| From 1996 to 2007 the United States Air Force (USAF) experienced several accountability incidents (erroneously flown nuclear missiles from one base to another, mistakenly sent nuclear parts to Taiwan, and crashed an aircraft killing a high ranking US government official). Although definitions of critical terms abound, real accountability understanding seemed to be elusive. For the purposes of this study, the term accountability was broadly defined as the assignment and obedience to legal orders and accurate recordkeeping. Because of its importance for reaching performance standards within organizations, previous investigators called for more research on accountability. This study consisted of an inquiry into the phenomenon of accountability using a qualitative methodology to obtain perspectives of USAF decision-makers. The purpose and primary research questions of this qualitative, holistic single-case study was to (a) understand USAF decision-maker's perceptions and interpretations of accountability; and (b) discover how USAF decision-makers applied the concept of accountability to themselves and others. These two basic lines of inquiry served as a guide for the remaining interview questions. The participant's responses to in-depth one-on-one interviews and document analysis provided data to help assess their understanding of accountability. The participants consisted of a select group of 25 mid- to senior-level USAF decision-makers from three different bases and backgrounds. The data provided seven major themes and a rich cross-section of data that ultimately yielded seven key findings, seven implications, and five recommendations. The findings characterized USAF decision-makers in a relatively poor light about their understanding and application of accountability to themselves and others. The implications indicated a widely diverse set of accountability foundations and definitions leading to double standards with a pseudo-informal accountability model. The recommendations corresponded directly to the actionable findings and provided a comprehensive approach to address the USAF decision-maker accountability issues. Further research should focus on the basis of accountability. Understanding the context of what influences the basis for and application of accountability could provide more data to make a more precise application of the accountability system. Additional investigation including small qualitative studies at other bases and quantitative studies with large representative samples could help to determine institutional implications of findings. |
