Abstract
Whistleblowers are people who witness serious wrongdoings and report these violations at or outside their workplace which will disclose unethical or illegal behavior to higher management (internal whistleblowing) or the public and media (external whistleblowing). What is the result of this act? This paper analyzes and reviews what happens to whistleblowers if they blow the whistle both internally and externally. Would they fire or reward by the employer or society for their behaviors? Would they encourage or protect? For this purpose, cases about whistleblowing and the actors of these cases (whistleblowers) from all over the world will be analyzed from the behavioral perspectives. This study is useful for board of directors, managers, and society to attract their attention about whistleblowers’ rights and issues about their position after they do these behaviors.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Whistleblowers who act to stop wrongdoing and report these actions both inside and outside of the organization to attract other people’s and society’s attention have a crucial role in whistleblowing process. As a result of this action, whistleblowers do not always have benefits when they speak out. They sometimes accepted as heroes and sometimes as enemies. The organization cannot behave in a positive manner to the whistleblowers in case this protest damages the corporate reputation . Each organization has different corporate cultures, therefore according to procedures and norms as part of organizational culture, it can be used to punish whistleblowers. They can face different negative consequences such as retaliation, blacklisting, dismissal, harassment.
This study is attempting to understand the importance of whistleblowing from the perspectives of whistleblower cases all around the world. This paper is organized as follows: First of the part of this paper, whistleblowing and whistleblower definitions were given, and then, consequences for whistleblowers after they report were discussed and lastly stories about whistleblowers in different countries in the world were analyzed and investigated by giving comparison among cases.
2 Definition of Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing has been defined from different perspectives; therefore, numerous definitions about whistleblowing have been done by researchers and scholars in business ethics and management area (Malek 2010, 116). For years, researchers are writing about whistleblowing in order to understand the effects on people, organizations, and societies (Lewis 2011, 71). In general, whistleblowing is “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” (Miceli and Near 1985, 4). This is the most commonly accepted definition in almost all studies. It is also a voluntary and moral protest by who are willing to correct such misconduct (Domfeh and Bowole 2011, 335). Thus, whistleblowing can be approved as an act of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior rather than disloyalty and deviation (Lewis 2011, 71). By this way, whistleblowing behavior enhances distributive and retributive justice and fairness (Waytz et al. 2013, 1027). Therefore, whistleblowing behavior is a complex and complicated dilemma between the societies’s utility and whistleblowers’ commitment to the organization (Mansbach et al. 2012, 307).
According to the definition about whistleblowing, blow the whistle is a kind of report about wrong things in the organization (Davis 2012, 531). Related study on a large military base of Near et al. (2004), several types of wrongdoing for whistleblowing were defined: stealing, waste, bad management, unsafe situations, sexual harassment, discrimination, and illegal practices (Dasgupta and Kesharwani 2010, 59). If we want to analyze deeply of the definition, there are some elements in the explanation of whistleblowing: sharing information and communication with other parties, usually voluntary activity, focusing on wrong behaviors, and reaching corrective outcome (Mac Nab et al. 2007, 7). There are also some kinds of areas based on whistleblowing decision-making process. These are observations of the wrongdoing, factors that moderate whistleblowing intention and behavior, whistleblowing behavior, and reactions to whistleblowing (Chen and Lai 2014, 2). For whistleblowers, it is not only an act for observing and reporting the behavior, but also correcting misconduct is the main purpose of this action (Lewis 2011, 72). It is also important to determine who is affected and harmed from this action and what wrong behavior in the organization is.
3 The Role of Whistleblowers in Whistleblowing Process
About the definition of whistleblowing, there are several parties as whistleblower, wrongdoer, complaint recipient, and organization itself involved in whistleblowing process (Caillier 2013, 1021). In this process, whistleblower is a person who speak out and report the wrongdoing both inside (internally) of the organization and also outside (externally) of the organization (Bjorkelo et al. 2011, 207). Miceli and Near (1985) also give a definition about whistleblower: “Occupy organizational roles which officially prescribe whistleblowing activity when wrongdoing is observed” (Ball 2005, 5). Due to moral motive, the whistleblower is accepted as the moral hero who protects society (Vandekerckhove 2011, 22). In another study, Miceli and Near (1992) state that “whistleblower is to an official on a playing field, such as a football referee, who can blow the whistle stop the action” (Johnson 2003, 4).
Whistleblowers who are sometimes viewed as courageous people and heroes of the organization mostly share the information with internal parts of the organization (Read and Rama 2003, 354; Kelly and Jones, 180, 181). By this way, whistleblowers are also separated as internal whistleblower and external whistleblower. Internal whistleblowers report unethical behavior to an entity inside of the organization as ethics ombudsman or top management, while external whistleblowers report this kind of behaviors to an entity outside of the organization as law enforcement, government, and media (McNab and Worthley 2008, 408; Dasgupta and Kesharwani 2010, 58). External whistleblowers prefer to report outside of the organization in case this wrong behavior threatens the public and the members of this society.
Whistleblowers believe that they should share this information with people who have power to change and stop this illegal, immoral, and unacceptable situations (Miceli et al. 2009, 379). First contact is their managers for whistleblowers to correct the wrong behaviors (Lewis 2006, 77). If we want to make comparison between internal and external whistleblowing, in the case of external whistleblowing, employees can gain more support from the outsiders than insiders (Hedin and Mannsson 2012, 159). If we make analysis between wrongdoer and whistleblower, whistleblower has better position and education than wrongdoers; therefore, he or she is more likely to blow the wrongdoing (Gao et al. 2014, 3). Based on power theories, high skilled and valuable employees are more successful to stop the wrongdoing (Bjorkelo et al. 2011, 209). According to the study of MacNab and Worthley (2008), self-efficacy—related to one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance—influences the internal whistleblowing behavior in the organization. Therefore, we can say that these employees are also highly competent and respected people.
Some employees can be aware of truth about the business issues, but they do not always want to prefer to share this information with other people especially with top management (Park and Keil 2009, 902). Sometimes, employees may prefer to keep quiet instead of speak out when they make cost-benefit analysis. They may think of psychological and economic costs and benefits of the behavior (Keil et al. 2010, 791). According to the definition of organizational silence, it was defined as “The collective-level phenomenon of doing or saying very little in response to significant problems or issues facing an organization or industry” (Kelly and Jones 2013, 186). According to the Albert Hirschman, when an employee feel that something go wrong in his or her organization, he or she have alternative plan for the action: Sound- voicing about dissatisfaction, loyalty- commitment to the organization and job, exit- have an intention to leave from the organization (Hedin and Mansson 2012, 153).
4 Consequences and Cases about Whistleblowers in Different Cultures
There are some kind of risks and negative outcomes for whistleblowers. Therefore, they need to identify and weigh these possibilities (Philipsen and Soekon 2011, 743). Any statistics about the results of the whistleblower behavior were identified as 90% of them were later fired or demoted, 27% faced lawsuits, and 26% had psychiatric and physical care (Fountain 2013, 20). Some whistleblowers met with the decrease in salary, promotion, and tenure (Malek 2010, 117). Thus, reporting wrongdoing and unethical actions to the other people at work consists of risk and blacklist (Bjorkelo et al. 2011, 207).
The whistleblower expects that when they try to blow the whistle, they want to take positive reactions from management , but sometimes retaliation from top management can occur (Uys 2000, 259). Management policies can create isolation and discrimination between employees. The retaliation definition has been used as an outcome of a conflict between an organization and its employee, in which members of the organization attempt to control the employee by threatening to take, or actually taking in response to the employee’s reporting, through internal or external channels (Regh et al. 2008, 222). It can occur in different forms such as dismissal, blacklisting, suspension, harassment, and transferring to another place by punishing them (Domfeh and Bawole 2011, 334). Therefore, whistleblowing is associated with risk for employees who witness and report the wrongdoing (Firtko and Jackson 2005, 52). On the other hand, as a negative consequence for whistleblowers, the organization seems whistleblowing behavior as betraying of the organizations’ interests (Uys 2008, 906).
Whistleblowing behavior does not always result in negative outcomes for employees in the organization who speak out (Mecca et al. 2014, 161). If employees feel that they were supported and protected by corporate culture, their intention about whistleblowing will increase (Teo and Casperz 2011, 238). Also if he or she feels obligated and responsible, again the intention to blow the whistle will more likely increase (Keenan 2007, 87). Taking approval, support, and respect is the positive reactions to the whistleblowers (Hedin and Mansson 2012, 159). Supportive culture represents empathy, understanding, listening, and respecting to the feelings (Sims and Keenan 1998, 412).
When employees are empowered, they may more likely to blow the whistle due to increasing skills and abilities. In general, whistleblowers are committed to their job, organizational moral values, and the organizational goals, and because of their sensitivity and personal responsibility, they may choose to pursuit ethical responsibility and report this wrong action both inside and at the end outside of the organization (Tsahuridu and Vandekerckhove 2007, 109–116). Ethical climate , participatory management, reducing bureaucracy might increase willingness to blow the whistle (Rothwell and Baldwin, 2007, 356). Stansbury and Victory (2009) stated that young and low tenured employees are less likely to blow the whistle on the misconduct, because they perceive less informal prosocial control (Gottschalk 2011, 70). As a result, antecedents of whistleblowing can be categorized as individual and situational factors that affect whistleblowing behavior. Individual factors can categorized as job performance, organizational position, pay level, education (consistent factors) and gender, age, tenure, and job performance (inconsistent factors); situational factors can be categorized as perceived support, organizational justice, organizational culture, organizational performance, and organizational resources (Vadera et al. 2009, 555).
Studies suggest that among the cultures there are some differences about whistleblowing intention. Some cultures have more positive tendencies than other ones (Keenan 2002, 80). By understanding of Hofstede’s culture dimensions, whistleblowing behavior can be predictable based on the cultures of the world (Tavakoli et al. 2003, 50). There are four dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural classification: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. From the cultural perspectives, whistleblowing tendencies may be influenced by individualism and collectivism (Park et al. 2008, 931). Employees who are the member of culture in low individualism and high collectivism have more responsibility, and when they observe wrongdoing in their organization, they are more likely to prefer speak out.
The Time Magazine on December 30, 2002, three women whistleblowers against large organizations as Cynthia Cooper of World-Com, Coolen Rowley of the FBI, and Sherron Watkins of Enron are selected “person of the year” (Regh et al. 2008, 221). At first, they prefer to share information with their executives, and then, their warnings reach to outside of the organization and press. As a result of these actions, Watkins and Cooper were not hired again and they initiate in their own companies, and also, Rowley was not promoted and FBI retired her (Malmstrom and Mullin 2014, 30).
In Sweden, specifically public servants anonymously have the right to blow the whistle, but on the other hand, because of whistleblowing behavior civil servants’ status can be decreased, and at the end, they can lose their jobs (Hannson 2012, 4).
In 1973, Stanley Adams was a product manager of Roche in Basel. He discovered documents which indicated that the company was involved in price-fixing to inflate the price of vitamins. He complains his company to European Economic Community. EEC had a faulty to keep Adams’ name. He was arrested and charged. His wife committed suicide due to his position. After Adams released in six months, he fled to UK (Ole Baekgard 1984).
Mordechai Vanunu was Israeli nuclear technician. In 1986, he revealed details of Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the media. He was arrested and spent 18 years in prison. After he completed this period, there were obstacles on his speech and movement, but he violated these restrictions by giving interviews to the media, and therefore, he sentenced again because of violations.Footnote 1
Jeffrey Wigand became a well-known whistleblower in 1996. He told the truth what he saw and observed as the head of research and development in Brown–Williamson Tobacco Corporation. He stated about his company that manipulated its tobacco mix to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarette smoke. Russell Crowe portrayed Jeffrey Wigand in a film—The Insider.Footnote 2
One of the most current news about whistleblowing is Edward Joseph Snowden’s story in 2013. He was an American computer professional in NSA (National Security Agency). While he was working there, he noticed government programs involving the NSA spying on American citizens. After that, he began to copy top secret NSA documents while at work and share these thousands of classified documents with media. He has been called as hero, whistleblower, or patriot. Now, he lives in an undisclosed location in Russia.Footnote 3
There are also some Canadian whistleblower cases who try to expose serious misconduct, incompetence, and corruption.Footnote 4 Edgar Schmidt sued the federal government for failing to take adequate steps to verify whether proposed bills violate the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Footnote 5 He was a senior lawyer at the Federal Department of Justice. Schmidt was earning between $120,000 and $160,000 per year; today, he does not work for the government. He does not have any regret about his whistleblowing action.Footnote 6
5 Conclusion
Whistleblowing is an act of reporting shortcomings to correct the problem in the organization. It occurs when some unethical and illegal issues happen and some kind of people-whistleblowers tries to stop wrongdoers in order to terminate wrongdoings in the organization. Whistleblowing is usually accepted as an effective management and ethics management tool for the organization. Therefore, in ethic management, whistleblowers have high responsibility when they are compared with other employees in the organization. The fundamental role of whistleblowers in the organization is to report the wrong behaviors for right moral reasoning.
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the whistleblowers’ position all over world after they blow the whistle. Examining whistleblowers’ situation is so important because of negative image of this role in the organization.
There are numerous whistleblowing cases which are resulted in restricting, protection of employees and public interest, practicing laws, and regulations. However, blowing the whistle includes potential and actual risks for whistleblowers. Therefore, one of the important risks is retaliation to whistleblowers. People who behave as whistleblowers are trying to build their new lives, pursuing a new career in a new organization, or staying in prison for years. There are some differences in whistleblowers’ attitudes and behaviors between different countries. If we want to make a comparison about whistleblowers’ position after they share the information, we should analyze cultural orientation of nations. When we look at the cases about whistleblowing and the position of whistleblowers, usually they meet with negative results.
It is needed to change negative attitudes toward whistleblowers. Other people in the organization may not support to whistleblowing and whistleblowers themselves if their corporate culture does not approve that this kind of behaviors is acceptable. Companies should make effort to encourage and at the end protect their whistleblowers. Top management and managers should provide training and continuous improvement to help them about making decision in blowing the whistle. Employers can take proactive approaches to prevent their employees from discrimination and retaliation. By doing this precautions, employers and employees can have more positive results for them and their organizations.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
References
Baekgaard O (1984) The cost of whistleblowing. http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1984/06/baekgaard.html. Accessed 31 May 2014
Ball NM (2005) Whistleblowers and the regulation of stochastic pollution. Master thesis, Dalhousie University, Canada
Bjorkelo B, Einarsen S, Birkeland Nielsen M, Matthiesen SB (2011) Silence is golden? Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 20(2):206–238
Caillier JG (2013) Do employees feel comfortable blowing the whistle when their supervisors practice transformational leadership. Int J Public Adm 36:1020–1028
Chen C, Lai C (2014) To blow or not to blow the whistle: the effects of potential harm, social pressure and organizational commitment on whistleblowing intention and behavior. Bus Ethics: Eur Rev
Dasgupta S, Kesharwani A (2010) Whistleblowing: a survey of literature. IUP J Corp Governance 9(4):57–70
Davis M (2012) Whistleblowing. Encycl Appl Ethics, 531–538
Domfeh KA, Bawole JN (2011) Muting the whistleblower through retailation in selected African countries. J Public Aff 11(4):334–343
Firtko A, Jackson D (2005) Do the ends justify the means? Nursing and the dilemma of whistleblowing. Aust J Adv Nurs 23(1):51–56
Fountain L (2013) How loud can that whistle blow? Edpacs: The EDP audit, control and security newsletter. Taylor and Francis, UK
Gao J, Greenberg R, Wong-on-Wing B (2014) Whistleblowing intentions of lower-level employees: the effect of reporting channel, bystanders, and wrongdoer power status. J Bus Ethics 126(1):85–99
Gottschalk P (2011) Corporate social responsibility, governance and corporate reputation. World Scientific Publishing, USA
Hansson L (2012) The private whistleblower: defining a new role in the public procurement system. Bus Politics 14(2), Article 2
Hedin U, Mansson S (2012) Whistleblowing processes in Swedish Public organisations—complaints and consequences. Eur J Social Work 15(2):151–167
Johnson RA (2003) Whistleblowing, when it works and why. Lynne Rienner Publishers, USA
Keenan JP (2007) Comparing Chinese and American managers on whistleblowing. J Empl Respons Rights 19:85–94
Keenan JP (2002) Comparing Indian and American managers on whistleblowing. Empl Responsibilities Rights J 14(2/3):79–89
Kelly D, Jones A (2013) When care is needed: the role of whistleblowing in promoting best standards from an individual and organizational perspective. Qual Ageing Older Adults 14(3):180–191
Keil M, Tiwana A, Sainsburg R, Sneha S (2010) Toward a theory of whistleblowing intentions: a benefit-to-cost differential perspective. Decis Sci 41(4):787–812
Lewis D (2006) The contents of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK. Empl Relat 1:76–86
Lewis D (2011) Whistleblowing in a changing legal climate: is it time to revisit our approach to trust and loyalty at the workplace? Bus Ethics: Eur Rev 20(1):71–87
MacNab BR, Worthley R (2008) Self-efficacy as an intrapersonal predictor for internal whistleblowing: a US and Canada examination. J Bus Ethics 79:407–421
MacNab B, Brislin R, Worthley R, Galperin BL, Jenner S, Lituchy TR, MacLean J, Aguilera GM, Ravlin E, Tiessen JH, Bess D, Turcotte M (2007) Culture and ethics management whistle-blowing and internal reporting within a NAFTA country. Context 7(1):5–28
Malek J (2010) To tell or not to tell? The ethical dilemma of the would-be whistleblower. Accountability Res 17:115–119
Malmstrom F, Mullin D (2014) Why whistleblowing doesn’t work. Skeptic Mag 19(1):30–35
Mansbach A, Melzer I, Bachner YG (2012) Blowing the whistle to protect a patient: a comparison between physiotherapy students and physiotherapists. Physiotherapy 98:307–312
Mecca JS., Giorgini V, Medeiros K, Gibson C, Devenport L, Connely S, Mumford M (2014) Perspectives on whistleblowing: faculty member viewpoints and suggestions for organizational change. Accountability Res 21:159–175
Miceli MP., Near JP (1985) Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle‐blowing decisions. Pers Psychol 38(3):525–544
Miceli MP., Near JP (1992) Blowing the whistle: the organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. Lexington Books
Miceli MP, Near JP, Dworkin TM (2009) A word to the wise: how managers and policy-makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing. J Bus Ethics 86:379–396
Near JP, Rehg MT, Van Scotter JR, Miceli MP (2004) Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistle-blowing process? Bus Ethics Q 14(2):219–242
Park H, Blenkinsopp J, Kemal Oktem M (2008) Cultural orientation and attitudes toward different forms of whistleblowing: a comparison of South Korea, Turkey and UK. J Bus Ethics 82:929–939
Park C, Keil M (2009) Organizational silence and whistleblowing on IT projects: an integrated model. Decis Sci 40(4):901–918
Philipsen NC, Soeken D (2011) Preparing to blow to whistle: a survival guide for nurses. J Nurse Pract 7(9):740–746
Read W, Rama DV (2003) Whistle-blowing to internal auditors. Manag Auditing J 18(5):354–362
Rehg MT, Miceli MP, Near JP, Van Scotter JR (2008) Antecedents and outcomes of retailation against whistleblowers: gender differences and power relationships. Organ Sci 19(2):221–240
Rothweel GR, Baldwin JN (2007) Ethical climate theory, whistleblowing and the code of silence in police agencies in the state of Georgia. J Bus Ethics 70:341–361
Stansbury JM, Victor B (2009) Whistle-blowing among young employees: a life-course perspective. J Bus Ethics 85:281–299
Sims RL, Keenan JP (1998) Predictors of external whistleblowing: organizational and intrapersonal variables. J Bus Ethics 17(4):411–420
Teo H, Caspersz D (2011) Dissenting discourse: exploring alternatives to the whistleblowing/silence dichotomy. J Bus Ethics 104:237–249
Tavakoli AA, Keenan JP, Karanovic BC (2003) Culture and whistleblowing an empirical study of croatian and united states managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. J Bus Ethics 43:49–64
Tsahuridu EE, Vandekerckhove W (2007) Organizational whistleblowing policies: making employees responsible or liable. J Bus Ethics 82:107–118
Uys T (2000) The politicization of whistleblowers: a case study. Bus Ethics: Eur Rev 9(4):259–267
Uys T (2008) Rational Loyalty and whistleblowing: the South African context. Curr Sociol 56:904–921
Vandekerckhove W (2011) Rewarding the whistleblower—disgrace, recognition or efficiency. In: Marek A, Gasparski WW (eds) Whistleblowing: in defense of proper action. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, pp 21–33
Vadera AK, Aguilera RV, Caza BB (2009) Making sense of whistle-blowing’s antecedents: learning from research on identity and ethics programs. Bus Ethics Q 19(4):553–586
Waytz A, Dungan J, Young L (2013) The whistleblowers’ dilemma and the fairness-loyalty tradeoff. J Exp Social Psychol 49:1027–1033
Internet
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-whistleblowers_n_3414345.html#slide=2551247. Accessed 12 June 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/20/israel-mordechai-vanunu-hero-edward-snowden. Accessed 13 June 2014
http://www.jeffreywigand.com/bio.php. Accessed 17 June 2014
http://www.biography.com/people/edward-snowden-21262897. Accessed 12 June 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden. Accessed 13 June 2014
http://fairwhistleblower.ca/wbers/canadian_wbs.html. Accessed 14 June 2014
http://www.cjfe.org/resources/features/update-canadian-whistleblower-edgar-schmidt. Accessed 22 June 2014
http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/November/The-whistleblower.aspx. Accessed 12 June 2014
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Esen, E. (2018). Possible Outcomes for Whistleblowers After They Speak Out. In: Bian, J., Çalıyurt, K. (eds) Regulations and Applications of Ethics in Business Practice. Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8062-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8062-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8060-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8062-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)