The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Development of three scales to

measure leader accountability

Leader
accountability

James A. (Andy) Wood and Bruce E. Winston

Regent University, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA

167

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to focus on the development of three scales to measure the
three dimensions of accountability presented by Wood and Winston (2005): responsibility; openness;
and answerability.
Design/methodology/approach The scale development process followed the method proposed
by Spector in 1992 and DeVellis in 2003 in that each of the three constructs were defined and through a
search of the literature the authors generated pools of 26, 21, and 19 items respectively. The items were
submitted to a panel of six experts, who reviewed them for relevance to the construct and who made
suggestions for the general improvement of the scales. The scales were then tested online by 148
participants.
Findings Factor analyses revealed that the item pools measured one construct in each of the scales.
Reliability analysis revealed Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.98 (Responsibility), 0.99 (Openness) and
0.98 (Answerability). The scales were reduced to 10 items by removing items deemed redundant or
confusing. Alpha scores for the ten-item scales were 0.97 (Responsibility), 0.97 (Openness) and 0.98
(Answerability).
Research limitations/implications The study participants were primarily Caucasian males.
Further study should be done to validate the instrument in other ethnic groups.
Originality/value The three scales may be useful for leadership selection, development, and
research in overall leadership effectiveness.
Keywords Leadership, Management accountability
Paper type Research paper

Increased reports of corporate accounting scandals, clergy sexual and financial

misconduct, as well as political upheaval at the federal and state level have exposed a
need for systems to hold leaders accountable for their communication and behavior, as
well as an apparent unwillingness of leaders to actually be accountable (Jewett, 1999;
McClellan, 1999; Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). According to Sedikides et al. (2002),
accountability pressures may be the means through which a social structure or social
situation can influence individual behavior, reminding leaders of the need to act in
compliance with prevailing norms and justify conduct that deviates from those norms.
Tetlock (1999) adds that no social system can function for a sustained period without
accountability checks on group members. Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that
such social accountability begins with the leader. Wood and Winston define leader
accountability as:
.
the leaders willing acceptance of the responsibilities inherent in the leadership
position to serve the well-being of the organization;
.
the implicit or explicit expectation that he/she will be publicly linked to his/her
actions, words, or reactions; and

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
Vol. 28 No. 2, 2007
pp. 167-185
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730710726859

LODJ
28,2

168

the expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs,
decisions, commitments, or actions to constituents.

These three constructs form a contributing collective that shape and influence
accountable-leadership. In that context, these constructs should be measurable, with
identifiable differences between leaders with high levels of accountability and those
with little or no accountability. In spite of the many calls for and debates over
accountability to this point no statistically reliable or valid method for empirically
measuring leader accountability has appeared in the growing body of literature. The
focus of this present study is to construct three instruments to measure the three
constructs that comprise leader accountability, using the principles for scientific scale
development and psychometric testing (Spector, 1992; DeVellis, 2003).
Theory and variables
Conners et al. (1994) note that the concept of accountability is more than a concept or
principle only applicable when something goes wrong or when someone else is trying
to determine cause or pinpoint blame. Accountability requires a level of ownership that
includes:
.
making;
.
keeping; and
.
proactively answering for personal commitments.
Such a phenomenon should, therefore, be evident and measurable, regardless of
whether results are favorable or not. Lerner and Tetlock (1999) define accountability as
the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify ones beliefs,
feelings, and actions to others. Accountability has also been defined metaphorically as
stewardship (Fairholm, 2001) and in the Biblical language of honor (Jewett, 1999).
Leader accountability must be understood, however, in contradistinction to the
constructs of obligate and responsible, which may be similar, but are not universally
synonymous. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary obligate refers to
binding legally or morally (accessed August 31, 2006 www.m-w.com/dictionary/
obligation) whereas, responsible involves liability to be called to account as the
primary cause, motive, or agent of a relationship or duty, or being the cause or
explanation for a given result (accessed August 31, 2006 www.m-w.com/dictionary/
responsible). Accountability, on the other hand, has to do with acceptance of
responsibility (Kouzes and Posner, 1993), voluntary transparency (McClellan, 1999),
and answerability. Thus, while accountability may involve authority structures in
organizational life, it is possible to be obligated without being accountable, and
vice-versa. Moreover, it is possible for someone to be responsible without being
accountable because responsibility may be assigned, enforced, or even mistakenly
applied to an individual or group by an external force. The goal for developing this
instrument is to measure accountability as a construct completely separate from
obligation or responsibility.
Willing acceptance of responsibilities
Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that accountable leaders accept the responsibilities
inherent in the leadership position to serve the well-being of the organization. Bavly
(1999) adds that accountability implies acceptance of responsibility, and anyone who

serves as an agent or leader should be willing to be held accountable. Consistent with

Chafees (1997) definition of accountability, leaders willingly accept the responsibility
to lead the community in one way or another, make decisions, and act on the
organizations behalf. Kraines (2001) suggests that the unique role of leaders and
managers in an organization makes them accountable from two perspectives the one
from above, as employees responsible to the organization itself, and the perspective
from below, for meeting commitments arising from the nature of their relationships
with subordinates. Conners et al. (1994) suggest that accountable leaders readily
acknowledge reality, including its problems and challenges; Jinkins (1988, p. 119) calls
this be-truthed, that is, betrothed to reality. Conners and colleagues suggest that
while leaders dont waste time or energy on matters beyond their control or influence,
accountable leaders own their circumstances and results, regardless of their
desirability. This includes the results of the organization as well (see Conners et al.,
1994; Manwaring, 1997; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Kraines, 2001). Conners et al. shift
the focus of accountability from the past and present to the future. Organizationally
accountable leaders accept responsibility, not just for activities, circumstances, or past
results, but for future direction, potential effectiveness, possibility thinking, an
inspiring shared vision, and maximum contribution (Kraines, 2001; Kouzes and
Posner, 2002).
Public disclosure of words and actions
Accountability, according to Wood and Winston (2005), involves the leaders response
to the implicit or explicit expectation that he/she will be publicly linked to his/her
actions, words, or reactions. Markman and Tetlock (2000) posit that when people
believe that their decisions will be public, expectations of accountability put implicit or
explicit constraints on what they do. Knowing that they will be held accountable for
their actions and decisions, people seek approval and respect, either as ends in
themselves, or to protect and enhance their own self-image. For this reason, observing
behavior is more effective than listening to words in evaluating the degree of
accountability a leader possesses (Manwaring, 1997; Kouzes and Posner, 1993;
Whitener et al., 1998; Petrick and Quinn, 2001). As such, items in the proposed scales
should focus on observations of leader behavior, either by the leaders themselves or by
constituents.
Organizational stakeholders (Fairholm, 2001) and employees (Rogers, 1995) have a
right to expect leaders not only to communicate the types of behaviors that support the
organizations vision, values and effectiveness, but to publicly model those ideals as
well. Conners et al. (1994) agree that accountability by its very nature provides a model
for others with whom we work or associate. Bavly (1999) notes that since ancient times
scholars have correlated accountability with openness and transparency. Mondale
(1975) includes the concept of openness and candor as key virtues of accountability.
Rogers (1995) extends the call for openness to include leaders thoughts and beliefs.
Tetlock (1983, 1985, 1992, 1999) studied the effects of anticipated public disclosure on
decision making processes and demonstrated that when employees know the views of
those to whom they are accountable, the employees rely on the acceptability heuristic
and simply shift their views toward the leaders to whom the employees feel
accountable. In contrast, when employees do not know the views of the individual or
group to whom they are accountable, the employees need to think through the issue
much more carefully in order to arrive at a defensible position. Tetlock (1985) termed
this process preemptive self-criticism. Tetlock and Kim (1987), drawing on previous

Leader
accountability

169

LODJ
28,2

170

research, offer specific identifying behaviors in this regard that will be useful to the
development of the openness scale in this present study. They posit that because of the
anticipation of public disclosure, accountable decision makers are more likely than
unaccountable ones:
.
to use cognitively complex rules in choosing among response options;
.
to be more aware of the determinants of their judgments, to display greater
consistency and stability of judgment;
.
to process persuasive messages in detail rather than rely on their general
evaluation of the messages source; and
.
to be more discriminating and responsive to evidence in evaluating others.
Answerability for beliefs, decisions, commitments, actions
Wood and Winston (2005) maintain that accountable leadership involves the
expectation that the leader may be called on to explain his or her beliefs, decisions,
commitments, or actions to constituents. As a steward of the organization (see
Fairholm, 2001), the leader serves the organizations goals and values more effectively
by informing constituents more completely. Proactively, this includes providing
detailed descriptions of past events (Giorgiov, 2002) providing reasons for what the
leader says or does (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), informing constituents of the process by
which actions were taken or decision made (Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996), explaining
why suggested action was not taken (Manwaring, 1997), answering for prior public
commitments (Conners et al., 1994; Tetlock, 1999); explaining results, progress toward
results, or the lack thereof (Conners et al., 1994), revealing personal motives, beliefs,
and feelings (Giorgiov, 2002; Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), or simply answering questions
(Morley, 1989). By taking the initiative to explain decisions or beliefs rather than
waiting until a problem or complaint arises, accountable leaders add the further benefit
of engaging the commitment, support, and resources of constituents in defining team
relationships and solving organizational problems. Reactively, particularly in the wake
of a mistake, accountable leaders distinguish themselves by their ability to respond to
poor choices in ways that restore credibility and organizational strength. Methods
include responses to criticism, not as a personal attack, but as a point of conflict
negotiation (Giorgiov, 2002), advancing compelling justifications for conduct that
deviates from group norms (Tetlock, 1999), preemptive self-criticism or hedging of
professional judgment (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), declarations of innocence (Tetlock,
1985), and admission of mistakes and apologies (Kouzes and Posner, 1993).
Scope of this study
The scope of the study is limited to developing three scales:
(1) responsibility;
(2) openness; and
(3) answerability.
Leader in this context refers to a man or woman who occupies either a formal
position of authority or an informal, but clearly-understood position of influence. Thus
leader accountability, while it may share some similar characteristics with other forms
of accountability (such as interpersonal accountability), is concerned specifically with
the behaviors, communication, and relationships of people in leadership. Building on

the leader accountability construct developed by Wood and Winston (2005), and the
summated rating scale design principles of Spector (1992) and DeVellis (2003), the
study sought to produce an instrument that is useful in future studies of leadership and
potential leadership effectiveness.
Method
Summated rating scales are widely used by social scientists to measure factors as
diverse as emotional states, personal needs, personality, and description of jobs
(Spector, 1992). DeVellis (2003) adds that scale development enables researchers to
quantify a particular phenomenon in order to pursue researchers ultimate research
objective(s). For this current study the leader accountability scales were developed
using a combination of the steps suggested by Spector and DeVellis as follows:
.
define the construct;
.
generate an item pool;
.
determine the format for measurement;
.
have the initial item pool reviewed by experts;
.
administer items to a development sample;
.
evaluate the items; and
.
optimize scale length.
Define the construct
Clarifying exactly what a scale is intended to measure is deceptively obvious
(DeVellis, 2003, p. 60). Spector (1992, p. 7) argues that: This may seem to be a
simple-minded requirement, but it is at this step that many scale development efforts
go astray,. DeVellis adds that constructs are more clearly defined with the aid of
theory and specificity. Wood and Winston (2005) merged the theoretical streams to
form the constructs comprising leader accountability. Specificity becomes critical
when limiting the construct to the behavior and communication of leaders as leaders,
and distinguishing leader accountability from other possibility-related, but distinct
constructs, such as trust, general responsibility, and obligation.
Generate an item pool
DeVellis (2003) suggests that the purpose of this step is to generate a large pool of
items that are candidates for eventual inclusion in the scale. For this study the authors
reviewed the literature on the three accountability dimensions developed by Wood and
Winston (2005) that resulted in three pools of items: 21 items for responsibility, 26
items for openness, and 19 items for answerability. The extant presentation of the
studies in the literature that undergird each item is beyond the scope of this article but
is available through UMI in Woods (2006) dissertation.
Determine the Format for Measurement
In an effort to achieve consistently reliable responses and avoid the potential problems
of ambiguity and inconsistency, the response items in the instrument used a response
range from zero to ten with the labels anchored at the two polar ends zero was paired
with never and ten was paired with always, thus presenting a sequential
continuum. All items were stated in behavioral terms of demonstrates, accepts,
holds, etc. Zorzi et al. (2002) suggested that numerical response choices, arrayed in a

Leader
accountability

171

LODJ
28,2

172

sequence, express quantity not only in their numerical values, but in their locations as
well. They suggest that such a representation corresponds to fundamental neural
processes. DeVellis (2003, p. 84), commenting on this research, suggests that it:
provides tantalizing preliminary evidence that evaluating a linear string of numbers may
correspond to fundamental neural mechanisms involved in assessing quantity. If this is truly
the case, then response options presented as a row of numbers may have special merit.

Have the initial item pool reviewed by experts

DeVellis (2003) points out that a jury of experts:
.
helps confirm or invalidate the scale developers definition of the phenomenon;
.
helps evaluate the items clarity and conciseness; and
.
points out ways of tapping the phenomenon that the developer has failed to
include.
Six experts in the field of leader accountability and/or scale development reviewed and
commented on the items for this study. The authors modified the items as the experts
directed.
Tables I, II, and III show the items for the three distinct scales:
(1) the Responsibility Scale, measuring the leaders acceptance of the inherent
responsibilities incumbent in his/her role;
(2) the Openness Scale, gauging the leaders public disclosure of communication
and action; and
(3) the Answerability Scale, measuring the leaders answerability for his/her
actions and decisions following the literature review and expert review.
Item No. Item

Table I.
Responsibility scale
item pool

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18

The leader demonstrates a sense of obligation to constituents when making decisions

The leader holds himself/herself to an accepted standard of performance
The leader accepts responsibility for his/her actions within the organization
The leader clearly defines for constituents where his/her responsibilities end and theirs begin
The leader provides constituents with safe ways to address grievances against him/her
The leader avoids making excuses for mistakes
The leader avoids blaming others for mistakes
The leader avoids communicating an attitude of personal helplessness
The leader realistically reckons with problems and challenges
The leader wants to know the truth, regardless of consequences
The leader is willing to face the truth, even when it does not fit his/her personal preferences
The leader accepts responsibility for the future direction and accomplishments of the group
The leader accepts ownership for the results of his/her decisions and actions
The leader accepts responsibility for the direction of the group he/she leads
The leader looks to himself/herself first when the groups results are disappointing
The leader strives to contribute as much as possible to the effectiveness of the organization
The leader accepts responsibility for reaching organizational or team goals
The leader accepts responsibility for the performance of the group he/she leads

Item No. Item

O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19
O20
O21
O22
O23
O24
O25

The leader fulfills the commitments he/she makes to constituents

The leaders behavior is consistent from one person to the next
The leader delivers on his/her commitments
The leader lives out the values of the larger organization
The leader demonstrates consistency in public and private behavior
The leader identifies personal actions popular or not as his/her own
The leader openly listens when people offer perspectives that are different from his/her own
The leader chooses service above self-interest in the use of his or her power
The leader overlooks personal advantage for the sake of the larger organization
The leader avoids isolating from constituents in performing his or her duties
The leader walks his/her talk
The leader openly explains his/her decisions
The leader openly declares his/her values
The leader lives up to his/her stated values
The leader communicates what he/she expects from constituents
The leader openly shares information about organizational resources with constituents
The leader is a role model
The leader behaves consistently from one situation to the next
The leader acts tolerantly of those who disagree with him/her
The leader submits himself/herself to accepted evaluating/auditing processes
The leader interacts openly and candidly with constituents
The leader openly shares his/her thoughts
The leader explains himself/herself to constituents in clear and understandable language
The leader keeps records that are accessible to constituents
The leader considers all relevant points of view

Leader
accountability

173

Table II.
Openness scale item pool

Item No. Item

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16

The leader openly communicates about the progress of his/her commitments to constituents
The leader apologizes to constituents for his/her mistakes
The leader explains the reasons for his/her decisions
The leader explains his/her beliefs to constituents
The leader answers questions from constituents
The leader provides explanations for the performance shortfalls without making excuses
The leader provides detailed explanations of past actions and events
The leader talks to constituents about the values of the larger organization
The leader informs constituents of the process by which he/she arrives at decisions
The leader explains to constituents why suggested action was not taken
The leader seeks regular feedback
The leader provides regular progress reports about personal commitments he/she has made
to constituents
The leader welcomes constructive feedback of his/her actions
The leader explains reasons for standing behind his/her decisions
The leader openly admits his/her mistakes to constituents
The leader takes quick action to deal with the consequences of a mistake

Table III.
Answerability scale
item pool

LODJ
28,2

174

Administer items to a development sample

The purpose of the development sample administration has more to do with evaluating
the test items than it does evaluating the leader(s) in question. Spector (1992) notes that
the development sample should be as representative as possible of the ultimate
population for which the scale is intended. Scale development theorists (see Spector,
1992; DeVellis, 2003; Nunnaly, 1978) agree that the sample must be sufficiently large to
eliminate subject variance as a significant concern. However, there is some
disagreement regarding what constitutes an adequate number. For instance,
Nunnaly suggests 300 people, while Spector maintains that 100-200 is adequate. The
rule of thumb seems to be 5 to 10 subjects per item, up to 300 subjects (DeVellis, 2003).
Since each of the three scales in this study was treated as a unique scale a minimum
sample size was five times the number of items in the largest scale, which for this study
was the 25-item openness scale. Thus, the minimum sample size is 125 participants.
Participants
One hundred forty-eight people participated in the data collection. Five participants
declined to provide demographic data. Of the remaining 143, the study consisted of 68
men (47.6 percent) and 75 women (52.4 percent). Participant ages ranged from 19 to 78,
with a mean age of 45 and a median age of 47. The sample was overwhelmingly
Caucasian (93 percent); African-American and Hispanic participants totaled only 2.8
percent each.
The population of leaders evaluated by the participants was predominately male
(101, or 71 percent) with 42 leaders being female (29 percent). The positions of the
leaders represented a wide variety of leadership positions, including front-line
managers (20, or 14 percent), middle managers (23, or 16.1 percent), senior managers
(29, or 20.3 percent), CEOs and business owners (24, or 16.8 percent), volunteer leaders
(9, or 6.3 percent), pastors (36, or 25.2 percent), and others (2, or 1.4 percent). Table IV
shows the comparison of leadership roles.
Participants also varied in the length of time they had a relationship with the leader.
Forty-six (32.2 percent) had known the leader more than five years. Only 17 (11.9
percent) had known the leader less than one year. The remaining participants who
werent evaluating themselves were fairly split between those who had related to the
leader from one to three years (26, or 18.2 percent) and those who had known the leader
from three to five years (27, 18.9 percent). Table V reflects the variety in the length of
the relationship between the participants and the leaders in question.
By far, most of the participants (67, or 46.9 percent) described a relationship
between themselves as employees and their immediate supervisor. Sixteen (11.2

Table IV.
Leadership levels
represented

Front-line manager
Middle manager
Senior manager
CEO, COO, Owner, etc.
Volunteer leader
Pastor
Other
Total

20
23
29
24
9
36
2
143

14.0
16.1
20.3
16.8
6.3
25.2
1.4
100.0

percent) described themselves as volunteers following a professional leader (including

church leaders). A small number of participants (9, or 6.3 percent) evaluated peers or
colleagues, while five (3.5 percent) described the leadership behaviors of people in a
subordinate position to them. Those evaluating their own leadership behaviors
comprised the second-largest group (30, 21 percent). Table VI summarizes the
relationships represented in the data sample.

Leader
accountability

175
Evaluate the items
According to Spector (1992), the purpose of item analysis is to identify those items that
form an internally consistent scale and to eliminate those items that do not. Reliability
testing of an instrument assesses the degree to which data collected on that instrument
are reproducible. Chronbachs (1951) coefficient alpha directly measures the extent to
which items cohere with their scale.
Factor analysis is another critical item-evaluation tool. DeVellis (2003) notes that
factor analysis helps investigators determine how many latent variables underlie a set
of items. Factor analysis is the best means of determining which groups of items, if
any, constitute a unidimensional set. Spector (1992) adds that with multidimensional
scales, factor analysis can be used to verify that the items empirically form the
intended subscales.
Results of the responsibility scale test
Eighteen items were included in the Responsibility Scale. A principal components
analysis of the 148 responses revealed that only one component (factor) was extracted
with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. This suggests that all the items in the
responsibility scale are measuring the same factor. Moreover, since only one
component was extracted, no factor rotation was possible. The Chronbach coefficient
alpha score for the Responsibility Scale was remarkably high, suggesting, with a
coefficient alpha score of 0.97, that the scale has a very high degree of reliability.
Frequency

17
26
27
46
27
143

11.9
18.2
18.9
32.2
18.2
100.0

Less than one year

One to three years
Three to five years
Over five years
I AM the leader in question
Total

Employee to supervisor/manager
Volunteer to professional leader (including church leaders)
Peer/colleague
Self
Employer/supervisor to lower-level manager
Other
Total

67
16
9
30
5
16
143

46.9
11.2
6.3
21.0
3.5
11.2
100.0

Table V.
Length of participants
relationship with the
leader

Table VI.
Distribution of
follower-leader
relationships

LODJ
28,2

176

Table VII.
Component matrix for
responsibility scale items

Table VII shows the factor loadings for the responsibility scale. The high factor loadings
provided both a positive in that it shows that all the items represent a one-dimensional
scale but does not give us a clear means of reducing the items. While it is typical to reduce
a one-dimensional factor by selecting the highest ranking factor-loads we noticed that
some of the items were similar to each other and that by excluding some of the lower
ranking factor loadings we would lose some of the breadth of the items. Had the factor
loadings been disparate then the loss of breadth would be acceptable in order to get a
group of high-loading items but with all the items scoring so high we decided to use a
qualitative approach and remove the items that we deemed to be redundant or not useful.
Table VIII lists the items that were eliminated and the primary reason(s) they were
not included in the final scale. The resultant list of items for the Responsibility Scale is
as follows:
The leader:
R1

Demonstrates a sense of obligation to constituents when making decisions.

R2

Accepts responsibility for his/her actions within the organization.

R3

Clearly defines for constituents where his/her responsibilities end and theirs
begin.

R4

Provides constituents with safe ways to address grievances against him/her.

R5

Avoids making excuses for mistakes.

R6

Avoids blaming others for mistakes.

R7

Is willing to face the truth, even when it does not fit his/her personal
preferences.

R8

Accepts responsibility for the future direction and accomplishments of the

group.

Item

Component 1

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18

0.85
0.80
0.90
0.83
0.84
0.91
0.84
0.63
0.91
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.89
0.88
0.84
0.87

Item No.

Item

Reason for elimination

R2

The leader holds himself/herself to an

accepted standard of performance

Assumes the participants knowledge of the

leaders personal thoughts and standards

R8

The leader avoids communicating an

attitude of personal helplessness

Had the highest alpha if deleted score

R9

The leader realistically reckons with

problems and challenges

Similar to both R11 and R13

R10

The leader wants to know the truth,

regardless of consequences

Assumes knowledge of leaders thoughts;

similar to R11

R14

The leader accepts responsibility for the

direction of the group he/she leads

Similar to R12

R16

The leader strives to contribute as much as Presumes the participants knowledge of the
leaders motives
possible to the effectiveness of the
organization

R17

The leader accepts responsibility for

reaching organizational or team goals

Similar to R13

R18

The leader accepts responsibility for the

performance of the group he/she leads

Similar to R13

R9

Accepts ownership for the results of his/her decisions and actions.

R10 Looks to himself/herself first when the groups results are disappointing.
The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the resultant
items in the Responsibility scale that again revealed that only one factor was
extracted with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0. A subsequent reliability analysis on
the ten-item scale again revealed a high Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.97.
This suggests that the resultant Responsibility Scale has a high degree of
reliability. To establish a baseline for future research, the total scores for the
Responsibility Scale ranged from 7 to 100, with a mean score of 72 and a median
score of 80.
Results of the openness scale test
Twenty-five items were included in the Openness Scale. A principal components
analysis of the 148 responses revealed that only one component was extracted with
an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0. This suggests that all the items in the responsibility
scale are measuring the same factor. Again, since only one component was
extracted, no factor rotation was possible. The Chronbach coefficient alpha score for
the Openness Scale was extremely high at 0.99, thus the scale has a very high
degree of reliability.
Table IX shows the factor loadings by item and like the Responsibility scale we
have a one-dimensional scale with very high factor loads. In a similar manner we used
qualitative means to review the items and removed the items that seemed redundant or
not useful. Table X lists the items that were eliminated and the primary reason(s) they
were not included in the final scale. The resultant list of items for the Openness Scale is
as follows.

Leader
accountability

177

Table VIII.
Items eliminated from the
responsibility scale, with
reasons for their
elimination

LODJ
28,2

178

Table IX.
Component matrix for
openness scale items

Item

Component 1

O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19
O20
O21
O22
O23
O24
O25

0.86
0.90
0.93
0.87
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.93
0.90
0.87
0.94
0.88
0.78
0.91
0.87
0.87
0.94
0.94
0.91
0.89
0.93
0.78
0.87
0.76
0.92

The leader:
O1

Behaves consistently from one person to the next.

O2

Demonstrates consistency in public and private behavior.

O3

Identifies personal actions popular or not as his/her own.

O4

Openly listens when people offer perspectives that are different from his/her
own.

O5

Avoids isolating from constituents in performing his or her duties.

O6

Openly explains his/her decisions.

O7

Openly declares his/her values.

O8

Is a role model.

O9

Interacts openly and candidly with constituents.

O10 Keeps records that are accessible to constituents.

The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the revised 10-item
Openness Scale to ascertain that all ten items loaded to one factor. The analysis of the
148 respondents confirmed that, indeed, all ten items in the scale were representative of
one factor. A subsequent reliability analysis on the ten-item scale again revealed a high

Item No.

Item

Reason for elimination

O1

The leader fulfills the commitments he/she Could be compound item, if the leader never
makes to constituents
actually makes any commitments

O3

The leader delivers on his/her commitments Possible to do this without openness

O4

The leader lives out the values of the larger Organizational values are not always
organization
known by participants

O8

The leader chooses service above

self-interest in the use of his or her power

May be hard for participants to know the

leaders private choices and motives

O9

The leader overlooks personal advantage

for the sake of the larger organization

Not always observable

O11

The leader walks his/her talk

Similar to O5

O14

The leader lives up to his/her stated values. Similar to O5

O15

The leader communicates what he/she

expects from constituents

O16

The leader openly shares information about Could be a compound item if there are no
organizational resources with constituents organizational resources to inform
constituents about

O18

The leaders behavior is consistent from one Similar to O2 and O3

situation to the next

O19

The leader acts tolerantly of those who

disagree with him/her

Can be open and intolerant

O20

The leader submits himself/herself to

accepted evaluating/auditing processes

Not always easy for participants to observe

this behavior

O22

The leader openly shares his/her thoughts. Similar to O22

O23

The leader explains himself/herself to

constituents in clear and understandable
language

Similar to O22

O25

The leader considers all relevant points of

view

Can do this without being open

Leader
accountability

179

Similar to item in Responsibility Scale

Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.97. This suggests that the resultant Openness
Scale has a high degree of reliability. To establish a baseline for future research the
total scores for the Openness Scale ranged from 9 to 100, with a mean score of 72 and a
median score of 78.
Results of the answerability scale test
The Answerability Scale contained a pool of 16 items. Table XI shows the factor
loadings for the items and like the Responsibility and Openness scales we have a
one-dimensional scale with very high factor loads. In a similar manner we used
qualitative means to review the items and we removed the items that seemed
redundant or not useful. The Chronbach coefficient alpha score for the Answerability
Scale was again remarkably high, suggesting, with a coefficient alpha score of 0.98,
that the scale has a very high degree of reliability.

Table X.
Items eliminated from the
openness scale, with
reasons for their
elimination

LODJ
28,2

180

Table XI.
Component matrix for
answerability scale items

Item

Component 1

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16

0.92
0.91
0.94
0.88
0.87
0.91
0.91
0.87
0.92
0.90
0.91
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.95
0.84

Table XII shows the items that were removed from the scale and the reasons for
removing the items.The resultant list of items in the Answerability Scale is as follows:

Table XII.
Items eliminated from the
answerability scale, with
reasons for their
elimination

A1

Apologizes to constituents for his/her mistakes.

A2

Explains the reasons for his/her decisions.

A3

Answers questions from constituents.

A4

Provides explanations for the performance shortfalls without making

excuses.

A5

Informs constituents of the process by which he/she arrives at decisions.

A6

Explains to constituents why suggested action was not taken.

Item No.

Item

Reason for elimination

A1

The leader openly communicates about the Could be a compound item if the leader
happens never to make commitments
progress of his/her commitments to
constituents

A4

The leader explains his/her beliefs to

constituents

A7

The leader provides detailed explanations of Similar to A3 and A6

past actions and events

A8

The leader talks to constituents about the

values of the larger organization

Not as relevant as other items

A11

The leader seeks regular feedback

Similar to A13, but not as strong

A14

The leader explains reasons for standing

behind his/her decisions

Similar to A3 and A7

Similar to A3 and A5

A7

Provides regular progress reports about personal commitments he/she has

made to constituents.

A8

Welcomes constructive feedback of his/her actions.

A9

Openly admits his/her mistakes to constituents.

A10 Takes quick action to deal with the consequences of a mistake.

The authors conducted another principal components analysis on the revised 10-item
Answerability Scale to ascertain that all ten items loaded to one factor. The analysis of
the 148 respondents confirmed that, indeed, all ten items in the scale were
representative of one factor. A subsequent reliability analysis on the ten-item scale
again revealed a high Chronbach coefficient alpha score of 0.98. This suggests that the
resultant Openness Scale has a high degree of reliability. To establish a baseline for
future research, the total scores for the Answerability Scale ranged from 8 to 100, with
a mean score of 70 and a median score of 81.
Discussion
The results indicate the existence of three uni-dimensional scales, each with an
extraordinarily high degree of reliability. In addition, the panel of experts indicate that
face validity for the items and the scales exists. While those results are certainly
encouraging, the scales should continue to be tested to confirm the results indicated
here.
Limitations of the study
The scales were designed for use by English-speaking people who are at least 18 years
of age, with at least a high school degree. Other demographic concerns should not be a
factor; demographic measures built into the pilot test were intended to insure that to be
the case. Furthermore, the scales should also be useful to anyone who can observe a
leaders behavior subordinates, peers, supervisors, or even the leaders themselves.
The number of participants in the pilot tests (148) satisfied the criterion for sample
size when conducting a factor analysis. That does not necessarily mean, however, that
the sample was representative of the general population. Participant gender (68 men
and 75 women) and age (19 to 79, with a median of 47) reflected a meaningful balance
among the participants. However, the fact that the overwhelming number of
respondents was Caucasian (93 percent), and that the population of leaders being
evaluated was predominantly male (71 percent) suggests the need for more research.
This was most likely because the pilot test was administered online, and that the
primary participants were members of an Interdenominational West Texas church,
personal contacts of the primary researcher and, as a whole, most likely
overwhelmingly conservative Evangelical Christians resulted in a convenient
homogenous sample of conservative Christian Internet users. Further research needs
to be conducted among a broader spectrum of cultural participants, should include
more studies of female leaders, and should allow for other means of data collection that
do not require computer or Internet expertise.
The issues of responsibility, openness, and answerability inevitably emerge in the
wake of a real or apparent failure in leadership or a violation of trust. Accountability
and its collective constructs are buzzwords, the stuff of scandals. As such, as Wood
and Winston (2005) point out, it is subject to the dangers of becoming a passing fad, or

Leader
accountability

181

LODJ
28,2

182

of being used as a social panacea. The philosophical conviction behind this research is
that leader accountability, as demonstrated in the behavior, reaction, and
communication of leaders, is always important, regardless of the presence or
absence of an organizational crisis. The development of scales to actually measure the
presence or absence of the accountability constructs creates the possibility of moving
the conversation from a reactive posture to a proactive one. It also implies the
possibility of guiding organizations in the selection or promotion of accountable
individuals to positions of leadership. Moreover, these instruments provide
organizations a framework by which to train and develop leaders in this critical area.
The need to move from reactive accountability to proactive accountability
Valid accountability measures offer hope and suggest a course of action for leaders
everywhere, but especially those who labor to lead an organization to do more than
damage control. This research is groundbreaking because it goes beyond the grim, but
glib warning that trust, once violated, is hard to restore. The leader accountability
scales are founded on the principle that proactive measures can help businesses,
governments and government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and ministries
identify potential danger and take corrective action before it becomes a scandal. These
scales offer the potential to:
.
proactively pinpoint specific strengths and weaknesses in an organizations
leader/follower relationships;
.
identify specific leader habits that demonstrate accountability or a lack thereof;
.
evaluate the agreement between leader and follower perceptions of
accountability;
.
provide a starting point for improved communication between leaders and
constituents; and
.
provide guidance and a means of assessing remedial steps taken following a
breach of accountability or trust in order for leaders to regain lost credibility.
These tools, however, are only as useful as the willingness of organizations and
their leaders to use them before they encounter societys rush to judgment, moral
outrage, and political posturing in the wake of an emergency. Is it possible that
such a set of tools could have pointed to potential flaws in the televangelists of
the 1980s, or the Clinton/Flowers/Lewinski problem? key players of the 1990s?
Could a process of identifying the openness or answerability weaknesses of
front-line or middle managers have prevented the promotion of corporate
executives who were the center of the 2001-2002 accounting scandals? Only time
and future use of these scales can tell. Even hindsight is useless without a means
to gauge its value.
The opportunity to identify potential future leaders
Another potential benefit of this research lies in the area of hiring, evaluation, and
promotion practices. If the collective constructs of accountability are indeed
measurable, and accountable leaders are more effective in meeting the organizations
objectives than unaccountable leaders (yet to be proven), then organizations would be
better served by re-thinking the basis by which they evaluate and make hiring and
promotion decisions. Organizations experience more than one kind of crisis. The

frantic need for better financial performance, for example, could lead to the temptation
to hire or promote someone who can drastically improve the bottom line. But at what
cost? And by what measurement?
The use of the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales may assist
organizations in identifying the deciding factor in hiring or promoting one of several
apparently equally-qualified candidates. They provide the opportunity for
constituents, leaders, supervisors and peers to describe and measure what the
candidate actually does not just how he or she talks about leadership and
accountability.
Implications to leadership research
By identifying specific behaviors, communication, and reactions to requests for
justification that characterize the three constructs of leader accountability, the
Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales offer two facets of leadership
development. First, the scales may point out areas in which current leaders can modify
their behavior and improve the level of accountability they demonstrate to
constituents. Perhaps as a 360-degree feedback instrument or in some other use,
leaders can receive actual data that suggests areas in which they, their subordinates,
their supervisors, or their peers indicated room for improvement or a need for change.
Such feedback also offers the possibility of pointing out to the leader areas in which
he/she demonstrates strength.
Second, the scales may provide a framework for training prospective leaders and
managers to be accountable leaders. Individuals who increase in positional authority
and power sometimes enter into such a position with a poor understanding of the
nature of leadership and the need for accountability. This is especially true when they
lack role models who demonstrate what responsible, open, and answerable leadership
looks like. By using the scales and their supporting literature, organizations have the
opportunity to chart an intentional course in leader development that may have
long-lasting implications for the success of both the personal and performance aspects
of leadership.
Implications for future research
The development of the Responsibility, Openness, and Answerability Scales represent
the next step in a journey of research and application. More research is needed. This
includes:
.
a series of convergence and discriminate studies;
.
research into other expressions of accountability not measured by these scales;
and
.
a variety of other studies that can help explain the role that leader accountability
serves in leadership theory and organizational life.
References
Bavly, D.A. (1999), Corporate Accountability and Governance: What Role for the Regulator,
Director, and Auditor?, Quorum, Westport, CT.
Chaffee, P. (1997), Accountable Leadership: A Resource Guide for Sustaining Legal, Financial, and
Ethical Integrity in Todaya Congregations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Leader
accountability

183

LODJ
28,2

184

Chronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Conners, R., Smith, T. and Hickman, C. (1994), The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through
Individual and Organizational Accountability, Prentice Hall, Paramus, NJ.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Fairholm, G.W. (2001), Mastering Inner Leadership, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Giorgiov, A.D. (2002), The effect of accountability on pastoral stress and burnout among select
Hungarian Baptist pastors, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, UMI No. 3046675.
Jewett, R. (1999), Confession and forgiveness in the public sphere: a Biblical evaluation,
in Fackre, G. (Ed.), Judgment Day at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring
Moral Issues and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Jinkins, M. (1988), The Character of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1993), Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People
Demand It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Kraines, G.A. (2001), Accountability Leadership: How to Strengthen Productivity Through Sound
Managerial Leadership, Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999), Accounting for the effects of accountability, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 125, pp. 255-75.
McClellan, A. (1999), Establishing and maintaining credibility in the ministry, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Fuller Seminary, UMI No. 9969650.
Manwaring, P.A. (1997), Building trust in educational leadership, and a new instrument to
measure subordinates trust: a study conducted in the church educational system,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, UMI
No. 9717112.
Markman, K.D. and Tetlock, P.E. (2000), I couldnt have known: accountability, foreseeability
and counterfactual denials of responsibility, British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, pp.,
Vol. 39, pp. 313-25.
Mondale, W.F. (1975), The Accountability of Power: Toward a Responsible Presidency,
David McKay Company, New York, NY.
Morley, P.M. (1989), The Man in the Mirror, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Brentwood, TN.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Petrick, J.A. and Quinn, J.F. (2001), The challenge of leadership accountability for integrity
capacity as a strategic asset, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 331-44.
Rogers, R.W. (1995), The psychological contract of trust Part II, Executive Development, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 7-15.
Sedikides, C., Herbst, K.C., Hardin, D.P. and Dardis, G.J. (2002), Accountability as a deterrent to
self-enhancement: the search for mechanisms, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 592-605.
Siegel-Jacobs, K. and Yates, J.F. (1996), Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on
judgment quality, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 1,
pp. 1-17.

Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated rating scale construction: an introduction, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Tetlock, P.E. (1983), Accountability and the complexity of throught, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 74-83.
Tetlock, P.E. (1985), Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice, in
Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual
Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992), The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social
contingency model, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 25, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY.
Tetlock, P.E. (1999), Accountability theory: mixing properties of human agents with properties
of social systems, in Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Shared
Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mawah, NJ.
Tetlock, P.E. and Kim, J.I. (1987), Accountability and judgment processes in a personality
prediction task, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 700-9.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Lorsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), Managers as initiators of
trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 513-20.
Wood, J.A. (2006), Development of three scales to measure leader accountability, unpublished
dissertation, Regent University School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.
Wood, J.A. and Winston, B.E. (2005), Toward a new understanding of leader accountability:
defining a critical construct, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11,
pp. 84-94.
Zorci, M., Priftis, K. and Umilita, C. (2002), Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number
line, Nature, Vol. 417 9 May, pp. 138-9.
Further reading
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2006), available at: www.m-w.com/dictionary/
About the authors
Jame A. (Andy) Wood is the founder and Senior Pastor of Turning Point. He has served as a
pastor in various capacities for 28 years. Whether as senior pastor, staff pastor, consultant,
teacher, author, evangelist, or seminar leader, Andy has sought to work by a philosophy he refers
to as M.A.D.I.S.E.L.! Make a Difference in Someone Elses Life!
Bruce E. Winston, Ph.D. serves as both Dean and Associate Professor of Leadership at Regent
Universitys School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dr.
Winston teaches, trains and consults in the areas of leadership and organizational development
as well as university administration and strategic foresight. In addition, he has 13 years of
experience leading organizations in the commercial printing industry and 15 years of experience
leading academic units at Regent University. Dr. Winston has lectured and consulted in the
United States as well as Canada, Europe, and South Africa. He also speaks and teaches in other
areas including communication, quality improvement and marketing. Bruce Winston is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: bwinston@regent.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Leader
accountability

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.