Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings.

It is often used synonymously with such

concepts as responsibility,[1] answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and other terms associated with the expectation of

account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public

sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) worlds. In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption

of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and

implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain

and be answerable for resulting consequences.

As a term related to governance, accountability has been difficult to define.[2][3] It is frequently described as an account-

giving relationship between individuals, e.g. "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future)

actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct".[4], Accountability can

not exist without proper accounting practices, in other words absence of accounting means absence of accountability.

History/Etymology

"Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn

derived from putare (to reckon).[5] While the word itself does not appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman

England,[6][7] the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-

lending systems that first developed in Ancient Israel,[8]Babylon,[9] Egypt,[10] Greece,[11] and later, Rome.[12]

[edit]Types of accountability

Bruce Stone, O.P. Dwivedi, and Joseph G. Jabbra list 8 types of accountability, namely: moral, administrative, political,

managerial, market, legal/judicial, constituency relation, and professional.[13] Leadership accountability cross cuts many of

these distinctions.

[edit]Political accountability

Political accountability is the accountability of the government, civil servants and politicians to the public and to legislative

bodies such as congress or parliament.

In a few cases, recall elections can be used to revoke the office of an elected official. Generally, however, voters do not

have any direct way of holding elected representatives to account during the term for which they have been elected.

Additionally, some officials and legislators may be appointed rather than elected. Constitution, or statute, can empower

a legislative body to hold their own members, the government, and government bodies to account. This can be through

holding an internal or independent inquiry. Inquiries are usually held in response to an allegation of misconduct or

corruption. The powers, procedures and sanctions vary from country to country. The legislature may have the power

to impeach the individual, remove them, or suspend them from office for a period of time. The accused person might also

decide to resignbefore trial. Impeachment in the United States has been used both for elected representatives and other

civil offices, such as district court judges.

In parliamentary systems, the government relies on the support or parliament, which gives parliament power to hold the

government to account. For example, some parliaments can pass a vote of no confidence in the government.

[edit]Ethical accountability

Ethical accountability is the practice of improving overall personal and organizational performance by developing and

promoting responsible tools and professional expertise, and by advocating an effective enabling environment for people

and organizations to embrace a culture of sustainable development. Ethical accountability may include the individual, as

well as small and large businesses, not-for-profit organizations, research institutions and academics, and government.

One scholarly paper has posited that "it is unethical to plan an action for social change without excavating the knowledge

and wisdom of the people who are responsible for implementing the plans of action and the people whose lives will be

affected." [14]

[edit]Administrative accountability

Internal rules and norms as well as some independent commission are mechanisms to hold civil servant within the

administration of government accountable. Within department or ministry, firstly, behavior is bounded by rules and

regulations; secondly, civil servants are subordinates in a hierarchy and accountable to superiors. Nonetheless, there are

independent “watchdog” units to scrutinize and hold departments accountable; legitimacy of these commissions is built

upon their independence, as it avoids any conflicts of interest. Apart from internal checks, some “watchdog” units accept

complaints from citizens, bridging government and society to hold civil servants accountable to citizens, but not merely

governmental departments.

[edit]Market accountability

Under voices for decentralization and privatization of the government, services provided are nowadays more “customer-

driven” and should aim to provide convenience and various choices to citizens; with this perspective, there are

comparisons and competition between public and private services and this, ideally, improves quality of service. As

mentioned by Bruce Stone, the standard of assessment for accountability is therefore “responsiveness of service

providers to a body of ‘sovereign’ customers and produce quality service. Outsourcing service is one means to adopt

market accountability. Government can choose among a shortlist of companies for outsourced service; within the

contracting period, government can hold the company by rewriting contracts or by choosing another company.

[edit]Constituency relations

Within this perspective, a particular agency or the government is accountable if voices from agencies, groups or

institutions, which is outside the public sector and representing citizens’ interests in a particular constituency or field, are

heard. Moreover, the government is obliged to empower members of agencies with political rights to run for elections and

be elected; or, appoint them into the public sector as a way to hold the government representative and ensure voices from

all constituencies are included in policy-making process.

[edit]Public/private overlap
With the increase over the last several decades in public service provision by private entities, especially in Britain and the

United States, some have called for increased political accountability mechanisms to be applied to otherwise non-political

entities. Legal scholar Anne Davies, for instance, argues that the line between public institutions and private entities like

corporations is becoming blurred in certain areas of public service provision in the United Kingdom and that this can

compromise political accountability in those areas. She and others argue that some administrative law reforms are

necessary to address this accountability gap.[15]

With respect to the public/private overlap in the United States, public concern over the contracting out of government

(including military) services and the resulting accountability gap has been highlighted recently following the shooting

incident involving the Blackwater security firm in Iraq.[16]

[edit]Contemporary evolution

Accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a

sociological act was recently articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman[17] and

Stephen Soroka[citation needed], although it can be traced as well to J. L. Austin's 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses,"[18] in which

he used excuse-making as an example of speech acts.

Communications scholars have extended this work through the examination of strategic uses of excuses, justifications,

rationalizations, apologies and other forms of account giving behavior by individuals and corporations, and Philip

Tetlock and his colleagues have applied experimental design techniques to explore how individuals behave under various

scenarios and situations that demand accountability.

Recently, accountability has become an important topic in the discussion about the legitimacy of international institutions.
[19]
Because there is no global democratically elected body to which organizations must account, global organizations from

all sectors bodies are often criticized as having large accountability gaps. The Charter 99 for Global Democracy [20],

spearheaded by the One World Trust, first proposed that cross-sector principles of accountability be researched and

observed by institutions that affect people, independent of their legal status. One paradigmatic problem arising in the

global context is that of institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund who are founded and

supported by wealthy nations and provide aid, in the form of grants and loans, to developing nations. Should those

institutions be accountable to their founders and investors or to the persons and nations they help? In the debate

over global justice and its distributional consequences, Cosmopolitans tend to advocate greater accountability to the

disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized populations and developing nations. On the other hand, those in

the Nationalism and Society of States traditions deny the tenets of moral universalism and argue that beneficiaries of

global development initiatives have no substantive entitlement to call international institutions to account. The One World

Trust Global Accountability Report, published in a first full cycle 2006 to 2008 [21], is one attempt to measure the capability

of global organizations to be accountable to their stakeholders.

Accountability is becoming an increasingly important issue for the non-profit world. Several NGOs signed the

"accountability charter" in 2005. In the Humanitarian field, initiatives such as the HAPI (Humanitarian Accountability
Partnership International) appeared. Individual NGOs have set their own accountability systems (for example, the ALPS,

Accountability, Learning and Planning System of ActionAid)

[edit]Accountability in education

Sudbury schools choose to recognize that students are personally responsible for their acts, in opposition to virtually all

schools today that deny it. The denial is threefold: schools do not permit students to choose their course of action fully;

they do not permit students to embark on the course, once chosen; and they do not permit students to suffer the

consequences of the course, once taken. Freedom of choice, freedom of action, freedom to bear the results of action—

these are the three great freedoms that constitute personal responsibility. Sudbury schools claim that "Ethics" is a course

taught by life experience. They adduce that the absolutely essential ingredient for acquiring values—and for moral action

is personal responsibility, that schools will become involved in the teaching of morals when they become communities of

people who fully respect each others' right to make choices, and that the only way the schools can become meaningful

purveyors of ethical values is if they provide students and adults with real-life experiences that are bearers of moral

import. Students are given complete responsibility for their own education and the school is run by a direct democracy in

which students and staff are equals.[22][23][24][25][26][27]

[edit]Symbolism

Scholar Viktor Frankl, neurologist and psychiatrist, founder of logotherapy and one of the key figures in existential

therapy, in his book Man's Search for Meaning recommended "that the Statue of Liberty on theEast Coast (that has

become a symbol of Liberty and Freedom) should be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast." His

thought was that "Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom

is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in

danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness."[28][29]

Assertiveness definition
Assertiveness is the ability to express your emotions and needs without violating others rights and in the same
time without being aggressive. People who are not assertive do their best to please others violating their own
rights. They just step on themselves in order to make others feel happy or in order to avoid being rejected. (see
the guide to overcoming fear of rejection)

assertiveness is not shouting at people nor trying to show them that you are mad, it's something in between
being aggressive and being passive, it's demanding what you want in a confident way that harms no one but in
the same time preserves your rights.

why am i not assertive?

Assertiveness is not something that is inherited. Assertiveness is a skill that anyone could learn if he decided to,
lack of assertiveness is only rooted to the way of dealing with others you got used to,this way may be letting go
of your rights or fear of standing up for yourself. being assertive requires only thing, your decision.
but will people like me if i am assertive?
Contrary to common beliefs, being assertive will not let people avoid you or hate you, this may only happen
with over sensitive people whom you should give special care (you can easily spot a sensitive person from
his looks), but as far as the person is normal, being assertive won't make him dislike you, on the contrary
people like confident and assertive people.

in order to be assertive you must stick to these rules

in order to be assertive you must stick to these rules

• you have the right to have your own values, beliefs, opinions, and emotions.
• you have the right not to justify or explain your actions to others.
• you have the right to tell others how you wish to be treated.
• you have the right to express yourself and to say, "No," "I don't know," "I don't understand," or even "I
don't care."
• You have the right to take the time you need to formulate your ideas before expressing them.
• you have the right to make mistakes.
• you have the right to stand up for yourself and for what you want.

you have the right to be treated with respect. If you are acting in a way that is far too from being assertive, like
always saying yes when asked to do something or like trying to please others at the cost of your own
happiness, then you are very likely to feel that you are worthless and your self confidence may get severely
damaged. Being assertive is not that hard a task. You just need to change the way that you communicate with
other people,this includes your body language and the phrases you use or the words you pick.

Assertiveness in relationships
Assertiveness can save your relationship, many relationships are ruined because partners lack the ability to
state their needs and wants assertively. In my book, The ultimate guide to maintaining a healthy
relationship i explained how the lack of assertiveness can lead to frustration, After all if you never talked about
what bothers you then you will become frustrated, this frustration will turn into aggression and you will reach a
point where you tell your partner "I can't take it anymore". Assertiveness can let you avoid all of these problems
because it prevents the accumulation of feelings that might lead to frustration.
2knowmysef is not a complicated medical website nor it’s a boring online encyclopedia but it’s a place where
you will find simple, to the point and effective information that is presented in a simple and obvious way. If you
think that this is some kind of marketing hype then see what other visitors say about 2knowmyself.The
book How to make someone fall in love with you was released by 2knowmyself.com; the book will
dramatically increase your chance of letting someone fall in love with you.

Be Accountable through your Assertiveness

I am never wrong. Wouldn’t you love to be confident in believing that statement? Granted there are the handf
of people that do believe this about themselves but for those of us can be more realistic it is said by many asse
skills trainers that no matter what the situation is we are still going to be criticised either personally or
behaviourally.

Part of assertive skills training is recognising what you are willing to have and own. For example if somebody
says to you, you are not an effective assertive skills trainer than you do not know what it is that you have don
wrong therefore you need to take accountability of finding out specifically what behaviours they were talking
about.
When being assertive in the workplace you have to recognise your accountability. Assertive skills trainers sta
that you should only own what you are willing to own and not what others want you to own. At work I was
criticised by a partner at an important meeting in front of the majority of my co-workers. Inside there is no do
that I was raging and wanted the ground to open up and swallow me but as an assertive skills trainer I told tha
colleague that I admired their guts for being so open and honest, I then told the group that I was going to go o
with what we were discussing as that is why I was there. Needless to say that partner kept her mouth closed fr
then on.

At a meeting I attended the secretary forgot to bring the notes of the former meetings, she apologised profuse
and went on to say how incompetent she was and would forget her head if it wasn’t screwed on. Assertive ski
trainers indicate that this left her vulnerable; it would have been healthier for her if she had apologised and
recognised what would be the best way for her to get the notes whilst also taking into account time managem

Assertive skills training courses point out that you are accountable for your actions and inactions and that it is
that has to absorb the scrutiny. Accountability means having the confidence and assertiveness to make things
better. It is known through assertive skills training courses that accountability is how you do things to peruse
excellence and to start as you mean to go on to fulfil your goals personally and within the workplace.

The tools that are often used in assertive skills training courses are something that the majority of us already
posses, such as listening carefully to gather up to date information in order to make a lucrative decision, there
you will have no problem in confidently identifying your accountability.