IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/114401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability

Author

Listed:
  • Karunakaran, Arvind
  • Orlikowski, Wanda J.
  • Scott, Susan V.

Abstract

Organizational accountability is considered critical to organizations' sustained performance and survival. Prior research examines the structural and rhetorical responses that organizations use to manage accountability pressures from different constituents. With the emergence of social media, accountability pressures shift from the relatively clear and well-specified demands of identifiable stakeholders to the unclear and unspecified concerns of a pseudonymous crowd. This is further exacerbated by the public visibility of social media, materializing as a stream of online commentary for a distributed audience. In such conditions, the established structural and rhetorical responses of organizations become less effective for addressing accountability pressures. We conducted a multisite comparative study to examine how organizations in two service sectors (emergency response and hospitality) respond to accountability pressures manifesting as social media commentary on two platforms (Twitter and TripAdvisor). We find organizations responding online to social media commentary while also enacting changes to their practices that recalibrate risk, redeploy resources, and redefine service. These changes produce a diffractive reactivity that reconfigures the meanings, activities, relations, and outcomes of service work as well as the boundaries of organizational accountability. We synthesize these findings in a model of crowd-based accountability and discuss the contributions of this study to research on accountability and organizing in the social media era.

Suggested Citation

  • Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:114401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/114401/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emilio Ferrara & Zeyao Yang, 2015. "Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Paul M. Leonardi, 2018. "Social Media and the Development of Shared Cognition: The Roles of Network Expansion, Content Integration, and Triggered Recalling," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 547-568, August.
    3. Christof Brandtner, 2017. "Putting the World in Orders : Plurality in Organizational Evaluation," Post-Print hal-03188203, HAL.
    4. Diane E. Bailey & Paul M. Leonardi & Jan Chong, 2010. "Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 713-730, June.
    5. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    6. Paul K. Chaney & Kirk L. Philipich, 2002. "Shredded Reputation: The Cost of Audit Failure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1221-1245, September.
    7. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Roberts, John, 2009. "No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for 'intelligent' accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 957-970, November.
    9. Tetlock, Philip E. & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Patil, Shefali V. & Grant, Adam M., 2013. "Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 22-35.
    10. Davide Proserpio & Georgios Zervas, 2017. "Online Reputation Management: Estimating the Impact of Management Responses on Consumer Reviews," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 645-665, September.
    11. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    12. John R. Busenbark & Donald Lange & S. Trevis Certo, 2017. "Foreshadowing as Impression Management: Illuminating the Path for Security Analysts," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2486-2507, December.
    13. Jonathan Bundy & Farhan Iqbal & Michael D Pfarrer, 2021. "Reputations in flux: How a firm defends its multiple reputations in response to different violations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1109-1138, June.
    14. Roberts, John, 1991. "The possibilities of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 355-368.
    15. Michael D. Pfarrer & Ken G. Smith & Kathryn M. Bartol & Dmitry M. Khanin & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2008. "Coming Forward: The Effects of Social and Regulatory Forces on the Voluntary Restatement of Earnings Subsequent to Wrongdoing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 386-403, June.
    16. Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael W. Toffel, 2010. "How firms respond to being rated," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(9), pages 917-945, September.
    17. Paul M. Leonardi, 2014. "Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 796-816, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diane E. Bailey, 2022. "Emerging Technologies at Work: Policy Ideas to Address Negative Consequences for Work, Workers, and Society," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(3), pages 527-551, May.
    2. Cordery, Carolyn J. & Goncharenko, Galina & Polzer, Tobias & McConville, Danielle & Belal, Ataur, 2023. "NGOs’ performance, governance, and accountability in the era of digital transformation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(5).
    3. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2023. "The digital undertow and institutional displacement: a sociomaterial approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119271, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Jean-Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without legitimacy? Online consumer reviews in the restaurant industry," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(5), pages 458-475, September.
    3. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2023. "Algorithmic Interactions in Open Source Work," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 744-765, June.
    4. Francesca Bellesia & Elisa Mattarelli & Fabiola Bertolotti, 2023. "Algorithms and their Affordances: How Crowdworkers Manage Algorithmic Scores in Online Labour Markets," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-37, January.
    5. Menon, Alka V., 2017. "Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Jean Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without Legitimacy? Online Consumer Reviews in the Restaurant Industry," Post-Print hal-03389275, HAL.
    7. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Marin, Alejandra & Dass, Mayukh & Boal, Kimberly, 2019. "Critic-buyer effects on valuation of ambiguously appraised products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 45-55.
    9. Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
    10. Power, Michael, 2021. "Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: organizations and the logic of the audit trail," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100243, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Lugosi, Peter, 2016. "Socio-technological authentication," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 100-113.
    12. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5fb16v625i8vdbgdiskfbht5i5 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Vosselman, Ed & De Loo, Ivo, 2023. "Sociomateriality and the metaphysics of accounting information systems: Revisiting agential realism," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Mucunska Palevska, Valentina & Novkovska, Blagica, 2018. "The Participation Of Ict In Activities Of Economic Subjects In Small Economy," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 9(2), pages 157-168.
    15. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    16. Goddard, Andrew, 2021. "Accountability and accounting in the NGO field comprising the UK and Africa – A Bordieusian analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Roberts, John, 2021. "The boundary of the ‘economic’: Financial accounting, corporate ‘imaginaries’ and human sentience," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Alex J. Wood, 2021. "Algorithmic Management: Consequences for Work Organisation and Working Conditions," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2021-07, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Victoria Pagan & Kathryn Haynes & Stefanie Reissner, 2023. "Accountable Selves and Responsibility Within a Global Forum," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 255-270, October.
    20. Mutiganda, Jean Claude, 2013. "Budgetary governance and accountability in public sector organisations: An institutional and critical realism approach," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 518-531.
    21. Franck Aggeri, 2017. "How can performativity contribute to management and organization research? Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework [Qu'est-ce que la performativité peut apporter aux recherches en managem," Post-Print hal-01609172, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    digital technology; field study; occupations and professions; organization and management theory; practice; qualitative research; research design and methods; social media;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:114401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.