|
Article Excerpt
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Articles about whistle-blowing continue to appear on a regular basis in the popular press as well as in managerial publications and the academic literature (e.g., Delikat, 2007; Leonard, 2007; Rehg, Miceli, Near, and Van Scotter, 2008). Evidence shows that whistle-blowing occurs frequently, and that organizational wrongdoing is prevalent and can be very costly. For example, in 2006, cases of fraud in U.S.-based companies accounted for losses of $650 billion. One third of these cases were discovered through information from whistle-blowers. In fact, tips from whistle-blowers proved more effective in revealing fraud than any other methods, such as such as internal audits, internal controls, and external audits (Sweeney, 2008). However, reports about fraud are not the most common example of whistle-blowing. According to a comprehensive study of 277,000 calls to whistle-blowing hotlines from 2003-2007 in nine major U.S. industries, the greatest number of calls (50%) were about personnel management incidents (Security Executive Council, 2007).
Discussing whistle-blowing and the motivations of whistle-blowers can produce heated controversy. While some whistle-blowers may be viewed as courageous heroes, others can be viewed as disgruntled or selfish trouble-makers. Yet, regardless of one's personal views about whistle-blowing, managers and researchers must take an objective and focused perspective on this issue due to its legal, ethical, and practical imperatives (Barnett, 1992). For example, the U.S. based Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has affected companies throughout the world and has important implications for whistle-blowing. This Act specifically instituted new protections for whistle-blowers, yet research continues to show that whistle-blowing usually results in unpleasant and unrewarding outcomes for whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowers often are viewed as finks instead of heroes; are retaliated against through personal threats; are ostracized, dismissed, or demoted; and often suffer in their careers due to damaged reputations (Delikat, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1997).
Given such common negative outcomes, why do certain individuals step up and decide to blow the whistle? This question has intrigued managers and researchers alike, because understanding the whistle-blowing decision-making process helps create policies and procedures resulting in the greatest ethical benefits for organizations and society. However, answering this question has proved challenging, and much still remains to be understood about whistle-blowing (Gundlach, Douglas, and Martinko, 2003; Near and Miceli, 2008).
Addressing this need, the purpose of this study is to further our understanding of whistle-blowing by examining it empirically with a new theoretical approach. Using attribution theory (Weiner, 1986, 1995, 2006), this study examines how specific cognitive and emotional responses to perceived workplace wrongdoing lead to whistle-blowing decisions. Specifically, we examine how judgments of responsibility about wrongdoing, perceptions of intention about wrongdoing, and feelings of anger about wrongdoing lead to decisions to blow the whistle. Based on our findings, we are able to provide managers and researchers with a better understanding of whistle-blowing. Furthermore, from a practical perspective, the implications of our research will help mangers review and update their policies in light of current management trends in whistle-blowing.
The paper proceeds as follows: we develop and articulate the hypotheses, present the methodology, and then discuss the implications of this research, note limitations of the study, and identify opportunities for future inquiry. In this third main section of the paper, we discuss the managerial implications of this research, which will be of special interest to practitioners.
Hypotheses Development
In this research, we applied attribution theory to the study of whistle-blowing to further understanding of this topic. According to attribution theory, information about how events such as acts of wrongdoing were caused will influence cognitive and emotional responses, which, in turn, will lead to the decisions people make about these events (Weiner, 1995, 2006). Researchers have shown that negative workplace events attributable to controllable and stable factors can encourage perceptions of intention, judgments of responsibility, and feelings of anger (Comer and Vega, 2006; Martinko and Zellars, 1998; Struthers, Miller, Boudens, and Briggs, 2001; Weiner, 2006). When events are due to controllable factors, they occurred under conditions that allowed those that caused them the freedom to choose their behavior. On the other hand, the attributional dimension of stability refers to the extent that the cause for an outcome is perceived as likely to change over time. For example, when wrongdoing is due to stable organizational causes, this indicates it has occurred more than once and may happen again.
In the context of whistle-blowing, acts of wrongdoing that are attributable to controllable and stable organizational factors mean that organizations were free to choose the behavior causing these acts and that they occurred more than once. This type of causal information should encourage cognitive and emotional responses leading to whistle-blowing decisions. Specifically, this type of causal information should encourage perceptions of intention, judgments regarding responsibility, and feelings of anger (Weiner, 1995, 2006). In other words, wrongdoing attributable to controllable and stable organizational causes should strongly influence perceptions of intention, judgments of responsibility, and feelings of anger. Furthermore, these responses should be stronger than when wrongdoing is attributed to uncontrollable or unstable organizational causes. Based on this discussion, we present the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Organizational wrongdoing that is attributed to controllable and stable organizational causes will result in stronger perceptions of intention than will wrongdoing that is attributed to uncontrollable or unstable organizational causes.
Hypothesis 2. Organizational wrongdoing...
|
