Aruandekohuslus ja läbipaistvus on organisatsioonides ning valitsemises demokraatia tingimustes ühed kesksed elemendid. Samuti on selge, et (avalikud) organisatsioonid on sageli nö kahvlis, kus aruandekohuslus erinevatele osalistele ja organisatsioonides sees võib põhjustada konfliktseid olukordi. Seetõttu on siinviidatud artikkel mitmete valdkonnas tuntud tegijate koostööna üsna päevakohane.

Autorid seavad väljakutseks:

This creates one of the prominent accountability challenges for executive organizations in contemporary governance: coping with the conflictual expectations emanating from a multiplicity of “accountability forums” (Bovens, 2007; Martin et al., 2018) who operate on the basis of divergent institutional logics (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987; Thomann et al., 2018).

Eesmärgid:

The purpose is to study the effects of conflictual accountability on behaviors of leaders in agencies and their counterparts in ministries. We aim to make three contributions. We first of all aim to make a small but significant conceptual contribution by distinguishing conflictual accountability from multiple accountability. […] This article therefore aims to further our understanding in a more systematic way by focusing on two important behaviors of decision-makers which can be affected by a conflictual accountability environment. […] To further our knowledge beyond the (relevant) specifics of cases, we have therefore studied conflictual accountability and its behavioral effects in seven countries through original data collection.

Viis probleemi (mis tegelikult on erialakirjanduses erinevates versioonides ja erinevate autorite poolt variatsioonidena siinsele lugejale ilmselt tuttavad):

the problem of multitasking. Decision-makers in public organizations have to cope with and attend to a multiplicity of accountability mechanisms at the same time. […] the problem of many eyes (Bovens et al., 2014, p. 11). For instance, government agencies (Verschuere et al., 2006) and other executive bodies (Benjamin & Posner, 2018; Wille, 2016) see themselves confronted by a large number of accountability forums […] the classic problem of many hands (Thompson, 1980). In modern governance, tasks are often performed in networks, collaborations, or they require collaboration between different levels of government […] the problem of competing institutional logics. The basic premise is that decision-makers in public administration operate in systems that are characterized by competing institutional logics, creating competing logics of appropriateness […] the problem of conflictual expectations. Broadly constituted accountability regimes are easily associated with goal conflict (J. Christensen et al., 2018) and tensions between multiple relevant norms

Mõned järeldused:

contrary to expectations, we find that CEOs do not necessarily equate the multiplicity of their accountability regime with conflicting expectations. […] This article has shown that the effects of conflictual accountability on behaviors are not unidimensional. […] All in all, this article has shown that CEOs of agencies in our seven countries almost universally perceive to operate in a context of multiple accountability.

Schillemans, T., Overman, S., Fawcett, P., Flinders, M., Fredriksson, M., Laegreid, P., … & Wood, M. (2021). Conflictual Accountability: Behavioral Responses to Conflictual Accountability of Agencies. Administration & Society, 00953997211004606.