Peers: Powerful or Negligible? A Systematic Review on Peer Factors and Internal Whistleblowing

Abstract

When reporting wrongdoing internally, whistleblowers are confronted with the dilemma of weighing up their loyalty toward the organization (e.g., ethical standards) and their co-workers (e.g., the social norm of not snitching on peers). However, the role played by peers in the whistleblowing decision process and in the aftermath has rarely been addressed in existing reviews. We therefore perform a systematic review that identifies seven thematic clusters of peer factors, offering researchers an informative overview of (a) the peer factors that have been examined to influence the whistleblowing decision, and (b) the extent to which the whistleblower experiences adverse consequences from peers in the aftermath of whistleblowing. As peer factors seem to be important to explain and predict internal whistleblowing, researchers are encouraged to address in future works the research gaps our review unraveled.

Citation

Djawadi, B.M., Plaß, S. and Schäfers, S. (2023), "Peers: Powerful or Negligible? A Systematic Review on Peer Factors and Internal Whistleblowing", Gabbioneta, C., Clemente, M. and Greenwood, R. (Ed.) Organizational Wrongdoing as the “Foundational” Grand Challenge: Consequences and Impact (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 85), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 73-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20230000085005