Search results

Research on whistle-blowing has focused on the questions of who blows the whistle, who experiences retaliation, and who is effective in stopping wrongdoing. In this article, we review research pertinent to the first of these questions. Since the last known review (Near & Miceli, 1996), there have been important theoretical and, to a lesser extent, empirical developments. In addition, the U.S. law is changing dramatically, which may serve to promote valid whistle-blowing, and international interest in whistle-blowing is widespread and increasing. Unfortunately, evidence strongly suggests that media, popular, and regulatory interest is far outpacing the growth of careful scholarly inquiry into the topic, which is a disturbing trend. Here, we argue that the primary causes of the underdevelopment of the empirical literature are methodological, and that workable solutions are needed but very difficult to implement. By calling attention to these issues, we hope to help encourage more research on whistle-blowing.

Organizational wrongdoing is still very much prevalent in today’s society. Traditional and social media are full of examples of organizations engaging in unethical or illegal behavior. While it is difficult – if not impossible – to establish whether the ever-increasing number of reported cases of wrongdoing is due to an actual increase in the phenomenon (objectivist view of wrongdoing) or to more attention being paid to it (social-constructivist view of wrongdoing), the fact remains that organizational wrongdoing seems to have become the norm rather than an exception in our everyday life. This is concerning, as organizational wrongdoing tends to undermine trust in fundamental institutions, such as the Market, the State, Religion, and Law, and may lead to them being replaced by other – sometimes less desirable – institutions or create an “institutional void.” Because of its potential impact on established institutions, organizational wrongdoing deserves to be closely monitored and further examined. This volume of Research in the Sociology of Organizations is an attempt to draw attention to the theoretical and empirical relevance of the topic, consolidate and extend the knowledge accumulated in this area of research, and highlight potential direction for future research. The volume explores in particular the definitions and antecedents of organizational wrongdoing.

Organizational wrongdoing is still very much prevalent in today’s society. Traditional and social media are full of examples of organizations engaging in unethical or illegal behavior. While it is difficult – if not impossible – to establish whether the ever-increasing number of reported cases of wrongdoing is due to an actual increase in the phenomenon (objectivist view of wrongdoing) or to more attention being paid to it (social-constructivist view of wrongdoing), the fact remains that organizational wrongdoing seems to have become the norm rather than an exception in our everyday life. This is concerning, as organizational wrongdoing tends to undermine trust in fundamental institutions, such as the Market, the State, Religion, and Law, and may lead to them being replaced by other – sometimes less desirable – institutions or create an “institutional void.” Because of its potential impact on established institutions, organizational wrongdoing deserves to be closely monitored and further examined. This volume of Research in the Sociology of Organizations is an attempt to draw attention to the theoretical and empirical relevance of the topic, consolidate and extend the knowledge accumulated in this area of research, and highlight potential direction for future research. The volume focuses in particular on the variegated consequences and impact of organizational wrongdoing.

This paper aims to generate new research directions at the intersection of accounting, whistleblowing and publicness: defined as the attainment of public goals, interests and values.

A problematising review is used to challenge and rethink the existing accounting and whistleblowing literature by incorporating readings from the public interest and public value literature. The paper draws on the work of Dewey (1927), Bozeman (2007) and Benington (2009) to open up new ways of theorising relations between accounting, whistleblowing and publicness.

Firstly, the paper develops a public interest theoretical framework which shows whistleblowing is a public value activity that moves organisational wrongdoing into the public sphere where it is subject to democratic debate and dialogue required to reconcile the public's interests with what the public values. Secondly, this framework provides one answer to continuing questions in the literature of how to define accountings relationship to the public interest. Finally, the paper suggests this conceptual framework be used to stimulate debate on whether and how one should expand existing accounting and accountability knowledge boundaries to incorporate the broader social, political and moral concerns highlighted by whistleblowers acting in the public interest.

Accounting and whistleblowing research has ignored the theoretical implications of whistleblowing in the public interest. The paper shows how accounting and accountability can respond to the challenges of a shifting and intangible public interest by providing a conceptual framework to guide current and future theoretical questions of how accounting is connected to the public interest.

The purpose of this paper is to consolidate research in whistleblowing, wrongdoing prevention and enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks with the goal of creating a more comprehensive and effective framework for the prevention of wrongdoings.

A gap analysis based on organizational learning theory (OLT) is performed between the research fields of whistleblowing, wrongdoing prevention and ERM to identify enhancements that are needed for effective wrongdoing prevention.

ERM is an incomplete framework for wrongdoing prevention which omits the components of prevention and learning. A culture of continuous learning is required to minimize the experience component of learning and maximizing sharing. Storytelling can be used to protect individuals and provide transparency. The stakeholder dimension must be expanded beyond the borders of the legal entity to include all stakeholders. Every stakeholder experiences the climate of wrongdoing prevention differently, and the evaluation of these different perspectives is essential in establishing a culture of prevention. Personal psychological safety is a critical element in empowering stakeholders to discuss and address wrongdoings. Standards established through professional associations enable innovations to diffuse more quickly throughout society than legislation. Standards and standard setting processes that are able to adapt to changes in societal expectations proactively help organizations to independently protect stakeholders. Global standards are needed to overcome incongruences between countries and cultures.

The effectiveness of a prevention framework is difficult to measure. Declining incidence of wrongdoing within an institution is an incomplete picture. Rare and severe types of wrongdoing, and their prevention throughout society should require a more concerted, centralized approach which could be modeled upon the health system’s national centers for disease prevention. By combining the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire(Marsick and Watkins, 2003) and Whistleblowing and Wrongdoing statistics, organizations should be able to develop complex KPIs and be able monitor their development over time. Researchers should be able to use the same strategy to confirm the assertions made here will improve the safety and security of all stakeholders.

Organizations which use ERM frameworks may be unable to effectively prevent wrongdoings and protect stakeholders from the consequences of such wrongdoings. The shortcomings identified here provide specific clear points that organizations can address to be more effective in preventing wrongdoings. Any one of these actions and the scope of their impact within the organization and their environment represent substantial challenges for all stakeholders. Like the ascent of a great mountain, the planning of the each step taken and thorough understanding of the challenges faced along the path to each waypoint are essential to reach the summit and the achieve the objective.

This paper advocates for changes that may take decades or generations to fully accept: inter-organizational sharing; stronger use of guidelines instead of legislation; and enhanced transparency on all organizational levels. The resources required to drive change on this scale are considerable with the private sector and public sectors having unique needs and requiring potentially different approaches.

The novelty lies in the identification of shortcomings in ERM frameworks to effectively prevent wrongdoing, through the integration of OLT, Whistleblowing and Wrongdoing Literature and the COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework.

Through state-of-the-art insights on whistleblowing in India, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing.

A review of literature on wrongdoing and whistleblowing in India revealed various aspects of the national context pertinent to different stages of the phenomenon. Thematic analysis of these dimensions, allowing for a nomothetic approach, resulted in identifying six sociocultural themes common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing.

Sociocultural dynamics impacting the emergence, persistence and recognition of wrongdoing, the decision to blow the whistle, engagement in whistleblowing and the outcomes of whistleblowing encompass social relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. These factors coexist with international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation. The presence of wrongdoing and the trajectory of whistleblowing in India are affected by the aforementioned factors.

The paper is based on secondary data rather than empirical endeavours.

By underscoring the relevance of contextual dynamics, in particular sociocultural factors, in the whistleblowing process, the paper indicates an important basis for appropriate interventions to manage wrongdoing and encourage whistleblowing while protecting whistleblowers and ensuring attention to rectifying wrongdoing and sanctioning offenders.

Apart from providing a contemporary and comprehensive overview of whistleblowing in India, the paper uncovers the significance of sociocultural factors which have been overlooked so far in the substantive area. Moreover, a contextualised process model of whistleblowing is proposed based on the analysis. In subsuming temporality, context and outcomes for all stakeholders, the model displays complexity and causality, emphasising holism.

This paper aims to explore the key factors which influence whistleblowing intentions of teachers working with higher education institutions (HEIs) in India. Both internal and external whistleblowing intentions of the HEI teachers are studied by examining their relative intentions to report a potential wrongdoing to the authorities within the management of the institution and to the external statutory bodies. The reporting intentions of the HEI teachers are measured through the use of three vignettes related to academic frauds. Whistleblowing intentions are proposed to be determined by the individual, organizational and situational factors.

Survey method of descriptive research design has been used to obtain the primary data regarding the individual, organizational and situational variables deemed to influence HEI teachers’ internal and external whistleblowing intentions. A self-administered structured questionnaire is used as survey instrument for primary data collection. The respondents’ internal and external whistleblowing intentions are measured through the use of three vignettes related to academic frauds. Non-parametric tests such as Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Spearman correlations have been used to test the research hypotheses.

The study has found that the HEI teachers are more likely to blow the whistle internally if there is a proper communication channel in their organization for reporting wrongdoings. However, they do not hesitate to blow the whistle externally in the absence of internal reporting channel, especially in those cases of wrongdoings where they perceive the cost of reporting to be high. The high status of the wrongdoer and high costs of reporting discourage the teachers to blow the whistle internally. However, if the wrongdoer holds a very powerful position in the organization, then the teachers prefer to report his wrongdoing to external agencies as they are afraid of the likely negative repercussions of reporting against him internally. In case of serious wrongdoings, the teachers intend to blow the whistle within the organization rather than going to external agencies probably because they do not want to spoil the image of their organization in the external world.

The first limitation is that because of the unavailability of pre-tested vignettes in the context of academic frauds, the study has used three vignettes which have been developed on the basis of few case studies. Second, the results showed the existence of social desirability bias across all the three vignettes. Also, the study has been conducted among teaching professionals; therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to the professionals of other sectors.

The findings of the study may bring awareness to the board of management of HEIs, regarding the importance of whistleblowing in their educational institutions. They should encourage the teachers working with their institutions to report the wrongdoings internally as external reporting may cause damage to their institute’s reputation. Proper reporting mechanisms should be designed and shared with the employees as a part of institutional culture.

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2011 should be amended to include the private sector employees, especially the teachers working in higher education sector. This will encourage the HEI teachers to report the academic frauds fearlessly which will put a serious check on the growing number of frauds and wrongdoings in the education sector.

Previous research studies have discussed the factors influencing whistleblowing intentions in the context of various non-academic organizations. However, existing research has not adequately provided a better understanding of the influencing factors of whistleblowing intentions in higher education sector. The present paper addresses this gap by empirically examining the key factors which influence HEI teachers’ intentions of blowing the whistle and reporting the wrongdoings occurring in their institutions, in Indian context. An attempt has been made to identify the influencing factors of both internal and external whistleblowing intentions by using three different vignettes related with academic frauds.

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.

The growth of research into whistle-blowing has produced some compelling insights into this important organizational phenomenon, but a number of areas remain under-explored, particularly the role of emotion and our understanding of the far more common response to wrongdoing, namely inaction. In this chapter we seek to problematize current conceptualizations of whistle-blowing and wrongdoing, as a basis for examining employee silence in the face of wrongdoing. We suggest that quiescent silence can be viewed as an emotion episode, and draw upon the feedback theory and the sensemaking paradigm to develop this proposition, illustrated through an analysis of accounts of quiescent silence in a clinical setting. We propose a new concept of “cues for inaction” which offers insights into the way quiescent silence arises and persists.

The act of reporting illegal and unethical practices in the workplace has become an increasingly important issue for researchers and organizational management over the past several decades. This study tested a model of whistleblowing in which perceived organizational retaliation and upward communication satisfaction were hypothesized to act as predictors of types of whistleblowing intentions using a representative sample of employees working in Kirklareli, Turkey (n = 1,012). Structural equation modeling indicated that perceptions of upward communication satisfaction were positively associated to blowing the whistle to internal channels like immediate supervisor and upper management and negatively related to staying silent and external whistleblowing. In addition, perceived threat of retaliation from an organization was negatively related to blowing the whistle to internal channels and positively related to staying silent and external whistleblowing. The present study has contributed to our understanding of whistleblowing in a relatively new national context by clarifying its associations with perceived organizational retaliation and communication with management.