Organizations are increasingly using multi-source feedback (MSF) assessments for leadership development and organizational change efforts. However, some studies indicate that MSF may not lead to desired outcomes including behavior change and improved performance. The current empirical study tested the theory of London, Smither and Adsit (1997) that accountability mechanisms built into MSF systems will increase the likelihood of achieving and sustaining desired outcomes. A Ratee Perceptions of Accountability to Use MSF scale was developed with scale development best practices and evaluated with path analyses that were used to test a model of ratee accountability within a MSF system. Two samples of managers from a financial services organization were used to develop and test the scale and model. Evidence was found in support of several predictors of ratee perceived accountability including need for achievement, selfefficacy to use MSF and organizational support for continuous learning. In addition, ratee perceived accountability predicted ratee intentions to use MSF and ratee development behaviors. However, evidence did not support the predicted outcome of ratee performance improvement. Implications for future research and practitioners are discussed.