The paper 'Quality Management in Education' is a good example of a Management Literature Review. Berman et al (2012) posit that the fast developing accountability literature indicates an essential paradox: responsible appliance and understanding of outside accountability pressures depend on virtues cultivation that upholds better administrative decisions. However, all methodologies and organizations utilized to converse these outside standards including monitoring conformity with them, regularly intimidate similar qualities, which uphold responsible decisions. Consulting different and rich literature assists analysts in exploring the paradox since it materializes in both recognizable compliance-based accountability practices, as well as less well-appreciated practices based on performance linked to reinvention and the pioneering public administration.
The concept of accountability tends to be slippery but can be identified in different ways, namely in practice, theory, as well as applied diversely in various circumstances. Additionally, accountability tends to be a moral concept, which entails proper conduct and handles individuals' and organizations' responsibilities regarding their behaviors towards other organizations and people (Norma, 2001). It is very important to people who bear offices, their administrators, as well as the public since it tackles professional dependence and outside control, the two influential aspects of all working relations.
Control and dependence are very significant to all civic services, which rely on the experience and expertise of skilled professional employees. Bovens, Schillemans, and Hart (2008) stipulate that conventional literature identifies both forms of accountability namely ethical or moral accountability and professional accountability. Arrangements of accountability are designed to enhance performance although such arrangements can possess negative effects on the outcomes. Accountability benefits come from egalitarian control, integrity maintenance and enhancement, civic office legitimacy, performance enhancement, and employees’ support and examination of failure or wrongdoing cases.
Negative accountability aspects happen because accountability balances and checks lack the consistency that in turn leads to negative incentives and results. Such an accountability dilemma takes place when procedures designed to improve performance obstruct it or overlook other elements, thus affecting stakeholders adversely. A gradual change to further parallel/horizontal accountability in civic service occurs than in the past. This type of accountability changes from conventional subordinate or superior relations to creative and manifold relations. According to Bovens, et al (2008), horizontal accountability opens and extends stakeholders’ mechanism to hold on to account all actors as well as transforming accountability into further transparent practice. Most people have criticized the extreme dependence on quantifiable performance.
Predominantly, analysts believe that extreme reliance on corporeal performance pointers generally destabilizes professional principles and morals. Using the perceptible “ trust crisis, ” this indicates the importance of superior clearness that allows high accountability principles. The pioneering mechanisms guarantee dependable performance using conformity and extremely vivid contracts, which explains the responsibilities of office bearers. Nowadays, a suspicious culture that looks for a cure in the sanctions and prevention institutions, which advocate for more accountability in governments, institutions, as well as professionals, exists (Thompson, 2005).
This compels the importance of tremendous accountability stipulations, which ease institutional, professional, and administrative control. Nonetheless, the control mechanism, monitoring, and implementation intended to support office bearers' responsibility can destroy their specialized attempts. One can conclude that in reaction to soaring accountability demands, professionals manage their responsibilities to achieve set goals as well as succeed greatly in precise elements.
Berman, E., Bowman, J., West, J., & Wart, M. (March 28, 2012). Human Resource Management in Public Service: Paradoxes, Processes, and Problems. (4th edition). New York: SAGE Publication, Inc.
Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. T. (2008). Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool. Public Administration. 86(1): 225-242.
Bovens, M. (2010). Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism, West European Politics 33 (1): 946–967.
Dixon, J., & Kouzmin, A. (1994). The Commercialization of the Australian Public Sector: Competence, Elitism or Default in Management Education? International Journal of Public Sector Management. 7(6): 52-73.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOS. World Development, 31(5): 813-829.
Goldberg, J. (2002). Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance .Quality Management Journal, 9(4):8-22.
Mercer, J., Barker, B., & Bird, R. (2010). Human Resource Management in education: Contexts, Themes, and Impact. London: Routeledge.
Norma R. (2001). Accountability in Social Research. New York: Springer.
Thompson, D. (2005). The Responsibility of Advisers” in Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.