In EDS ansehen

“A Normal, Natural Tension”: Accountability Professionals' Use of Normalization to Navigate Defensive Organizational Reactions.

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: “A Normal, Natural Tension”: Accountability Professionals' Use of Normalization to Navigate Defensive Organizational Reactions.
Autoren: Sieffert, Claire Penty1 (AUTHOR) claire.sieffert@nyu.edu
Quelle: Regulation & Governance. Oct2025, p1. 14p. 1 Illustration.
Schlagwörter: *ORGANIZATIONAL behavior, *GRIEVANCE procedures, *STAKEHOLDER analysis, *GOVERNMENT accountability, *DEVELOPMENT banks, DEFENSIVENESS (Psychology), EMOTION regulation, CONFORMITY
Abstract: ABSTRACT Accountability infrastructures' spread may give the impression that organizations are embracing accountability. Yet accountability professionals continue to encounter defensive reactions from those they are holding accountable. How do they navigate these reactions? Looking at the case of professionals in independent accountability mechanisms—grievance mechanisms at development finance institutions—this article identifies one approach: normalizing defensive reactions. Normalization is an emotion management strategy. It casts defensive reactions as an expected and explainable part of accountability processes. Particularly when accountability mechanisms depend on organizational stakeholders' participation, I argue normalization can help professionals diminish potential strain and keep running accountability processes—but only when defensive reactions do not cross boundaries that professionals draw between what is expected and not. For research and institutions, this raises future questions not only about emotions' role in accountability processes, but also about what organizational reactions should be expected in “normal” accountability and what inequalities could surround these expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Regulation & Governance is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Business Source Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:ABSTRACT Accountability infrastructures' spread may give the impression that organizations are embracing accountability. Yet accountability professionals continue to encounter defensive reactions from those they are holding accountable. How do they navigate these reactions? Looking at the case of professionals in independent accountability mechanisms—grievance mechanisms at development finance institutions—this article identifies one approach: normalizing defensive reactions. Normalization is an emotion management strategy. It casts defensive reactions as an expected and explainable part of accountability processes. Particularly when accountability mechanisms depend on organizational stakeholders' participation, I argue normalization can help professionals diminish potential strain and keep running accountability processes—but only when defensive reactions do not cross boundaries that professionals draw between what is expected and not. For research and institutions, this raises future questions not only about emotions' role in accountability processes, but also about what organizational reactions should be expected in “normal” accountability and what inequalities could surround these expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:17485983
DOI:10.1111/rego.70094