Essay Example on A ramification of theories was suggested about the Phrase

A ramification of theories was suggested about the phrase accountability It is not argued that accountability is crucial to everybody but there is absolutely no determination on the way the accountability is discussed and visible to be furnished Sinclair 1995 Messner 2009 even stated it is sensible to demand more accountability However accountability has now lost its own identity and requires an extensive meaning Mulgan 2000 Sinclair 1995 expressed her opinions on accountability as a cherished concept sought after but elusive She believes that accountability is independently created and gets better with surroundings She had completed interviews with 15 Chief Executives Officers CEOs of Australian public sectors organisations in order to disclose the chameleon quality of accountability and to understand the ways these CEOs practice their accountability Five forms of accountability were defined in the interview which are political public managerial professional and personal 

Two discoursed of accountability are also identified which are a structural and a personal discourse The results suggest that accountability changes and even what CEOs see in it also changes CEOs description of being accountable are divided into two discourses which are structural and personal discourse These discourses were distinguished by distinct patterns of associations and words various ways and emphases of relating understanding and experience Accountability in the structural discourse is spoken of as the technical property of a role or contract structure or system In contrast the personal discourse is confidential and anecdotal In this discourse accountability is ambiguous with the possibility to be feared or uplifting Accountability here is about exposure and vulnerability and it is extremely near to the CEO s sense of who she or he is The personal discourse functions to admit the risks and failures exposure and invasiveness with which accountability is experienced tukar ayat However Dubnick 2003 expressed accountability in some other way He classified accountability into four types which are answerability blameworthiness liability and attributability Accountability as answerability mentioned the kind of people which belong in this class may be the one that has and can react to the need created by some other individuals generally those with higher positions Next accountability as blameworthiness may be the one that responsible not because its own tasks but due to other individuals that place the blame on them when there is an undesirable event happens 

Meanwhile accountability as liability stresses that the person will be associated with the laws that have been set and avoiding any behaviours that contradict the regulations In other words they tend to focus on the people who do the task instead of some other related role Lastly accountability as attributability considers the social life of an individual It might not appear to be vital but in fact it is quite relevant in the environment of accountability of public sector workers They nonetheless represent their companies despite the fact that it is outside their working life However not all these types of accountability are appropriate in business context Lastly Bovens 2010 distinguishes accountability into two main concepts which are as a virtue and as a mechanism He argues that distinguishing more clearly between these two concepts of accountability could help solve at least some of the conceptual confusion and may provide some foundation for comparative and cumulative analysis Virtue signifies high moral standards behaviour while mechanism means the procedure by which something takes place Accountability as a virtue is utilized to positively qualify an individual to its responsiveness and their sense of duty An individual must have a willingness to act in a transparent fair and equitable way to display the energetic feeling of virtue 

Accountability in this active sense of virtuous behaviour is easily used but very hard to explain substantively as the criteria for what constitutes accountable behaviour differ based on function institutional context political perspective and era Second accountability acts as a mechanism Accountability is an act of providing an account to somebody else to realise the task Bovens 2010 unveiled the forum and actor concept which will be associated with principal agent concept There are three stages for this concept First the actors should inform to the forum the purposes of the activities for instance the process Next the forum is going to give chance to thoughts of the activities to find the importance of doing so Finally the forum is going to give full duty on the actor to perform its conduct Boven 2010 In other words accountability is most effective with two way communication not only one party retain the duty to determine the functionality of the opposite party Nevertheless the final action is usually argued that it should not be incorporated in the meaning of accountability since it is not fair to the actor to confront all of the effects as the forum has already been crystal clear about the problems This stage ensures the job done is efficient and effective To sum up accountability as a virtue is vital since it gives validity to public organisations and public officials On the other hand accountability as a mechanism is in fact important in obtaining accountable governance which could mean it is important since it plays a role in the validity of public governance As a conclusion the way we define accountability is determined by the ideologies language and motifs of our times Accountability exists in numerous types and can be enhanced using recognising a few of techniques where accountability is practised Accountability is consistently being built Hence to increase accountability we have to apprehend exactly how it is constructed by and also extracted from individuals that are held accountable