mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Understanding the Building Blocks of Accountability in Software Engineering

arXiv 2402.01926 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2024cs.SEcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the social and organizational sciences, accountability has been linked to the efficient operation of organizations. However, it has received limited attention in software engineering (SE) research, in spite of its central role in the most popular software development methods (e.g., Scrum). In this article, we explore the mechanisms of accountability in SE environments. We investigate the factors that foster software engineers' individual accountability within their teams through an interview study with 12 people. Our findings recognize two primary forms of accountability shaping software engineers individual senses of accountability: institutionalized and grassroots. While the former is directed by formal processes and mechanisms, like performance reviews, grassroots accountability arises organically within teams, driven by factors such as peers' expectations and intrinsic motivation. This organic form cultivates a shared sense of collective responsibility, emanating from shared team standards and individual engineers' inner commitment to their personal, professional values, and self-set standards. While institutionalized accountability relies on traditional "carrot and stick" approaches, such as financial incentives or denial of promotions, grassroots accountability operates on reciprocity with peers and intrinsic motivations, like maintaining one's reputation in the team.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Where Accountability Lives: Mapping Human Responsibility to Workflow Artifacts in Agentic Software Development
  2. 2026"Nobody Did This": Contribution, Originality, and Accountability in Agent-Mediated Collaboration
  3. 2025Towards Requirements Engineering for GenAI-Enabled Software: Bridging Responsibility Gaps through Human Oversight Requirements ↗
  4. 2026SWE-Prometheus: Measuring Engineering Governance Improvements in Real-World Repositories
  5. 2025From Challenge to Change: Design Principles for AI Transformations ↗
  6. 2026Spec-Driven Development for Agentic Software Engineering: Harnessing Human-Agent Teamwork
  7. 2026Redrawing the AI Map: A Theory of Accountability Boundaries in Agentic Ecosystems
  8. 2023Under the Bridge: Trolling and the Challenges of Recruiting Software Developers for Empirical Research Studies ↗