Dubnick, Melvin J. and Jonathan B. Justice, “Barnard’s Regret: Zones of Accountability and the Limits of Authority,” Public Integrity, 18 (2) Spring 2014: 141-157.
Abstract: Nearly two decades after publication of his seminal work, The Functions of the Executive, Chester Barnard had the insight that moral responsibility and accountability might be a more powerful principle for guiding individual actions within organizations than the executive authority he emphasized in his earlier work. This article begins the work of elaborating one direction in which Barnard might have developed his insight, by adopting ethical acceptance rather than self-interested indifference as the metaphor describing members’ willingness to act in accordance with organizational needs rather than purely individual preferences. The alternative metaphor opens up opportunities for understanding how organizations structure their members’ ethical commitments and suggests that leaders and managers can enhance organizational behavior and performance by working systematically to recognize, understand and (re)design organizational spaces of accountability and discretion.
AI-Generated Summary:
The document explores Chester Barnard’s evolving views on organizational morality, responsibility, authority, accountability, and leadership.
Barnard’s Reflection on Responsibility and Morality
- Barnard expressed regret that his earlier focus on authority overshadowed the importance of responsibility in organizations.
- He believed that organizational morality is a social creation, emerging from within social relationships rather than external moral standards.
- Barnard distinguished between individual responsibility and organizational responsibility, emphasizing internal social dynamics.
- He argued that responsibility is a property of human beings, not just a legal or contractual obligation.
- Barnard recognized the complexity of moral dilemmas faced by organizational members and the need for better understanding of organizational morality.
Limitations of Authority in Managing Moral Issues
- Barnard initially relied on executive authority to manage organizational morality but later saw its limits.
- He acknowledged that authority alone cannot resolve complex moral conflicts within organizations.
- Barnard suggested that moral responsibilities cannot be arbitrarily delegated and require internal acceptance.
- He highlighted that moral dilemmas often involve conflicting responsibilities that cannot be solved solely through legal or structural means.
- Barnard proposed alternative methods like judicial processes, reconciliation, and invention to address moral conflicts, but these are insufficient without organizational design.
Concept of Zones of Accountability and Expectations
- Barnard introduced the idea of “zones of indifference” where organizational members are indifferent to directives within certain limits.
- He used economic concepts like indifference curves to describe social spaces where behavior is acceptable or indifferent.
- The “zone of acceptance” was later expanded to include accountability, emphasizing shared expectations and moral responsibility.
- Different zones of expectations are characterized by task specificity and trust levels, affecting discretion and accountability.
- These zones include the performative, constitutive, managerial, and regulative zones, each with distinct levels of discretion and oversight.
Role of Accountability in Organizational Behavior
- Accountability is rooted in social interactions and expectations among organizational members.
- It involves mechanisms like communication, evaluation, sanctions, and moral sentiments that influence behavior.
- Accountability shapes actions by making individuals aware of how their conduct will be observed and judged.
- It integrates moral and self-interested motivations, encouraging responsible cooperation.
- Expanding accountability spaces can help design organizational environments that foster genuine responsibility and moral engagement.
Practical Wisdom and Discretion in Organizations
- Barnard emphasized the importance of practical wisdom (phronesis) in managing discretion responsibly.
- He believed that leaders should create social spaces where members can act responsibly based on experience and moral judgment.
- Discretion should be tied to a sense of responsibility developed through practical engagement.
- Different expectation zones require varying degrees of oversight and trust, balancing control and autonomy.
- Encouraging practical wisdom involves providing organizational contexts that develop members’ moral reasoning and judgment.
Implications for Organizational Design and Leadership
- Leaders should design multiple accountability spaces tailored to specific tasks and trust levels.
- Effective organizational design involves recognizing where moral dilemmas and discretion are most prominent.
- Leaders can enhance cooperation by systematically redesigning accountability zones to align with organizational goals.
- Practical wisdom and moral responsibility are central to sustainable organizational performance.
- Barnard’s insights suggest that responsible leadership involves fostering internal moral commitments rather than relying solely on authority.
Conclusion and Future Directions
- Barnard’s regret highlights the need for a deeper understanding of organizational morality beyond authority.
- His concept of accountability spaces offers a framework for improving organizational responsibility.
- Future research should develop methods to make organizational moral design explicit and testable.
- Practical application involves observing and redesigning social spaces to promote genuine accountability.
- Barnard’s ideas remain relevant for developing responsible, morally grounded organizational leadership.