Dubnick, Melvin J., “Orders of Accountability.” Prepared for presentation at World Ethics Forum on Leadership, Ethics and Integrity in Public Life, 9-11 April 2006, Keble College, University of Oxford, UK
Abstract (Introduction):
In the following pages I engage in what can best be called a “speculative exercise” in concept building and testing. It is clearly a “draft” version of a work in progress, but also much less. In some respects, it reflects an early (but not the earliest) stage in the strange process through which I tend to develop and test ideas about accountability. The stimulus for this exercise was a growing sense that general approaches to accountability – including my own – failed to deal with several key structural aspects of accountable governance. Scanning the literature on accountability reveals that it takes a variety of structural forms — as an action (holding one to account), a social relationship between and account giver and account receiver, a setting within which accountable actions occur, a moral attribute of an accountable individual, etc. The challenge is how to frame these various structural manifestations of accountability in an analytically fruitful way. The occasion for developing such a potential framework emerged as I was engaged in two distinct projects, one related to corporate governance and the other focused on school accountability. Despite the considerable differences between these two arenas, they shared a similar pattern of accountability-related problems and reforms. Both the differences and similarities of the two arenas proved helpful as the outlines of the “orders of accountability” framework began to take shape. The framework, now a bit more developed, is ready for a “test drive” to see if it holds any promise.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores a conceptual framework of different “orders of accountability” in governance and social relationships, analyzing their structural forms and functions.
Framework of Accountability Types
- Accountability is a social relationship involving “account giving” between responsible parties.
- It includes four levels: performative, regulatory, managerial, and embedded, each with distinct roles.
First-Order Performative Accountability
- Involves explicit acts of account giving, such as reports, testimony, or apologies.
- Acts are responses to direct solicitations like audits, media, or legal demands.
Second-Order Regulatory Accountability
- Based on rules, laws, and task environment architecture that constrain behavior.
- Law and environment “architecture” create conditions for performative accountability.
Third-Order Managerial Accountability
- Focuses on motivating responsible behavior through incentives and performance assessments.
- Designed to improve future actions rather than control conduct directly.
Fourth-Order Embedded Accountability
- Rooted in internalized norms, morals, and professional values.
- Guides behavior through moral responsibility, trust, and legitimacy.
Normative Speculations on Accountability
- Ideal system involves nesting embedded, managerial, regulatory, and performative levels.
- Effectiveness of reforms depends on how they influence relationships among these levels.
Corporate Governance Application
- Problems include answerability, protection, performance, and representation of stakeholders.
- Strategies align with accountability levels: legal actions for embedded, regulations for protection, reports for answerability, incentives for performance.
School Accountability Challenges
- Key issues are responsibility, control, performance, and mission.
- Historically, education relied on professional norms, but bureaucratization shifted control to regulations.
Education System Evolution
- Early 20th-century reforms emphasized teacher professionalism and social responsibility.
- Post-1950s, increased bureaucratic control aimed to standardize and manage schools, often bypassing professional norms.
Shift from Regulatory to Managerial Accountability
- Recent reforms emphasize “New Accountability,” moving from second-order (regulatory) to third-order (managerial) focus.
- High-stakes testing and performance standards have increased, especially under the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act.
Impact on Teacher Professional Norms
- These reforms challenge fourth-order deference to teachers, undermining long-standing professional norms.
- Teachers now focus on test scores, often engaging in gaming strategies, including teaching to the test and cheating.
Consequences of Managerial Accountability
- Relying on managerial accountability has weakened teachers’ intrinsic commitment and professional standards.
- The shift may lead to a focus on control problems rather than genuine educational improvement.
Theoretical Framework of Accountability
- The paper explores four distinct orders of accountability as a structural model for governance.
- Applying this framework to education and other sectors offers insights but requires further development.