Type of Wrongdoing and Whistle-Blowing: Further Evidence That Type of Wrongdoing Affects the Whistle-Blowing Process

• Author: Mark Somers,Jose C. Casal
• DOI: 10.1177/009102601104000205
• Published date: 01 June 2011
• Date: 01 June 2011
• Subject Matter: Article

Type of Wrongdoing and
Whistle-blowing: Further
Evidence that Type of
Wrongdoing Affects the
Whistle-blowing Process
By Mark Somers, PhD, and Jose C. Casal, PhD
Preliminary evidence suggests that the type of wrongdoing observed in
organizations affects the whistle-blowing process; that is, the likelihood that
wrongdoing will be reported and the consequences of so doing. Using as sample
of management accountants and focusing on financial fraud, this study provides
additional evidence that type of wrongdoing affects the likelihood of whistle-
blowing. However, contrary to previous research findings, there was no
relationship between type of wrongdoing and experienced retaliation for whistle-
blowing. Type of wrongdoing was related to perceived issue seriousness providing
additional evidence that wrongdoing is not monolithic in nature. These findings
suggest that type of wrongdoing should be included in future research on the topic
of whistle-blowing.
Recent scandals in a variety of firms and industries have increased the salience
of ethical conduct in business. Indeed, public perceptions of the extent of cor-
porate malfeasance have raised questions about the ethical reasoning and the
conduct of senior managers as well as the values taught to them in business schools.1
Although acting ethically has clear benefits to employees, other important
stakeholders, and to the firm pressures for performance and/or the desire for personal
gain have led individuals in both public and private sector organizations astray.2 While
there has been renewed interest in fostering ethical behavior in organizations through
codes of conduct and/or employee training3,4 there has also been increased interest in
what happens to employees when they discover and report unethical or illegal activity;
that is, whistle-blowing.5
Perhaps one of the most vexing issues in recent scandals in large firms such as
WorldCom, Enron, and Tyco is the nagging question of how this highly unethical
conduct was allowed to continue. Why wasn’t it was discovered and reported much
sooner? Why weren’t external oversight agencies more vigilant?
As whistle-blowers can be viewed as a “last defense” against wrongdoing in
organizations, it is important to understand the process and the consequences of
whistle-blowing from both an academic and a practitioner’s perspective. With regard to
Public Personnel Management
Volume 40 No. 2 Summer 2011
151

---

the former, there is a fairly extensive body of research on the topic of whistle-blowing.
Interest has been in hypothesized antecedents of whistle-blowing including contextual,
personal and situational variables; that is, theory and research have focused on who
blows the whistle and why they do it.6 There has also been some interest in the
consequences of whistle-blowing with respect to experienced retaliation.7,8
As is often the case with a maturing research area, while there has been good
progress, there are gaps as well; that is, issues that have been overlooked by prior
research studies or topic areas that are under-researched. One such under-researched
topic area appears to be the potential influence of the type of organizational
wrongdoing on whistle-blowing. Most studies have treated observed wrongdoing as
monolithic, but some preliminary evidence suggests that this might not be the case.9
More specifically, it has been suggested that explicit consideration of the type of
wrongdoing observed is germane to understanding the whistle-blowing process. This
study is intended to help fill a potential gap in whistle-blowing research, and is focused
on if and how the type of wrongdoing observed affects the propensity to report it and
the consequences of doing so.
Whistle-Blowing and the Whistle-Blowing Process
Whistle-blowing has been defined as “the disclosure by organization members (former
or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their
employers to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action.”10 This
definition has been recognized as the most widely accepted definition of whistle-
blowing and it is used to frame whistle-blowing in this study.11
How whistle-blowing is defined is important because the definition of the
construct frames the development of conceptual models and by extension sets the
direction of subsequent empirical research. Several key properties are evident in the
definition cited above. The first is the motivational basis for reporting wrongdoing
which is predicated on remedy;12 that is, as defined here, whistle-blowers are faced
with a situation that is morally unacceptable and are seeking remedy thereby
differentiating it from informing. Second, whistle-blowing is grounded in a moral or
ethical imperative that goes beyond violations of laws and policies.13 That is, whistle
blowing encompasses activities that are seen (by the whistle-blower) as wrong. Finally,
this definition suggests that whistle-blowers have a reasonable expectation that remedy
is likely.14 In other words, they expect that the person or organization to whom
wrongdoing is reported will act to correct the situation.
Conceptual models of whistle-blowing have identified the key variables involved
in whistle-blowing and these models have evolved as research on this topic has
progressed. Whistle-blowing is cast as a two stage process (pre and post reporting)
grounded in a sequence of perceptions, decisions, and expectations tied to the whistle-
blower and to the person or organization to whom wrongdoing is reported. Near and
Miceli hypothesize that the process starts with awareness of wrongdoing.15 Conversion
from an inactive observer to a whistle-blower is based on the expected personal costs
of reporting wrongdoing and the expected effectiveness of remedy. Once wrongdoing
152
Public Personnel Management Volume 40 No. 2 Summer 2011

---

is reported, the organization, in turn, must respond to the questioned activity as well as
to the whistle-blower.
This general framework has been refined and expanded to capture and provide
greater insight into contextual and psychological aspects of whistle-blowing. For
example, Dozier and Miceli refined the process to include perceived responsibility for
reporting and the perceived availability of responses thereby augmenting the
perceived effectiveness of responses using a cost/benefit framework.16 Graham raised
the notion of perceived issue seriousness as an influence on whistle-blowing.17
Additional refinements were proposed by Greenberger, Miceli, & Cohen who raised
the issue of work group influences on whistle-blowing18 and by Near and Miceli (1987)
who made refinements to experienced consequences of whistle-blowing.19
In summary, there is a well-established process defined as an ordered sequence of
events that maps whistle-blowing from awareness of wrongdoing through the
consequences of its being reported. The underlying dynamic involves both cost-benefit
analysis and a sense of moral and social responsibility.
Whistle-Blowing Research
As might be expected, empirical research mirrors models of whistle-blowing. A fairly
extensive research stream is concerned the first phase of the process; that is, who
blows the whistle and why. Personal characteristics found to be related to whistle-
blowing include locus of control, self-esteem, age, education and supervisory
position.20 Stronger and more consistent relationships have been found between
contextual and situational variables and whistle-blowing including seriousness of
observed wrongdoing, quality of evidence that wrongdoing has occurred,
organizational climate, and organization size.21
A second...