current intention-
behavior link was a modest r = .17. Other meta-analyses put the proportion of variance in
behavior explained by intention between 19% and 38% of the variance (Armitage &
Conner, 2001). This weaker than predicted relationship between intention and behavior
could be explained by the fact that an objective and non-dichotomous measure of the
behavior was used in lieu of a self-report, estimation intention, or goal measure.

Another explanation for the weak intention — behavior link is that fatigue may
have played a role in the manner in which the participants indicated their level of
intention. The means of all intention items did not vary a great deal, and scores ranged
from 4 to 7 with means ranging from (M = 6.61, SD = .614) to (M = 6.82, SD = .417),
indicating perhaps a strong social desirability effect. In other words, it is not surprising
that participants reported a strong intention to try and rate the vignettes accurately
because individuals typically seek to do things correctly. However, actual performance
on a behavioral task where the measurement of the behavior indicates better or worse

performance, is quite different than previous measures of behavior which may be

62

dichotomous in nature (e. g., the behavior was performed or not performed) and based on
self-report.

If the case was that everyone had strong intention to be accurate, and
subsequently they were not found to be performing more accurate ratings, there might be
other inﬂuences of behavior at play. A person may believe that they are able to perform
the behavior (i.e. perceived control), that they think it is good to perform the behavior
(i.e. attitude), that important others think it is good to perform the behavior well (i.e.
subjective norms), and they intend to make accurate ratings (i.e. behavioral intention), but
despite, they still may not perform the behavior well. Given that all participants were
trained and demonstrated a minimum ability to perform the ratings and to be accurate
during the certiﬁcation portion, a lack of ability is not likely to be an explanation for the
differences in accuracy scores.

Hypothesis 2 & 3. In addition to the test of the TPB variables, this study sought
to explore the construct of perceived accountability and its inﬂuence on intention and
behavior. Hypothesis 2 posited that perceptions of accountability would inﬂuence
positively the intention to perform accurate ratings while Hypothesis 3 posited that
perceived accountability would positively inﬂuence actual ratings behavior. Though the
hypothesized relationship between perceived accountability and intention was supported,
there was no signiﬁcant relationship with ratings accuracy. Further, the relationship
between perceived accountability was signiﬁcant when examined holding other

predictors constant, however this relationship was non-existent when incorporated into

the TPB model.

63

It is interesting that the relationships were indeed so low in that perceived
accountability is a construct that has nonnative and attitude related aspects and therefore
should behave similarly to the TPB factors. The results indicating very little relationship
to intention and ratings behavior provides support to the discriminant validity of the
perceived accountability construct from the TPB exogenous factors. Furthermore, results
indicated that none of the variables of interest (i.e. TPB and Perceived Accountability)
were predictive of increased ratings accuracy making it possible that regardless of the
perceptions that the participant expressed about the task, no perception was predictive of
the level of the participant’s performance.

Perceptions of accountability may be inﬂuenced by results of past behavior (i.e.
whether or not the person was or was not held accountable by others for performing the
behavior). The ﬁnding that past behavior can be highly predictive of future intention and
behavioral outcomes (e.g. Ajzen, 2002; Silk, Westerrnan, Kingsley, & Mackert, 2005) is
important to consider when examining perceptions of accountability. When a behavior
has already been enacted, a person has a concrete idea of what sorts of consequences are
associated with performance or non-performance of the target behavior, thus reducing
uncertainty as to the outcome evaluation of performance of that behavior.

Hypothesis 4 and Post Hoc Model I. The results of the test of the Theory of
Planned Behavior model with the inclusion of perceived accountability indicated that
perceived accountability did not add signiﬁcant explanatory power to the model
predicting rating accuracy. Given that both theoretically and visible in the results that
there were signiﬁcant relationships between the TPB variables and a relationship between

subjective norms and perceived accountability, a model that included those relationships

64

was proposed and tested. Results indicate that this model was an improvement to the
model without covariance relationships included and ﬁts the data well. However,
perceived accountability was still not found to add signiﬁcant explanatory variance to the
model as the TPB variables provided strong relationships to behavioral intention. As
stated before, the ﬁnding that the perceived accountability construct, though related to the
TPB variables, does not inﬂuence behavioral intention in the same way is evidence that
the perceived accountability construct is tapping different perceptions in attitudes.

Post hoc model 2. Given the strong relationships between the TPB variables and
perceived accountability variable, a second post hoc model was proposed to examine the
logical role perceived accountability played in inﬂuencing TPB variables. This model
takes into account the contextual ﬁarnework in those perceptions of being held
accountable should inﬂuence the salience of attitudes, subjective norms and level of
perceived control. This model was found to best ﬁt the data and the relationship between
intention and behavior was strengthened.

Theoretical and‘Practical Implications

The theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed in the following
section including a discussion for the implications of the theory of planned behavior and
the implications of the perceived accountability instrument to the study of organizational
communication.

Implications

Implications for Theory of Planned Behavior. The results presented” in the in the
main study have some important implications for the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,

1991). First, the results demonstrate support for the use of the TPB framework in

65

workplace-type behaviors like rating behavior in so much that the TPB constructs were
predictive of behavioral intention to make accurate ratings. Second, the results of the
main study demonstrate that when using a non-dichotomous and objective measure of
behavior, the relationship between intention and behavior may not be as strong as
previously found with studies that utilize self-reports, modiﬁed intention measures or
dichotomous measures of behavior. This result is especially important when performance
of the target behavior can vary in terms of quality or quantity (i.e. how well the behavior
is performed) as it may not be sufﬁcient always to only measure intention or to measure a
behavior as an either performed or did not perform. By measuring behavior differently
that what is traditionally performed in TPB studies the results indicate that modiﬁcations
of behavioral measures might aid in gaining understanding about the attitude-behavior
connection. Also, the results that indicate that perceived accountability can be a predictor
of the TPB constructs may aid in future tests of the theory, especially in conjunction with
the use of past behavior being a predictor of future behavior.

The incorporation of perceived accountability as a predictor of the TPB variables
might be of particular usefulness of those studying workplace behaviors in that
perceptions of accountability may be a strong indicator of how salient or important a
person interprets the organizational pressures to perform certain behaviors. Finally, the
results indicating that perceptions of accountability inﬂuence TPB variables might
encourage researchers to examine those variables that might engender feelings of
accountability. Put another way, personality traits may play a role in how people interpret
contexts of accountability and subsequently impact their attitudes and behavior. For

example, a person that is high on conscientiousness or self-monitoring may perceive the

66

expectations of others as more salient or important than those who are low and
subsequently may feel increased inﬂuence of the implementation of accountability
systems. Therefore, in addition to the traditional personality testing that many
organizations already implement in the selection process, it may also be important to
examine what impacts existing and potential employees’ attitudes and behavior.

Implications of accountability. The results of this study adds to the body of
organizational literature in terms of the importance of accountability, as well as offering
an integrated explication and validated instrument. First, perceived accountability was
further explicated and a perceived accountability instrument was created and validated.
The results indicate that not only does this instrument have convergent validity it also
demonstrates divergent validity in that it indeed tapping different attitudes than the TPB
measures. Though perceived accountability was not found to be signiﬁcant in accounting
for unique variance, it is heavily related to TPB constructs — providing another path for
inﬂuencing those constructs. In other words, accountability is important and ﬁguring out
strategies that make employees feel accountable. The instrument created for this study
offers scholars another avenue to pursue in gaining understanding of contextual
inﬂuences on behavior. Accountability has both positive and negative outcomes; it can
therefore be a double edged sword that can be both the carrot or the stick in terms of
motivation.

Practical Implications. The results of this study suggest a number of practical
implications to be considered. First, as stated before, the test of the complete TPB model
including an objective measure of behavior is not typically performed. The results that

the intention behavior relationship is not a strong as previous ﬁndings suggests that future

67

research should consider utilizing an objective measure of outcome behavior if possible.
It is important to the study of behavior to understand that with some behaviors, intention
may not be necessarily predictive of behavior. Perhaps by including an objective measure
of behavior, better tests of the inﬂuences can be found and put into use. Second, the
explication of perceived accountability as well as instrument creation can offer scholars
another way to test contextual inﬂuences on motivation and behavior in social
organizations.

Perceived accountability, as it has been deﬁned in this study, can be utilized in
the study of as a barometer of the relative importance or salience of social pressures in
the workplace choices and behaviors. The results indicate that engendering perceptions of
accountability is difﬁcult to consistently induce or inﬂuence in that the environmental
impact of accountability systems can from person to person. The difﬁculty of creating an
environment where employees feel accountable for their performance consistently is of
particular interest to organizations in so far as selection and management of personnel is
concerned. There is no simple solution, but perhaps studying the levels of perceived
accountability that employees feel with regards to certain behaviors organizations can
increase their understanding of what organizational policies or procedures are making an
impact and which ones may be ineffective in guiding behavior. For example, if an
organization wishes to improve performance of a group of employees, the organization
may want to examine the perceived accountability that employees feel to perform
different job duties. The results could help the organization determine where the gaps
exist in organizational policies and managerial implementation with employees’

perceptions of consequences to perform aspects of their jobs. The results could aid the

68

 

organizations to not only determine where the perceived pressures are more perceived as
more salient or important and subsequently, implement strategies to ensure that
employees are performing job duties according to the desired standard.

It is important to note that there is a difference between the concept of perceived
accountability and the personality trait of conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is deﬁned
through the characteristics such as responsibility, dependability, persistence and
achievement orientation (Barrick & Mount, 1993) and is associated with how people
allocate their effort when making decisions and performing tasks (Frink & Ferris, 1999).
Frink and Ferris (1999) explored the relationship between the trait of conscientiousness
and performance under conditions of accountability and found that those with higher
levels of conscientiousness performed at higher levels than less conscientious people
when held accountable for their performance by others. People with higher levels of
conscientiousness may be more responsive to conditions of accountability and therefore
feel more responsibility to perform a task than those who are less conscientious. Thus,
further study into the relationship between personality traits, like conscientiousness, and
perceptions of accountability might offer insight to the differing reactions to
accountability systems in organizations.

The results of this study that indicate that performance of the ratings task
decreased from performance on training certiﬁcation is indicative of the gap that exists in
organizations transfer of training to actual task performance.

Limitations
Though as many factors as possible were controlled for in performing this

research, there were a number of limitations to the present study with regard to the

69

study’s sample, induction, design, and measurement instruments. First, the sample was
quite young, were all college students, and lack organizational experience. Further, this
study was performed in a classroom setting with said student participants that may have
constrained the possible level of consequence and made it difﬁcult to induce feelings of
accountability.

The results of the induction indicated that there were limited differences between
accountability conditions. Despite there being no signiﬁcant differences in the means of
the pilot groups between accountability conditions whether the gift card consequence was
included or not t(27) = .134, p < .894. There appeared to be a signiﬁcant difference
between the perceived accountability without mention of the gift card and the no
accountability condition t(26) = 2.513, p < .05. The decision was made to proceed with
the induction without modiﬁcation. One explanation for the higher scores of perceived
accountability in the control group was that the researcher remained in the room during
those sessions. The fact that the person with the authority did not leave the room in the
control condition and did leave the room for a minute in the other conditions, essentially
gave permission participants (i.e. the confederates) to talk while absent and subsequently
undermined the accountability induction. In other words, the departure of the
experimenter, regardless of the justiﬁcation message, may have violated the expectations
of the participants with regards to accountability. This violation might have given the
non-verbal message that the experimenter did not take the session seriously thus
explaining the results of the control group having greater feelings of accountability.

This problem with the induction could be caused by a number of reasons,

including but not limited to the difﬁculty in inducing senses of consequence and

70

accountability in a lab setting and with a student sample. Part of the quandary is that in
part, perceptions of accountability is engendered by holding others accountable. Given
that there was no real consequence, or rather the consequence did not appear to be
important enough to the participants to inﬂuence their perceptions of accountability. The
effect that perceived accountability might have on ratings behavior cannot be assessed in
this study due to the lack of variance in perceptions of accountability. The types of
consequences that may have been more effective in inducing feelings of accountability
would not likely be either realistic in a lab study with students and/or would not be
approved by an IRB board. It is still believed that perceptions of accountability have an
impact on behavior despite the lack of evidence found in this limited study.
Unfortunately, the greatest effect on the differences between the pre-and post test
measures of perceived accountability was time F(1,l73) = 35.931, p < .001 , partial eta =
.174. It is posited that there was a large impact of both practice effects as well as fatigue
of the participants. In a short period of time, the participants completed over 90 items
that, by design, were repetitive. Future research would attend to the issue of fatigue and
practice effects through the removal of superﬂuous items as well as allow increased time
between the pre-test and post-test in order to minimize the perceptions that the items were
repetitive._ The length of the sessions and the pre-and post test design, was quite long at
an hour in comparison to many of the other studies offered to the students for research
credit. F urtherrnore, the design combined with number of survey items made it somewhat
difﬁcult to keep the session interesting and motivating. Fatigue may have had a role in

the responses elicited from some participants.

71

 

The dependent variable of ratings accuracy is a limitation to the ﬁndings of the
study in terms of variance and type of measure. Though it is still maintained that this
measure of behavior is an improvement to the traditional dichotomous alternative, in this
study there was not a great deal of variance in the accuracy scores and therefore
attenuating results. The quality of ratings could have been measured in other ways
including objective measures of effort (e. g. note-taking, attention). Further, it would have
been useful to have included another measure of motivation in addition to the behavioral
intention measure. The survey items were grouped by construct and may have inﬂuenced
the manner in which the participants scored the items, especially as fatigue may have
occurred.

Future Research

Better measures of intention need to be developed and tested to reduce the impact
of social desirability and consistency concerns as well as improved measures of accuracy
and outcome behavior. Further study of perceived accountability, especially in
organizational environments and a working adult sample. Different inductions of
accountability will be tested to determine what can inﬂuence varying levels of
accountability perceptions. Further, personality traits will be tested to explore if
perceptions of accountability are more easily induced or less variable depending on
different personality characteristics (e.g. conscientiousness, self-monitoring, anxiety). It
is important to gain understanding of whether perceived accountability is a trait or
whether organizational policies and procedures can inﬂuence perceptions. If perceived

accountability is trait-like then there are selection and testing issues in organizations may

72

need to address. The design of the instruments should be modiﬁed in length and order to
minimize possible order and fatigue effects.

In addition to improvement of accuracy measures, an interview study of working
adults to examine the impact of perceived accountability in the workplace should be
performed. A validation study of the perceived accountability instrument with a working
adult sample could offer the ﬁeld and organizations a greater understanding of the role of
accountability in the workplace.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current study examined the relationships between perceived
accountability, behavioral intention, and ratings accuracy. The study also tested the
model of relationships put fOrth in the Theory of Planned Behavior. The results indicate
that perceived accountability had a signiﬁcant, though small relationship with behavioral
intention to rate accurately, however it was not a signiﬁcant predictor of ratings accuracy.
Results also indicated that the data were consistent with the model of relationships
proposed by the Theory of Planned Behavior, however the relationship between
behavioral intention and ratings accuracy behavior was not as strong as suggested by
previous tests of the model. A post hoc model was proposed and tested that included
perceived accountability as a predictor of subjective norms, attitude, and perceived
control, and subsequently the post hoc model was found to ﬁt the data well. It is
suggested that future research of perceived accountability using a working adult sample

would provide insight to the impact of perceived accountability on workplaCe behaviors.

73

APPENDICES

74

Appendix A: Pilot Accuracy Measure

 

Initiates Friendly Greeting (Sniles and Make: Eye Contact)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiatescometsationwithafnetdyverbalgreemg. TOP 0
Wwimfnmdlyvemalgreeung,doesnotiniuateconversanon. MIDDLE O
Doesnotohrfrlendlyverhelgrwting. BOTTOM O

Observerﬂotes:

Noteanendlyzsnileandeyecontact

Demonstratesllpbeatandl’odﬂveﬂtltude ,

Enthusiastic, energekmsnsmneholumeatinﬁedion) ANDgesmreshoconveyposltrveenergy. TOP 0
Pleasant, poite,professional;openbodybnquage(itﬂemotion)ANDsteadytone. MIDDLE O

Appearstobegotngutmughmemouons;mormteondosedbodylanguage. BOTTOM O

Observerﬂotes:

Notezdmnsuauonofuaptu’tggesuxesmcmy,aiyiphyslalyposlble

UsesCustomerNametoPersonallzeServloe
Usesarstomernamemmh'odrxesselﬂasappmpriam). TC]J O
Usescustomer nameOR'ntroduces self. MIDDLE O

l Doesnotmecustnmermmemm'odmeSelf. ABOTIOMJ O

ObserverNotrs:

SmilesandﬂakesEyeContact
mummmmmmgmmmmmmwbammy TOP 0
Smiles AND mkeseyecontacttogetherthrwgh some ofthe interaction (at least 2times). MIDDLE O
mmmmmmcmmmamzmdmm. BOTTOM O

Observerﬂotes:

AntldpatesCustomerNeedstaalvely ,
mucipammsbycebbraumbckle.q.xnnlumwh)ORumNoﬁuimoﬂra T07 0
products] services that custnrner might need/want
Respondsthoroughlyto cummer question/need (may refertosomeonewholmows). MIDDLE O
DoesnotrespmdﬂumnhlytoqueﬁmORfquJoosnotcelebratehxka BOTTOM O
proacﬁvelyofferproduds/m -

Observerﬂotes:

WMCPATESneeds=notmerelyrespondlngtocustomerrequest

Expresses Friendly Apmiation for the Business
WWWapmhmwmmmmamparﬂmm TC? 0
(e.g.“GoodLuck'or‘HaveaNice Day')

Expresses friendly (smile ateyecontact)appreciationforthe business (e.g. ‘Thank you”) MIDDLE O
DoesnotexpressﬂiendyawredaﬁmfaﬂmMénas.(Note:Whankwu'hrﬂwtbdoes BOTTOM O
notcountasappredauonforthebusim.)

Observerﬂotes:

Key point: Appreciation for the business

OverallMomentometh
Fxceedsexpectatlms T03 0
Meetsexpectations MIDDLE O
Fallsbelowexpectatbns BOTTOMgO

 

75

 

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of Study: Exploring the service encounter

Researcher: Dr. Kami J. Silk Email: silkk@msu.edu
Department of Communication Ofﬁce: CAS 566
Michigan State University Phone: 355-0221

Thank you for considering participation in this research study. The following set of
questionnaires will be asking you about yourself, your experience in this training
session, your feelings about the exercises and some demographic information. You will
also be asked to rate the behavior of videotaped customer service interactions. All
answers are CONFIDENTIAL. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Your identities will not be linked to the data you provide. The total
time necessary is 45-60 minutes. Following completion of the research tasks, you will be
debriefed in writing via email about the purpose of this research. You must be 18 years
or older to participate in this research.

 

Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may withdraw your consent to
participate at any time without penalty. In addition to the research credit provided you
may be entered into a drawing for a $100 gift card.

While this study is not expected to yield any immediate beneﬁt to the individual
participants, it will contribute to communication research knowledge. There are no
anticipated risks associated with participation.

The ﬁnal results of the study will be made available. To obtain the report please contact
Kami Silk at the above address.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if
you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection Programs
(HRRP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntary agree to participate in this study.

 

 

 

Print your name Your signature Date

76

Appendix C: Organizational Culture Statement

Organizational Culture Statement

XYZ Entertainment is the world's largest provider of branded casino
entertainment through operating subsidiaries nearly 40 casinos in three
countries. Since its beginning in Reno, Nevada 70 years ago XYZ Entertainment
is focused on building loyalty and value with its customers through a
unique combination of great service, excellent products, unsurpassed
distribution, operational excellence and technology leadership.

XYZ sets the standard of excellence in the gaming industry with employees who
are devoted to delivering truly great service. Our emplovegs age critical to 01_J_r
success.

We provide great customer service in exciting and entertaining
environments, with the goal of becoming the overwhelming first choice for
casino entertainment.

We concentrate on building loyalty and value for our customers, shareholders,
employees, business partners and communities by being the most service-
oriented, geographically diversiﬁed company in gaming.

Spotlight on Success is how XYZ employees provide the best customer service
in the gaming industry. This program provides training and ongoing evaluations
of our se_rvi__cg professionals who work in our front line positions. With this
training, our _s_e_rvi__cg professionals are taught to consistently deliver exemplam
ctustomer service to our guests.

Our company truly is distinguished by its talented and dedicated employees. We
recognize and reward superior contributions and outstanding achievements.

77

Appendix D: Purpose and Expectations

Purpose and Expectations

Excellent customer service is critical for the success of our organization. Our customer
service philosophy is based on the moment of truth, where each interaction that our employees
have is critical to the impression that our guest form about our organization. After much research
and years of testing, they’ve found that there are some aspects of the interaction that influence
the impression of our guests more than others. We have chosen 6 key attributes or behaviors
to that everyone that encounters a guest must be able and motivated to perform. Part of
your role as a supervisor is to monitor and guide the behavior of your employees. In order to do
so, clear expectations of behavior must be set and measured.

The purpose for this training program is to ensure that there is clarity of behaviors and i0
make it easier for the employees to execute the 6 critical aspects of the interaction more
consistently. In order to measure effectively, you must be able to recognize the different
execution of the behaviors and rate them accurately.

. You will ﬁrst be trained to evaluate the videotaped interactions accurately.

0 You will then be certified to ensure your ability to perform the ratings accurately.
. You will then complete questionnaires regarding the exercise.

. You will complete the ﬁnal ratings exercise and demographic information.

Critical to the test of this program is that you do your best at rating the videotaped
interactions accurately. Your scores will be examined and evaLﬁad. Contingent upon the
accuracy of your scores, you may be asked to iustify your ratings verbally with the experimenter
a the conclusion of the session.

In order to be entered into the drawing, be sure to provide your name and email

on the note card provided to you as well as mark all study materials with your code.

78

Appendix E: Induction

After reading the purpose and organizational culture statement please
answer the following questions:

XYZ is in what type of industry?

 

What is the key to the success of the XYZ organization?

 

 

How many key attributes have been found to be important to an excellent
customer service interaction?

 

True or False, contingent upon the accuracy of ﬁnal ratings score participants
may be asked to justify their answers verbally to the experimenter?

 

By signing below, I have indicated that I have read and understood the
organizational culture statement, the purpose and the expectations of my
participation in this research.

Signature:

 

COPY CODE FROM CARD GIVEN TO YOU WITH YOUR PACKET HERE:

 

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP!

PLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM EXAMINER.

79

 

Appendix F: Practice, Certification, and Accuracy Instrument

 

     
 

Greeting F D C B A
. Based on Harrah’s standards for customer service...

‘ ow well did the employee offer a friendly verbal greeting to the “Ian"
- uest?

Observer notes:

Attitude
Based on Harrah’s standards for customer service...

    

 

How well did the employee smile at the guest throughout the 0 1 2 3 4
interaction?

How well would you rate the employee’s overall attitude during the O 1 2 3 4
interaction?
Observer notes:
Use of Name
Based on Harrah’s standards for customer service...

 

How clearly did the employee use their own name during the 0 1 2 3 4
interaction?

Observer Notes:
Proactive Anticipation of Guest Needs
Based on Hanah’s standards for customer service...

How well did the employee proactively offer other 0 1 2 3 4
rodu services that uest mi ht want need?

How would ou rate their Overall Antici tion of Guest Needs? 0 1 2 3 4
Observer Notes:

 

Provides Warm Farewell
» Based on Harrah’s standards for customer service...

 

    

How clearly did the employee extend a positive parting remark? “I!!!
e-. “Good Luck" “Have a nice da , , ,. . _ . _ .

Observer Notes:

 

 

 

Overall Interaction Score |o[1 [213 4

 

80

Appendix G: Survey Instrument of Subjective Norms, Perceived Control, Perceived
Accountability, Attitude and Intention

Instructions:

Please circle the response that best reﬂects your agreement with the statement—please
be honest. In making your ratings, please be sure to answer all items - do not omit any
and never circle more than one number on a single scale. Circling 1 indicates strong
disagreement with the statement while circling 7 indicates that you strongly agree.

Most people who are important to me think I should strive to rate customer service
interactions as best as I can.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

People whose work values I respect would want me to try hard to rate customer service
interactions accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : A : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I think my peers at work would want me to be accurate in my ratings of customer service
interactions.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I think my direct supervisor would think it is important to do my best to rate the vignettes
accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

I think upper management would want me to rate customer service interactions
accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

Generally speaking, I strive to do the best that I can on whatever tasks I am asked to do
because that what society expects me to do.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
Most people whose opinion I value would approve of me being accurate in my ratings

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
Most people who are important to me think that I should be accurate in my ratings of the

vignettes.
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 ' 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

81

Most of my friends think that it is important to be accurate in rating the vignettes.
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
Generally speaking, I care a great deal what the researcher thinks I should do in rating

the vignettes?
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

Generally speaking, I care a great deal what those important to me think I should do?

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : __2_ : _§_ : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I am able to rate customer service interactions accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
Rating customer service interaction is extremely difﬁcult for me.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree
Rating customer service interactions accurately is impossible for me.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree
I have control over being accurate in my ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I understand what is required to rate customer service interactions accurately.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2__ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I am conﬁdent that if I wanted to I could rate the vignettes accurately.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : _3_ : 4 t 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree
I plan on paying close attention so that I can rate accurately.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : _1_ : 4 r 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I intend to do my best in rating these vignettes accurately.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : __2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I will make a strong effort to rate the customer service interactions the best I can.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 . 3 r 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

82

I intend on being accurate in my ratings of the vignettes

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : _3_ : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I will make an effort to be accurate in my ratings of the vignettes

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I plan to be accurate in my ratings of the vignettes

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

I believe that the ratings I give must be acceptable to others.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I expect that there are consequences if I don’t rate these vignettes accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 r 7 :Strongly Agree
I feel a strong responsibility to give accurate ratings.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I expect to have to justify my ratings.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2__ : _3_: 4 . 5 : 6 : 47 :Strongly Agree

I feel like someone is going to evaluate me on how well I perform on this task.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I feel obligated to be accurate in my ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 ' 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I feel that I am being judged in my performance of accurate ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I feel that that there are high standards for this ratings task. *

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I feel accountable to perform accurate ratings.

83

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I feel that I may be punished for not performing well in this ratings task.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

It is part of my job to perform well on job related tasks.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I think that I will be rewarded if I perform well in this ratings task.

Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : _3__ : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
It is important that my ratings are acceptable to others.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I feel obligated to perform up to the standards of performance described to me.
Strongly Disagree: _1_ : _2_ : _3_ : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
It does not matter whether or not I rate the vignettes accurately.
Strongly Disagree: L : _2__ : _3_ : i : _§_ : _6_ :_7_:Strong|y Agree
It is important to me that I rate the customer service interactions accurately.
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree
It is very good for me to be accurate in my ratings of customer service interactions.
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

It is acceptable for me to rate the customer service interactions inaccurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

I think there are consequences for making errors in my ratings.
Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree
I think there are beneﬁts to being accurate in my ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :StronglyAgree

84

I think there is a value in performing accurate ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I think rating vignettes is interesting.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I think it is useless to rate the vignettes accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

I think it is informative to rate the vignettes accurately.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree
I like to be accurate in my ratings.

Strongly Disagree: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :Strongly Agree

. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
PLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION BEFORE PROCEEDING

85

Appendix H: Distraction Tasks

Please complete the following exercise by circling the list of
words to the left within the puzzle on the right.
You have 4 minutes.

 

Band Jazz G H M Y T H S W A I L J 0
Bass Music 0 Z X S A C O B L U E S T
Beat Note B Z S C A L E V O I C E H
Bebop Piano E A H S B A P L M A O I N
Blow Play 8 J H I W R H Y T H M L D
Blues Rhythm 0 P L H A I J G T W B .N N
Clarinet Saxophone P L D T T N N I L A O M A
Combo Scale I D I N G E R G N L E W L
Dixieland Scat H U R M N T P D M O R B E
Drums Swing G O M U S I C M N G T N I
Gig Trumpet H J T M M L S A U D L E X
Guitar Tune N O I T A S I V O R P M I
Horn Voice T S A X 0 P H O N E T R D

 

 

 

 

Improvisation Wail

Total Words Found

 

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
PLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER
INSTRUCTION.

86

Please complete the following exercise by circling the list Of

words to the left within the puzzle on the right.

You have 3 minutes.

 

 

 

 

Bake Livestock T K C O T S E V I L O R N
Calf Meeting C A L F E H G R T H M N 0
Conservation Member Y T F W N L G R U Y H J I
Fair Nature R U R A L N I H J T W N T
Farm Prize J Y M I I B F H L N A G A
Garden Project G L K T B R E A V N M N V
Hands Ribbon M S E O P P E N T H Y N R
Head Rural EENACHLDCHOME
Health Sew M G A R D E N S E H U R S
Heart Skill B H N G S E R A J H T W N
Home Youth E A V F N D R A O L H G 0
Leader R T K N M T H M R A F L C
L D A E H G N B P R I 2 E
Total Number of Found Words
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
PLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER

 

 

INSTRUCTION

87

 

 

Appendix I: Demographic Information
Directions: Please provide us with some information about yourself.

Your Age Male _ Female _
Please check one that best describes your ethnicity:

 

 

_ BIack/African-American _ Native American

_ Asian American _ Paciﬁc Islander

_ White/Caucasian _ Mixed (please specify)

__ Hispanic __ Other (please specify)

Please indicate the mgtht level Of education you have received:

_ Some high school _ Bachelor’s Degree

__ High School Degree _ Some advanced level ertiﬁcate
_ Currently Attending College __ Doctoral/Advanced Degree
_ Graduate degree (Masters) __ Other (Please describe)

Associates Degree
If currently attending college, what is your major concentration?

 

If currently attending college, how long?

 

Work experience:
Are you currently employed? Yes NO

If yes, please indicate the number Of months at current job?
On average, how many hours a week do you work?

How would you describe your position at work? (you may indicate more than one)

 

_ Administrative/Support _ Clerical

_ Customer facing _ Management/Supervisor
_ Retail _ Sales

_ FoodservicelHospitality __ Hourly/Skilled

__ Technology __ Human Resources

__ Healthcare __ Other (Please specify)
_ Finance ’

Are you now, or have you ever worked in a hospitality service company (for example: hotel,
restaurant, coffeehouse, bar, casino)? _Yes _ NO
Are you now, or have you ever worked in a position that was primarily customer service oriented?
Yes NO

If yes, please describe your position.
Are you now or have you ever had the role Of supervisor or manager at work?
_Yes _ NO
If yes, please describe your position.

 

 

88

Appendix J: Deferred Debriefing Slip

Thank you for your participation in this research study today. You will receive an email
in no less than 4 weeks regarding this research. We ask that you please do not disclose
any information about this research study with anyone as it may affect future data
collection and results. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this research,
please feel free contact the primary investigator, Tierney Orfgen (orfgenti@msu.edu).

89

Appendix K: Debriefing Email Template
Dear Participant,

Thank you again for your participation on (DATE) of the service encounter research
study. The purpose Of the research was to explore how accountability affected
performance and motivation Of the ratings of the vignettes. As you may recall, you
were asked to complete a number of questionnaires regarding your feelings about the
exercises and about the vignettes. You were also asked to rate the vignettes. Part of the
actual research was to examine how perceptions of accountability affected your
responses and accuracy.

You may have been in a condition that involved two people talking when the
experimenter left the room brieﬂy to make a phone call. These two individuals were
actually confederates of the researcher and their conversation was part of the
experiment tO induce feelings of accountability.

In effect, though it was said that those with inaccurate scores might have to justify
their answers to the experimenter. In fact, no participants were asked to justify their
answers. It was necessary to ensure that participants felt that there were consequences
for the accuracy of their ratings in order to study the effects Of feelings of
accountability on ratings behavior, which was the true aim of the research.

Again all your answers are CONFIDENTIAL. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Your identities will not be linked to the data you
provide.

If you have any questions or concerns, or would like to receive the results of the study,
please contact Tierney Orfgen, orfgenti@msu.edu. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time
with any aspect Of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish, Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director Of the Human Research Protection Programs (HRRP) at
Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu,
or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

90

Appendix L: Table 3: ANOVA Results for Perceived Accountability Post-test
Across Experimental Conditions

Table 3 .' ANO VA Results for Perceived Accountability Post-test Across
Experimental Conditions

 

 

Sum of
Source Squares dt‘ Mean Square F Sig
Between
Groups 8.431 2 4.2 I 6 2.304 0.103
Within Groups 312.908 I71 1.83
Total 321.339 173

 

9]

:5. v at... .5. v a .2. .3v a ..

 

 

83 2e $39582 8285
So. as. Eeyzdﬁzm N
8 _ .0 A55 3:62.
2 3 Ge _eaoo 3283
See- 2% meaz 338.3%
m8. m8. E<s.oa.2m _
59:83.. ">Q
Sod 2.: E59882 838$
:5. 53:38.5 N
.2385 A53 oaeeé
times 6.: 35:8 @0283
1.? _ .o 28 meaz 0360.33
3. ma... E<e.oa.zm _
we Nana—é a 2.3.9 News: =:.%=.§s.._aa> .352
a

53:8:— _a.8_>a._om ">9

 

Aocxzoow .35 5:323 Nexcwscxmm .BXENESQ 223.33% S. mics

.3332... use 55:8:— _a..e_>a._om he $1.8“ Exams—wax .v «Baa. "2 xmusoaa<

92

REFERENCES

93

REFERENCES

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (Third ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., F ishbein, M. & Muellerleile, RA. (2001). Theories Of
reasoned action and planned behavior as models Of condom use: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin. 127(1), 142-161.

Aj zen, I. (1991). The theory Of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Aj zen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned
action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 6(2), 107-122.

Aj zen, I. (2006). Constructing the TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. Retrieved December 10, 2006 from
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76-92.

Anderson, .I. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance Of measures in a
conﬁrmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive
validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 732-740.

Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects Of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings.
Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 349-356.

Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap: How managers can know
when they 're getting good advice and when they're not. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efﬁcacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Arnold, J., Loan-Clarke, Coombs, C., Wilkinson, A., Park, J ., & Preston, D. (2006). How
well can the theory Of planned behavior account for occupational intentions?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 374—390.

Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.

94

Baltes, B. B., & Parker, C. P. (2000). Reducing the effects of performance expectations
on behavioral ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82(2), 237-267.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eﬂicacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K., (1991). The big ﬁve personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Becker, T. E., Randall, D. M., & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensional view of
commitment and the theory of reasoned action: a comparative evaluation. Journal
of Management, 21, 617-638.

Beckner, D., Highhouse, S., & Hazer, J. T. (1998). Effects of upward accountability and
rating purpose on peer-rater inﬂation and delay: A ﬁeld experiment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 209-214.

Behrman, D. N., Bigoness, W. J ., & Perreault, W. D. (1981). Sources Of job related
ambiguity and their consequences upon salespersons' job satisfaction and
performance. Management Science, 27(11), 1246-1260.

Behrman, D. N., & Perreault, W. D. (1984). A role stress model of the performance and
satisfaction Of industrial salespersons. Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 9-21.

Bentler, RM. (1991) Structural equations with latent-variables. Journal Of Classiﬁcation.
8(1), 142-145.

Bemardin, H. J., & Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing ﬁom laboratory to ﬁeld settings (pp. 43-62). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Ben, D., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between accountability
and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 57-73.

Bitner, M. J ., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The Service Encounter -
Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1),
71-84.

Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rating errors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 410-421.

Borman, W. C., & Hallam, G. L. (1991). Observation accuracy for assessors of work-

sample performance: Consistency across task and individual-differences
correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 1 1-18.

95

Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to overload? Work overload and performance
appraisal processes. Group and Organization Management, 3 0(1 ), 99-124.

Campbell, D., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of
reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics.
17(16), 1825-1834.

Cherry, J. (2006). The impact of normative inﬂuence and locus of control on ethical
judgments and intentions: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business
Ethics, 68, 113-132.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corrigan, D. K., & Hauenstein, N. M. (1996). Accountability eﬂects on cognitive
complexity and accuracy of performance ratings. Paper presented at the Society
for industrial and organizational psychology.

Covey, S. R. (1988). Six Conditions Of Effectiveness. Executive Excellence, 5(11), 8-9.

Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in
performance appraisals: Appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Group and
Organization Management. 30(1), 42-60.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982-1003.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory Of intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 15, 130-145.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating

internalization: The self-deterrnination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,
62(1),119-142.

96

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
(Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press.

Decotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some
testable propositions. Academy of Management ReView, 3(3), 635-646.

Dierdorff, E. C., & Surface, E. A. (2007). Placing peer ratings in context: Systematic
inﬂuences beyond ratee performance. Personnel Psychology, 60, 93-126.

Dubinsky, A. J ., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing.
Journal of Business Research, 19, 83-107.

Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Earley, P. C., Northcraﬁ, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and
outcome feedback on the relation Of goal setting to task performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(1),. 87-105.

Eder, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (1989). Impression management: Its interpretative role in the
supervisor-employee feedback process. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Impression management in the organization (pp. 327-339). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

F andt, P. M. (1991). The relationship Of accountability and interdependent behavior to
enhancing team consequences. Group Organization Management. 16(3), 300-312.

F andt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). The management of information and impressions:
When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 45, 140-158.

Fedor, D. B. (1991). Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed model
and its implications. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 9, pp. 73-120). Grenwich,
CT: JAI Press Inc.

F eldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance
appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychologv, 66. 127-148.

Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of
measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 421-435.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political
inﬂuence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

97

Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J ., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995).
Accountability in human resource systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen & D. T.
Barnum (Eds), Handbook of human resource systems (pp. 175-195). Cambridge:
Blackwell Publishers.

Finlay, K. A., Traﬁmow, D., & Moroi, E. (1999). The importance Of subjective norms on
intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
2381-2393.

F ishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social desirability bias and the validity Of self-reported
values. Psychology & Marketing, 1 7(2), 105-120.

Francis, J ., Eccles, M.P., Johnston, M., Walker, A.E., Grimshaw, J.M., Foy, R., Kaner,
E.F.S., Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the
theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle
upon Tyne, Centre Of Health Services Research, University Of Newcastle upon

Tyne.

Frink, D. D. & Ferris, G. R. (1996). Accountability in the management of human
resources. . In G. R. Ferris & M. R. Buckley (Eds), Human resources

management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (3rd ed., pp. 422-
43 5). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The moderating effects Of accountability on the
conscientiousness-perforrnance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology.
13(4), 515-524.

Gagne, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions - strong effects Of simple plans.
American Psychologist. 54(7), 493-503.

Gratton, L., Povey, R., & Clark-Carter, D. (2007). Promoting children's fruit and
vegetable consumption: Interventions using the theory Of planned behaviour as a
framework. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12(4), 63 9-650.

Hale, J. (2002). Performance-Based Evaluation: Tools and techniques to measure the
impact of training. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J ., & Greene, K. L. (2002). The theory of reasoned action. In

J. P. Dillard & M. W. Pfau (Eds), The Persuasion Handbook Developments in
Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

98

Hales, C. (2005). Rooted in supervision, branching into management: Continuity and
change in the role Of ﬁrst-line manager. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3),
471-506.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World.

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The Service Proﬁt Chain. New
York: The Free Press.

Hill, M., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1996). The effects of attitude, subjective norm and.
self-efﬁcacy on intention to benchmark: A comparison between managers with

experience and no experience in benchmarking. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 1 7, 313-327.

Hobson, C. J ., & Gibson, F . W. (1984). Capturing supervisor rating policies: A way to
improve performance appraisal effectiveness. Personnel Administration, 29(3),
59-68.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariant structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underpararneterized model speciﬁcation. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

Huang, E., & Chuang, M. H. (2007). Extending the theory of planned behaviour as a

model to explain post-merger employee behavior of is use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, 240-257.

Hughes, C. L. (1965). Goal Setting: American Management Association.

11 gen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences Of individual feedback
on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.

Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The
. performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905-925.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1991). Supervisory Feedback: Alternative types and their
impact on salespeople's performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research, 28(2), 190-201 .

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion Of ﬁt in human resources
staffing decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15, 47-67.

Kane, J. S., Bemardin, J ., Villanova, P., & Peyreﬁtte, J. (1995). Stability of rater
leniency: Three Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1036-1051.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

99

Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and
experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 231-245.

Klimoski, R. J ., & Ash, R. A. (1974). Accountability and negotiator behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 409-425.

Klimoski, R. J ., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45 , 194-208.

Knoke, D., & Borhnstedt, G. (2002). Statistics for social data analysis (Fourth ed.).
Illinois: Peacock.

Kolekofski, K. E., & Heminger, A. R. (2003). Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions tO
share information in an organizational setting. Information & Management, 40,
521-532.

Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The impact Of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from
others: The role of self-enhancement and self-consistency concerns. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 1 7, 301-31 1.

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and
goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(4), 900-916.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Kirsch, M. P., & Chao, G. T. (1986). Job Knowledge, Ratee
Familiarity, Conceptual Similarity and Halo Error - an Exploration. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(1), 45-49.

Kulkami, M. (2007). Predicting contraceptive behavior in India using attitude theories.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3 7(1 1), 2475-2495.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-
498.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training Managers to minimize
rating errors in the Observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5),
550-555.

Lawler, E. E. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leﬁon, R. E., Buzzotta, W. R., Sherberg, M., & Karraker, D. L. (1977). Eﬂective
Motivation Through Performance Appraisal. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

100

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects Of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance. 3(2), 157-189.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Sari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Longenecker, C. 0., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of
employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.

McCallister, D. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1979). The contingency model for
the selection Of decision strategies; An empirical test of the effects of
signiﬁcance, accountability, and reversibility. . Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 24, 228-244.

McClendon, M. J. (1994). Multiple regression and causal analysis. Itasca, Illinois: F.E.
Peacock Publishers.

Mcgregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Underreporting of substance use in a national
longitudinal youth cohort. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 100-124.

Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy
and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4),
517-524.

Mero, N. P., Motowidlo. S. J ., & Anna, A. L. (2003). Effects Of accountability on rating
behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33(12), 2493-2514.

Miner, J. B. (1980). Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Mohrman, A. M., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Motivation and Perfonnance-Appraisal
Behavior. In F. J. Landy & S. Zedeck (Eds), Performance measurement and
theory (pp. 173-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and

motivational predictors Of the dynamics Of organizational innovation.
Organization Science, 3, 250-274.

101

Murphy, K. R. (1982). Difﬁculties in the Statistical Control of Halo. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(2), 161-164.

Murphy, K. R., & Anhalt, R. (1992). Is halo error property Of the rater, ratees, or the
speciﬁc behaviors Observed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 494-500.

Murphy, K. R., & Balzer, W. K. (1989). Rater Errors and Rating Accuracy. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(4), 619-624.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational
perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social,
organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in
organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational inﬂuences on impression formation:
Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention and individuating processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444.

O'Leary, V. E., & Hansen, R. D. (1983). Performance evaluation: A social-psychology
perspective. In F. J. Landy, S. Zedeck & J. N. Cleveland (Eds), Performance
Measurement and Theory (pp. 197-218). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., & Sharkey, W. F. (1998). Understanding behavioral intention
tO recycle in Hawaii: The theory Of reasoned action and self-construals.
Communication Studies, 49, 196-208.

Palmer, J. K., & Feldman, J. M. (2005). Accountability and need for cognition effects on

contrast, halo, and accuracy in performance ratings. Journal of Psychology,
139(2), 119-137.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and perfbrmance.
Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.

Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1996). Models Of job performance ratings: An
examination Of ratee race, ratee gender, and rater level effects. Human
Performance, 9, 103-119.

Ryan, A. M., Daum, D., Bauman, T., Grisez, M., Mattimore, K., Nadlodka, T., et a1.

(1995). Comparison of assessment center ratings: Direct, indirect, and controlled
Observation. Journal of A pplied Psychology, 80, 664-670.

102

Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: When free-
choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-
205. ’

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation Of reward contingency and
interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 73 6-750.

Salaman, G. (2004). Competences Of managers, competences of leaders. In J. Storey
(Ed.), Leadership in organizations: Current issues and key trends (pp. 58-78).
London: Routledge.

Schein, E. H. (1975). Defense of theory y. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 17-30.

Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Doherty, K. (1991). Coping with Accountability:
Self-identiﬁcation and evaluative reckonings. In M. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth

(Eds), Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: A Health Perspective. New
York: Pergamon.

Sedikides, C., Herbst, K. C., Hardin, D. P., & Dardis, G., J. (2002). Accountability as a
deterrent to self-enhancement: The search for mechanisms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(3), 592-605.

Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J ., & Warshaw, RR. (1988). The theory of reasoned action-A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modiﬁcations and future
research. Journal of consumer research. 15(3), 325-343.

Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects Of procedural and outcome
accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 65(1), 1-17.

Silk, K. J., Westerman, D., Kingsley, C., & Mackert, M. (2005). Testing the predictive
ability of the theory of planned behavior: The mediating role of previous
behavior. Paper presented at the National Communication Association
Convention.

Slocombe, T. E. (1999). Applying the theory Of reasoned action to the analysis Of an
individual's polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3), 313-322.

Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we
doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 28(15), 1317-1338.

Swaim, R. C., Perinne, N. E., & Aloise-Young, P. A. (2007). Gender differences in
comparison of two tested etiological models of cigarette smoking among

103

elementary school students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3 7(8), 1681-
1 696.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (Fourth ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tessor, A., & Rosen, S. D. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. . In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193-232). New
York: Academic Press.

Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution
error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.

Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a
personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4),
700-709.

Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for
coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5 7(4), 632-640.

Tubbs, M. E., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1991). The role of intentions in work motivation:
Implications for goal-setting theory and research. Academy of Management
Review, 16(1), 180-199.

Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2002). Does conscientiousness moderate
the relationship between attitudes and beliefs regarding performance appraisal and
rating behavior? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(3), 218-
224.

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings Of
possessions: Three ﬁeld studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439-459.

Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000).
Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational
citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 3-23.

van HOOft, E. A. J ., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B.
(2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: Implementation

intentions, action control and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66(2), 238-256.

Vandenputte, B., Hoogstraten, J ., & Meertens, R. (1996). A comparison of behavioural
alternative models in the context of the theory of reasoned action. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 35(2), 257-266.

104

Vanlandingham, M., Suprasert, S., Grandjean, N., & Sitterai, W. (1995). 2 views Of risky
sexual practices among northern Thai males--the health belief model and the
theory of reasoned action. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(2), 195-212.

Walker, R. H., Johnson, L. W., & Leonard, W. R. (2006). Re-thinking the
conceptualization of customer value and service quality within the service-proﬁt
chain. Managing Service Quality, 16(1), 23-36.

Williams, K. J., Denisi, A. S., Blencoe, A. G., & Cafferty, T. P. (1985). The Role of
Appraisal Purpose - Effects Of Purpose on Information Acquisition and

Utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(3), 314-
339.

Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact

of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(3), 356-3 78.

105

 

lllll'lllllllﬂlllljljljll[1111911