Whistle-blowing:
Do Work Position and Affective Organizational
Commitment Influence the Extent to Which Employees are Likely to Disclose Wrongdoings?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and business
Chen Mengni Studentnumber: 2355345 Faculty of Economics and Business Kornoelijstraat 2, Groningen, The Netherlands
+31684238326 mengni chen8@student.nl
Supervisor/university Floor A. Rink
Acknowledgment: I thank Floor A. Rink who has given me patient and careful directions on
every aspects of the thesis, especially on the analysis of the data, A. Dranca-lacoban who helped
me learned how to write thesis in the beginning, Chen Jiangwu—my father who cooperated me
to do the field research and helped me obtained good data due to his popularity in the company,
and my friends who gave me assists on how to use SPSS and checked my language errors in the
thesis.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Whistle-blowing
2.2 The Likelihood to Blow the Whistle
2.3 Retaliation between Employees’ Positions and the Likelihood to Blow the Whistle 2.4 Moderate Effects of Affective Organizational Commitment
2.5 Model
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Sample
3.2 Variables 4. RESULTS 4.1 Data-Analysis
4.2 Evaluation of Wrongdoings 4.3 Intention to Blow the Whistle 4.4 Fear for retaliations
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Theoretical Implications
5.2 Limitations and Future Research Directions
6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
Abstract
Whistle-blowing, or the formal reporting of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices within the organization by organization members, has received increasing attention in this current time.
This research concerns the question when employees are likely to blow the whistle. This thesis proposes that the work position that employees hold (i.e. their management level within the organization) influences their whistle-blowing likelihood, but this relationship is moderated by their level of affective organizational commitment. However, the results illustrate that the work position does not have a distinct influence on employees’ likelihood to blow the whistle; only affective organizational commitment is a significant predictor to the likelihood of whistle- blowing.
Key Words: whistle-blowing, work position, affective organizational commitment,
likelihood to blow the whistle
1. Introduction
On September 11, 2001, an astounding event to people all around the globe happened: terrorists hijacked several U.S. planes and flew them into the New York World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In the same year of that terrible event, Enron Corporation was exposed for its misleading and unethical practices. In March 2002, the CFO and Controller in WorldCom were disclosed as people who did the greatest accounting fraud in history.
All three events are referred to as ethical situations; they involve the infliction of serious harm on others, the harm concentrated on its proximate victims, and violated the moral standards most people hold (Velasquez, 2012). When the moral standards accepted by most people are violated, the public often gets angry (Velasquez, 2012). Thus, some people will take some actions to fight against those wrongdoings. In the months that followed the 911 event, a large amount of people came forward with serious concerns about air travel and nuclear security (Johnson, 2003). After the disclosure of Enron corporation, “many people from other publicly trade companies were calling hot-lines and e-mailing the Securities and Exchange Commission to report other questionable business practices” (Johnson, 2003: ix). As a result, the WorldCom event was told to the public by Cynthia Cooper, the head of WorldCom’s internal audit department (Velasquez, 2012). The types of behaviors are named whistle-blowing. The attention paid to whistle-blowing among the public, media, government institutions and managers is growing (Vandekerckhove, 2006).
When it comes to question who is likely to blow the whistle, many variables are
examined, such as personal characteristics of employees, characteristics of the wrongdoings and
more distant contextual variables. Some of the personal characteristics that predict
whistleblowing intentions include: one’s job performance, age and education (Mesmer-Magnus
and Viswesvaran, 2005; King, 1997; Miethe, 1999; Near, Baucus, & Miceli, 1993; Miceli &
Near, 1985). However, one personal characteristic that has not been examined sufficiently in relation to whistle blowing is one’s work position within the organization, reflecting “the duties and responsibilities which make up the work performed by an employee” (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2009: 4). Although there are studies on the relationship between people’s intentions to blow the whistle and managerial levels (Keenan 1991, 1993, 1995, 2000), these studies have not compared managerial with non-managerial positions.
Organizational commitment is another personal variable that can be a predictor for who will be the whistleblower (Near & Miceli, 1985, 1987, 1988; Graham, 1986; Dozier &, Miceli, 1985). Commitment means “the extent to which an employee believes and feels that the organization is worth spending energy to maintain and promote” (Hon & Grunig, 1999: 3).
Organizational commitment includes three components: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. The three components represent desire, need, and obligation to maintain employment in an organization respectively (Meyer & Allen, 1991). In this thesis, I propose that the relationship between an employee’s position and the likelihood to blow the whistle is contingent on the extent to which this employee feels affectively committed to the organization. Affective Organizational Commitment, argued by Meyer & Allen (1984), refers to an emotion to, identification with, and involvement in the organization.
Here, I propose the following research question for this thesis: Is the relationship between employee’s work position and their likelihood/ to blow the whistle moderated by their level of affective commitment?
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1 Whistle-blowing
The term “whistle-blowing” comes from the whistle a referee uses to indicate an illegal or foul play (Etymonline.com. & Wordorigins.org., 2012). Whistle-blowing in an organizational context renders different meanings (Vandekerckhove, 2006). Some theories hold the view that employees should have absolute loyalty to their employers, which means that they should not betray their employers to disclose illegal or immoral organizational information. Yet other researchers argue that public interest takes priority over organizational loyalty. Employees who disclose immoral organizational information are not disloyal to their employers; they help the organization to avoid work problems (Vandekerckhove, 2006). Whereas the former approach regards whistleblowers as troublemakers who threaten the organizations’ authority, cohesiveness, and image, the latter approach treats whistleblowers as “dedicated individuals who provide a valuable safety net when other forms of regulation fails” and even “who benefit their employers by offering solutions to work problems” (Lewis, 2001: 2; Weinstein, 1979). In this view, whistle- blowing is seen as part of a strategy to maintain and improve quality” (Lewis, 2001: 3).
Following the sports analogy drawn by Miceli and Near (1992), I will define whistleblowing 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” Miceli & Near (1985: 4). From this definition, it can be inferred that
“whistleblowing should have some definite goal, in the attempt to terminate the current wrongdoing or prevent future wrongdoing of a similar type” (Near and Miceli, 1996: 510). And the definition also implies that whistleblowers act because some behavior in their organization is or perceived as illegal or immoral (Near, Rehg, Scotter, & Miceli, 2004).
Based on research, one could argue that the short term effects of whistle-blowing are
always negative (Johnson, 2003). For example, in the short run, whistle-blowing will “weaken an
organization’s chain of command, post a threat to its effectiveness, unsettle employee’s confidence in their ability to use discretion, create a sense of unpredictability”, may cause financial losses and management turnover and so on (Johnson, 2003: 75; Miceli & Near, 1992).
However, in the long run, whistle-blowing can benefit the society by helping to eliminate and control individual and organizational wrongdoings, and at the same time also benefit the organization as an early alarm system to prevent wrongdoings, avoid lawsuits and negative publicity (Miethe, 1999; Miceli & Near, 1992; Graham, 1984). This is why it is important to examine the factors that may motivate employees to report on wrongdoings within their organization.
2.2 The Likelihood to Blow the Whistle
Little is known about the true motivations why whistleblowers reported immoral acts (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1992). It has been argued that a whistleblower can be an unsatisfied employee who gives vent to his or her frustrations or anger by accusing some targeted individuals to achieve satisfaction or revenge (Barnett, 1992); and this type of whistleblower is referred to anti-social. In this way, the whistleblower avoids facing justified personnel sanctions (Westin, 1981). Yet it has also been proposed that whistleblowers are
“individuals who have the organization and/or society’s interest at heart when the whistle is blown” (Street, 1995: 105). As Bowie (1982: 143) noted:” the act of whistleblowing stem from appropriate moral motives of preventing unnecessary harm to others”. Thus, whistleblowers viewed in the second approach are pro-social and motivated by good-faith and public interests.
2.3 Relation between Employees’ Positions and the Likelihood to
Blow the Whistle
According to Rest (1986), whistleblowing may depend on two key factors that tend to differ for employees with different positions. In my research, I divide the positions of employees in an organization into three layers based on the rational model of business organization (Mattera, 2010). This model argues that “the most fundamental element for an organization is its formal authority structure. Formal hierarchies of authority refer to the positions and relationships identified in the organizational chart that represent the various official positions and lines of authority in the organization” (Mattera, 2010; Velasquez, 2012: 401).
At the bottom of the organization is the operational layer: “those employees and their immediate supervisors who directly produce the goods and services that constitute the essential outputs of the organization”. Above the operating layer of laborers is the level of middle managers who “direct the unit below them and who are in turn directed by those above them in ascending formal lines of authority” (Velasquez, 2012: 402). The middle managers provide a connection between operational layer and top management; they implement policies formed by the top management in an effectively, and need to balance policy matters with operational practices and bottom-line results (Pavett & Lau, 1983; Clinard, 1983). “At the apex of the pyramid is the top management: the board of directors, the CEO, and other company officers such as President, CFO, CTO, CHRO, and varies Vice Presidents” (Velasquez, 2012: 402). The top management sets the ethical climate and culture for employees at lower levels; they are role models on how to link the organization with its external environment (Katz, 1995; Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1969).
The first factor that can determine whistleblowing is the presence of accurate, relevant,
and complete information to a person (Rest, 1986). This enables employees to form a correct
judgment of an ethical situation that is needed in order to take action. Near and Miceli (1987)
suggested that the knowing about where to report wrongdoings and the belief that one has enough information about where to report them are important for the potential whistleblowers.
Employees in higher positions own more knowledge, and are more involved in organizational networks than people in lower positions do (Bales, 1970; Berger et al., 1980). These employees are also more involved in a broader range of work activities than lower positioned employees (Katz & Kahn, 1978), Therefore, people in higher positions will gather more and clearer information about organizational actions. Employees in higher positions will also have more relevant information as to whom to report the wrongdoings due to that they have better knowledge about the organization. Thus, employees in top management positions, followed by middle managers and operational layers should have more accurate, relevant and complete information about the actions in the organization to make better moral judgments.
The second factor that is arguably related to whistleblowing is motivational. Whistle- blowing can be viewed as a power struggle among whistleblowers, wrongdoers, and complaint recipients (Near & Miceli, 1987), and can also be viewed as “a process of influence where the whistleblower tries to exert his power to influence the organization or some of its members to stop the wrongdoing being committed” (Dasgupta & Kesharwani, 2010: 4). Accordingly, the potential whistleblower’s power and the adversaries’ (wrongdoers’) power may determine to what extent an employee is actually going to whistle-blow (Dasgupta and Kesharwani, 2010).
Near et al. (2004) concluded that if a potential whistleblower believes that he or she can successfully cause the termination of the wrongdoing, he or she will act. And people in higher positions in an organization are more powerful over those who in lower positions (Keltner et al., 2003). Thus, people in higher positions are more likely to believe them can stop the wrongdoings.
Moreover, upper-level managers feel less pressure to conform to others as there are fewer people
who have the ability to retaliate against them (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). It has indeed been found that employees in higher positions feel more positively about the protection that they will receive from their organization in case they blow the whistle (Keenan, 2002).
Furthermore, people in higher positions are less dependent on the organization for valued resources, so in case they do get retaliated against, they have alternative options outside the organization (Near & Miceli, 1985, 1987; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In conclusion, these motivational aspects also provide a reason to suggest that employees in the position of top management, followed by middle managers and operational layer, should be more willing to disobey the authority and claim what is right is their minds than middle managers and then operational layers. This leads to my first prediction:
Hypothesis 1: The level of an employees’s position in an organization will have a positive relationship with the likelihood that employees demonstrate whistleblowing intentions.
2.4 Moderating Effects of Affective Organizational Commitment
Of all types of organizational commitment, affective commitment is seen as a desire to maintain in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This desire comes from the same value an employee shares with the organization rather than from purely instrumental worth (Meyer &
Allen, 1990; Buchanan, 1974). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) concluded three characteristics of
employees with affective organizational commitment: 1. high-level believing and acceptance to
the organization’s goal and values; 2. a willingness to make an effort for the organization’s
benefits; 3. a strong willingness to maintain the relationship with the organization. Research has
found that employees with high-levels of affective commitment are involved, remain long within
the organization, perform well and are willing to engage in activities that go beyond role
requirements (Mesmer-Magnusand & Viswesvaran, 2003; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Kelman, 1958;
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
I argue that the direct relationship between the employee’s position and whistle-blowing depends on the extent to which these employees feel affectively committed to their organization.
Although there are many reasons to suggest that employees with higher power positions will be more likely to blow the whistle than those with lower positions, being a top managers also entails stress, and the inability to pay attention to all aspects of their direct environment (Fiske, 1993).
Moreover, those in power are generally more positive about their direct environment (Keltner et al., 2003). Therefore, for these reasons, employees in higher positions may also overlook wrongdoings in the organization to begin with. I propose that this is less likely to be the case when they are highly affectively committed to the organization.
As employees with high-level affective organizational commitment are generally more
involved in the organization, they will be motivated to gather valuable information about the
actions taken in the organization. In doing so, people with high affective organizational
commitment can make better and more accurate judgments on ethical situations, and can tell
more correctly whether they should blow the whistle or not. Moreover, employees with affective
organizational commitment work toward the success of the organization because in doing so they
are behaving consistent with their own values (Kelman, 1958). Literature on moral identity
illustrates that the more morality becomes part of the self, the stronger people are motivated to
act morally. Relatedly, one could argue that the more an employee is affectively committed to
his or her organization, the more he or she will hold the idea that benefiting the organization is
equal to benefit parts of himself or herself.
Finally, given their loyalty, employees with high levels of affective commitment may be more inclined to feel that they can help the organization learn about wrongdoings before the public does so (Near and Miceli, 2004). Thus, an employee with a high-level affective organizational commitment will be more likely to blow the whistle due to the loyalty to the organization. I therefore propose:
Hypothesis 2: The level of affective organizational commitment will have a positive effect on the
relationship between an employee’s position and their likelihood to demonstrate whistle blowing intentions.
2.5 Model
According to what analyzed above, the model of this thesis is composed as follow:
+ +
3. Methodology
In order to obtain data for my study, I contacted a company. The company is a Chinese nation owned big company, and it is in the field of construction. It is a top grade intelligence enterprise for the contract with building construction; it mainly runs the business in the field of large building construction, infrastructure, and real-estate. Now it has management levels Level of positions of an
employee
Likelihood to blow the whistle
Degree of affective organizational
commitment an employee has
containing of more than 5000 people, more than 300 technicians with a title of senior professional post, more than 600 registered constructors, and more than 5000 long-term employees.
3.1 Sample
The questionnaires have been split to 100 employees in different positions in that company through one middle manager, and 93 questionnaires have been returned. Among those questionnaires returned, 17 are from the employees of top management, 35 are from middle managers, and 40 are from operational layer people, 1 person did not tell about his work position.
The descriptive characteristics of the participants based on their work positions are presented in Table1 (Appendix B).
3.2 Variables
The independent variables for this research were the positions of the employees and their affective organizational commitment. The dependent variables were their likelihood to blow the whistle on a hypothetical wrongdoing within their company.
To assess their work positions, I presented employees with three work layers—the
operational layer, the middle manager layer, and the top management layer (see the rational
model of business organization
(Mattera, 2010). I gave the definitions for the three layers and
asked respondents to choose the layer they were situated in. I further assessed the affective
organizational commitment 8-item-questionnaire made by Allen and Meyer (1990), measured on
a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An example item is; “I
would be happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization”, the reliability of the scale
was .91. For the full scale, see the questionnaire in Appendix A.
When it comes to the measurement of the dependent variable--the likelihood of an employee to blow the whistle, I first asked the person who helped me to do the research inthe company the type of wrongdoing that is most likely happen in his company. This person was presented with the seven categories of wrongdoings and their sub-items summarized by Near et al. (2004). The unsafe-non-compliant categories were seen as the most salient wrongdoings for the organization. Based on this notion, I wrote a scenario that exemplified a hypothetical immoral act in this respect. The scenario was the following:
You have participated in a project which is the construction of a residential area. Now, the project is accomplished successfully and the apartments in this residential area are ready to be sold to the public. This project is really important for your organization; if it can be on the market on time, your organization will gain much profit this year. However, several days ago, you unintentionally heard a talk between the project manager and the officer from the building quality supervision department. In their talk, you found astonished that the buildings constructed in this project are unsafe because the roof will leak when the rain is heavy. They indicated that the construction of the building is actually still highly unsafe. And you also find out that the project manager bribed the officer to keep this problem a secret to the public. The project manager is thus cheating on the consumers who want to buy the apartments because this will benefit the organizational profits.
Respondents then had to indicate the likelihood that they would blow the whistle, which
was captured by three measurements. The first measure was the degree to which the wrongdoing
in the scenario was going against the employees’ moral standards. This measure was assessed
through 2 items: “I think the wrongdoing in the scenario is really serious” and “I think the
wrongdoing in the scenario goes against my moral standards”. The reliability of the scale was
sufficient, which is .94. The second measure assessed the degree of the employees’ intention to disclose the wrongdoing, and represented one item only:“ I would go to my supervisor or the general manager to reveal the secret”. The third measure indicated the degree of fear for retaliation after blowing the whistle and also consisted of 1 item; “ I fear for retaliation if I blow the whistle on this situation”. All questions were measured at a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree; for the last question, 1= strongly fear, 5=not feared at all.
Note that I also included other questions in my questionnaire because this study was part of a larger research project on whistle blowing. Since these questions were not directly relevant for my study, I will not present them in the main body of my thesis. However, the full questionnaire can be found in the Appendix A.
4. Results 4.1 Data-Analysis
In this thesis, I proposed two hypotheses; those hypotheses have been tested by a series of hierarchical step-wise regression analyses. Gender is included in the regressions as a control variable. Some scholars argue that male and female have different approaches to moral issues (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988). They consider that for female, morality is mainly about “caring”
and “being responsible” for family or friends instead of following impartial principles. And in moral issues such as whistle-blowing, females are more likely to concern with nurturing the relationships with their families and friends, and to avoid hurting people in those relationships.
Thus, I propose that female may be less likely to stand out to disclose when something unethical
happens, for that first, they do not want to obey some impartial rules at the cost of hurting the
relationship with the colleagues, supervisors, or someone others who are involved in the situation,
and second, they are not willing to make their families be hurt due to the retaliations to them for
blowing the whistle. And in this research, the female participants are not equally distributed in the three layers of positions; it is can be found that the number of female employees in the higher two positions (top management and middle managers) is less than what of the operational layer (see table1, Appendix B). Therefore, this research took gender as the control variable.
For the overall correlations, see Table 2 (Appendix C). As can be seen from this table, none of the correlations between employee position and the three dependent measures was higher than .30; while at the same time, the correlations between affective organizational commitment and these measures were adjacent to .50.
Totally, there were three regressions; each consisting of three steps. Step 1 included gender as a control variable, step 2 included the position of the participants and their level of affective organizational commitment as independent predictors of the dependent variable at hand, and step 3 included the interaction term of the employees’ positions and their level of affective organizational commitment. The final step (step 3) thus tested whether the level of participants’
affective organizational commitment moderated the relationship between participants’ positions and their evaluations of the wrongdoing, intentions to blow the whistle, and fear for retaliations.
4.2 Evaluation of the Wrongdoing
From table 3 (appendix D), one can derive that the relation between employees’ positions and their evaluation for the wrongdoing is not strong and even negative (Beta=-.16, p=.23, R
2=.14). However, it can also be recognized that the extent to which participants were affectively committed to their organization was a significant positive predictor of their evaluation of the wrong doing (Beta = .42, p < .005, R
2= .15). The interaction term between position and affective organizational commitment did not add significant value to the overall model (ΔR
2= .00, ns.). Therefore, there is no relation between positions and the evaluation of the
wrongdoings. Participant’s evaluations of the wrongdoings thus only depended on the extent to which they are affectively committed to the organization; the more committed respondents were, the stronger they believed that the scenario represented a serious wrong doing which goes against their moral standards.
4.3 Intention to blow the whistle
From table 4 (Appendix E), the relation between employees’ positions and their intentions to blow the whistle was also not very strong and even negative (Beta=-.11, p=.37, R
2= .26). But the relation between participants’ affective commitment to their likelihood to blow the whistle did have predictive value (Beta = .56, p <.005, R
2= .26). The interaction term between position and affective organizational commitment did not add significant value to the overall model (ΔR
2= .00, ns.). Participant’s intention to whistle blow thus only depended on the extent to which they are affectively committed to the organization; the more committed respondents were, the stronger their intention to blow the whistle on this unethical act.
4.4 Fear for retaliations
From table 5 (Appendix F), one can derive that the relation between employees’ positions
and their evaluation for the wrongdoing is not strong and even negative (Beta=-.07, p=.64,
R
2=.21). However, it can also be recognized that the extent to which participants were
affectively committed to their organization was a comparatively significant positive predictor of
their evaluation of the wrong doing (Beta = .32, p < .005, R
2= .23). The interaction term between
position and affective organizational commitment did not add significant value to the overall
model (ΔR
2=.02, ns.). Participant’s evaluations of the wrongdoings thus only depended on the
extent to which they are affectively committed to the organization; the more committed
respondents were, the stronger they believed that the scenario represented a serious wrong doing which goes against their moral standards.
5. Discussion 5.1 Theoretical Implications
This thesis was devoted to study whether two personal variables--the employee’s work position and his or her level of affective organizational commitment, interacted to affect their likelihood to blow the whistle on an illegal or immoral wrongdoing within their organization. I expected that their position would have a positive relationship with these intentions when employees were highly committed to the organization. Affective organizational commitment was thus treated as a moderator in the relation between employee positions and the likelihood to blow the whistle.
However, the data demonstrated that employees’ positions in the organization did not have a distinct effect on the likelihood of whistle-blowing, only their affective commitment to the organization had a strong positive effect on this intention. This personal variable was a much stronger direct determinant of all three dependent measures; the evaluation of wrongdoing, the intention to blow the whistle, and fear for retaliation. One key theoretical implication of this finding is that people with a high degree of affective organizational commitment should be valued by organizations. Those high-affective-commitment employees are really loyal, and will do things to benefit the organizations they are in, even though doing the beneficial things may not benefit themselves and may even hurt their own interests.
5.2 Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although the study gave some valuable insights into whistleblowing intentions, it also suffers from several limitations. First, this research was intended for employees in three layers in the organization. For employees in the positions of top management, there are 17 questionnaires returned, the number is slightly less than the required number which is 20. The reasons for this are the top management employees are smaller in population and more difficult to contact.
Furthermore, in order to give participants a clear concept of what a possible wrongdoing could be, I composed a scenario in the questionnaire. This type of wrongdoing is the one that is most likely to happen in the surveyed company. However, the type of wrongdoing will affect people’s likelihood to blow the whistle (Near et. al. 2004). People will have different perceptions and reactions to different types of wrongdoings. In this scenario, whistle-blowing was directed towards an internal party, whereas research has shown that an internal versus external possibilities to blow the whistle will impact on the extent to which employees disclose organizational wrongdoings. Internal whistleblowing means that employees blow the whistle to persons within the organization, whereas external whistleblowing means that employees blow the whistle outside the organization such as to the government (Miceli and Near, 1996; Bouville 2007; and Ponnu et al., 2008). Most employees only blow the whistle externally when they believe that internal whistle blowing will not be effective in reducing the wrongdoing. Blowing the whistle externally carries greater risks in terms of retaliations, as one comes across as being disloyal to the organization (Miceli and Near, 1992; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005;
Perry 1993; Vandekerckhove, 2006). Thus, with another kind of wrongdoing and another
external party, the result may be less strong. In order to avoid those limitations, future research
could examine multiple types of wrongdoings and introduce internal and external ways to blow
the whistle. For example, participants could be asked the way they are more likely to disclose
immoral organizational information when they are highly affectively committed to the organization. Given that people with high level of affective organizational commitment are highly loyal to their organization they may only blow the whistle internally so that they organization does not suffer too much public damage.
One other limitation of my study is that I could not control the organizational type in my analyses. However, it is known from research that this structural factor can also affect people’s likelihood to blow the whistle. Weinstein (1979) suggested that bureaucratic organizations are more likely to give retaliation to whistle-blowers. The company which my research is conducted in is a construction company where the employees are always organized around independent, complete projects. Employees will be in different project groups during their career lives in the company, meaning that their positions and duties will always change according to the varied demands of the projects. Thus, this organization is not very bureaucratic. And this organization is at the same time a nation owned company, meaning that employees are not as easily dismissed as in other sorts of companies. Thus, the above two elements of that organization make people less feared for retaliations, and from what can be seen of the data (the mean values of the latest three variables in Table1, Appendix B), the likelihood to blow the whistle of all employees survey is indeed high.
In this research, I additionally collected data for employees’ degree of moral identities.
Moral identity can be also used to measure people’s likelihood to blow the whistle because that
the more important the moral standards is a part to a person, the more the person will implement
moral behaviors. Although the data for the moral identity have not been used for thus thesis, they
can be contributed to the future research on the relationship between moral identity and whistle-
blowing.
6. Practical Implications and Conclusion
Employees with high-level affective organizational commitment are always considered as
who will pay much effort to their works to contribute to the organization and bring the
organization benefits (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Allen & Grisaffe, 2001). In this research, I
confirmed that the affective organizational commitment is beneficial for the organization due to
that people with high-level affective commitment will be more likely to blow the whistle of
wrongdoings within the organization. Affective organizational commitment ought to be a helpful
and significant characteristic that be taken into consideration by the managers to judge and treat
an employee. In some situations, such as recruitment and retention, affective organizational
commitment should be a factor of evaluation besides the knowledge, skills, abilities and other
things. Because in case a person is a little lack at some ability, the affective commitment to the
organization will drive him or her to put effort to remedy that disadvantage, finally that person
may perform even better than those who are good at that ability, as scholars noted: affective
commitment is always associated with good performance (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Thus, people
who hold high-level affective organizational commitment to their organizations ought to be
valued and appreciated by their organizations, and organizations at the same time should try to
make employees affectively committed to them. Meyer and Allen (1991) have given some
suggestions to the organizations about how to make their employees affectively committed to
them, the suggestions are: 1. fulfilling the demands of employees and make the employees feel
comfort both physically and mentally, 2. making the employees feel that their capabilities can be
exerted in the works.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63:
1-18.
Allen, N. J. & Grisaffe, D. B. 2001. Employee commitment to the organization and customer reactions Mapping the linkages. Human Resource Review, 11: 209-236.
Bales, R. F. 1970. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
Barnett, T. 1992. A preliminary investigation of the relationship between selected organizational characteristics and external whistle-blowing by employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:
949-959.
Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, Jr., M. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction.
American Sociological Review, 37: 241-255.
Bouville, M. 2007. Whistleblowing and Morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 579-585.
Bowie, N. 1982. Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Buchanan, B. 1974. Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 533-546.
Clinard, M. B. 1983. Corporate Ethics and Crime: The Role of Middle Management. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Dasgupta, S., & Kesharwani, A. 2010. Whistleblowing: A survey of literature. The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, IX (4): 1-14.
Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. 1985. Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A pro-social behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10: 823-836.
Etymonline.com. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621-628.
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J., 1988. Two moral orientations: gender differences and similarities.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34 (3): 233-237.
Graham, J. W. 1984. Organizational responses to principled organizational dissent. Presented at the 44
thmeeting of the academy of management, Boston.
Graham, J. C. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In Staw, B. M. &
Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 1-52. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. 1999. Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Published by Institute for Public Relations, November 1999.
Johnson, R. A. 2003. Whistle-blowing: when it works and why. Boulder 80301 and London:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Katz, R. 1955. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review: 33-42.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations, 2nd. Ed. New York:
Wiley.
Keenan, J.P. 1991a. Upper-level managers, first-level managers, and whistle-blowing: A comparative study and evaluation. In Ross, S. C., & Williams, T. G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21th annual meeting of the western decision science institute, March 19-22, Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii, 490-493.
Keenan, J.P. 1993. Determinants of blowing the whistle on minor fraud: A study of executives and managers. In Pettit-O’Malley, K.L., & Reyes, M. G. C (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meetings of the western decision sciences institute, March 30-April 2, San Diego, CA, 344-350.
Keenan, J.P. 1995. Whistleblowing and the first level manager: Determinants of feelings obliged to blow the whistle. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 (3): 571-584.
Keenan, J.P. 2000. Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud: A study of executives and managers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 12(4): 199-217.
Keenan, J.P. 2002. Whistleblowing: A study of managerial differences. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 14(1): 17-32.
Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51-60.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 10: 265-284.
King, G., Ш. 1997. The effects of interpersonal closeness and issue seriousness on blowing the
whistle. Journal of Business Communication, 34: 419-436.
Lewis, D. B. 2001. Whistleblowing at work. London and New Brunswick: The Athlone Press.
Mattera, P. 2010. Massy Energy, Crocodyl, Collaborative Research on Corporations. http://
www.crocodyl.org/wiki/massey_energy.
Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, D. M., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2):171-194.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. & Viswesvaran, C. 2003. Convergence between measures of work-to- family and family-to-work conflict: a meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 215-232.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. & Viswesvaran, C. 2005. Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62: 277-297.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. 1984. Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 372-378.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. 1991. A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1).
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1985. Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38: 525-544.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1988. Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing.
Personnel Psychology, 41: 267-282.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992. Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. New York: Lexington.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1996. Whistleblowing: Myth and Reality. Journal of Management, 22: 507-526.
Miethe, T. D., 1999. Whistleblowing at work: Tough choices in exposing fraud, waste, and abuse on the job. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. 1987. Whistleblowers in organizations: Dissidents or reformers? In B.M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 321-368.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Near, J. P., Baucus, M. S., & Miceli, M. P. 1993. The relationship between values and practice:
Organizational climates for whistleblowing. Administration and Society, 25: 204-226.
Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T.,Scotter, J. R. V., & Miceli, M. P. 2004. Does Type of Wrongdoing Affect the Whistle-Blowing Process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 219-242.
Johnson, R. A. 2003. Whistle-blowing: When it Works and why. Boulder, 80301 and London:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. 1983. Managerial work: the influence of and functional specialty.
Academy of Management Journal, 26: 170-177.
Perry, J. L. 1993. Whistleblowing, organizational performance, and organizational control. In ethics and Public Administration, ed. H. G. Frederickson (Armonk, N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe):
79-99.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Ponnu, C. H., Naidu, K., & Zamri, W. 2008. Determinants of whistleblowing. International Journal of business, Research Paper, 4: 276-298.
Rest, J. 1986. Moral development. Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Street, M. D. 1995. Cognitive moral development and organizational commitment: Two potential predictors of whistleblowing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 11:104-110.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2009. Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, TS-107.
Vandekerckhove, W. 2006. Whistle-blowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment. Aldershot, U.K and Berlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Velasquez, M. G. 2012. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7
thEdition). USA: Pearson.
Weinstein, D. 1979. Bureaucratic Opposition. New York: Pergamon.
Westin, A. F. 1981. In Westin, A. F. (ED.), P134-136, Whistle-blowing: loyalty and dissent in the corporation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wordorigins.org. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
Appendix A
Questionnaire for Work Behaviors
Hello! I am a Chinese student of the major of Human Resource Management in the University of Groningen which is in the Netherlands. This questionnaire is for obtaining data for my master thesis which is on whistle-blowing. This questionnaire is anonymous. All your answers to the questions is regarded as the data for my research and I promise I will not share your personal information with anyone (within or outside the organization where you work). It will not take you much time to fill in the questionnaire, about 15 to 20 minutes maximum. Your answers are really important for my research, so I give my sincere thanks to you for your help!
The questionnaire is divided into five parts: (1) a part that asks for your basic background information, (2) a part that asks for your position in your present organization, (3) a part that asks for the degree to which you like working in your organization, (4) a part that asks for your own work behavior in relation to others, (5) a part that asks for how you view yourself.
Note that you can just write your answer to the open questions right behind it. For all the other questions, please circle one of the answering options provided to you. The answers that you will give are neither good nor bad, please answer them based on your real thoughts and feelings.
Part 1. Basic Information
Q1. What is your age?
Q2. What is your gender?
Male Female
Q3. What is your ethnicity?
Q4. What is your educational level?
Q5. What is your Marital Status?
Married Unmarried
Q6. Do you have children?
Yes No
Q7. How long have you been in your present organization?
________Years
Part 2. Position in your present organization Descriptions for the positions:
Operating layer: Those employees and their immediate supervisors who directly produce the goods and services that constitute the essential outputs of the organization.
Middle managers: Managers who direct production units, but who are in turn directed by those above them in ascending formal lines of authority. Managers who provide the connecting link between operational layer and top management and implement policies formed at the top of the organization in an effective manner.
Top management: The board of directors, the chief executive officer, and the CEOs staff. Those who set the ethical climate and culture for the employees at lower levels and throughout the organization, provide the necessary vision and direction for the organization and its membership and simultaneously maintain an effective linkage between the organization and its external environment.
Q8 . What is your position in your present organization?
Operating Layer Middle Managers Top Management
Part3. Degree in which you like working in your present organization
Now I would like to ask you some questions about the degree to which you enjoy working for your present organization.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Q 9. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in t his organization.
1 2 3 4 5
Q10. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
1 2 3 4 5
Q11. I feel as if this organization’s problem are my own.
1 2 3 4 5
Q12. I do not think I could become as attached to another organization as I am to
this one. 1 2 3 4 5
Q13. I feel like “part of the family” at my organization.
1 2 3 4 5
Q14. I feel emotionally attached to this organization.
1 2 3 4 5
Q15. This organization has personal meaning for me.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16. I have a strong sense of belonging to my organization.
1 2 3 4 5
Part4. Work behavior in relation to others
In this part, I will give you a scenario. Imagine you are in the situation stated in the scenario, and answer the questions based on the scenario.
Scenario: You have participated in a project which is the construction of a residential area. Now, the project is accomplished successfully and the apartments in this residential area are ready to be sold to the public. This project is really important for your organization; if it can be on the market on time, your organization will gain much profit this year. However, several days ago, you unintentionally heard a talk between the project manager and the officer from the building quality supervision department. In their talk, you found astonished that the buildings constructed in this project are unsafe because the roof will leak when the rain is heavy. They indicated that the construction of the building is actually still highly unsafe. And you also find out that the project manager bribed the officer to keep this problem a secret to the public. The project manager is thus cheating on the consumers who want to buy the apartments because this will benefit the organizational profits.
How do you think that you would respond to this situation?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Q17. I think I would pretend have not heard the secret.
5 4 3 2 1
Q18. I would go to my supervisor or the general manager to reveal the secret.
1 2 3 4 5
Q19. I think the wrongdoing in the scenario is really serious.
1 2 3 4 5
Q20. I think the wrongdoing in the scenario goes against my moral standards.
1 2 3 4 5
Q21. I concern for the well-being of others.
1 2 3 4 5
Q22. I think revealing the wrongdoing is important to stop or cease unethical behavior
in organizations. 1 2 3 4 5
30
Q23. I think employees should be encouraged by the organization to disclose the
wrongdoings. 1 2 3 4 5
Q24. If I inform my supervisor about this secret, the organization will provide
information on where and to whom to reveal it.
1 2 3 4 5
Q25. In general, I believe my employer's
motives and intentions are good. 1 2 3 4 5
Q26. I think my organization will give me
protection if I decide to report this secret. 1 2 3 4 5
Q27. I think my organization will give me some
rewards for revealing the secret. 1 2 3 4 5
Q28. My colleagues would strongly approve of
my behavior of reporting the secret. 1 2 3 4 5
Q29. If the people in my life witness any wrongdoing, they will disclose the rule- breakers.
1 2 3 4 5
Q30. Most people who are important to me
think that I should disclose the wrongdoing. 1 2 3 4 5
Q31. The people in my life whose opinions I value would strongly approve of my
whistleblowing.
1 2 3 4 5
Q32. The interpersonal communication climate in my organization is:
Strongly controlled 1
Controlled 2
Neutral 3
Supportive 4
Strongly supportive
5
Q33. In my mind, my organization’s degree of encouragement of whistleblowing is:
Strongly discouraged Discouraged Neutral Encouraged Strongly
Encouraged
Q34. The degree of the fearing for retaliation if I have blowed the whistle is:
Strongly Feared 1
Feared 2
Neutral 3
Unfeared 4
Strongly Unfeared 5
Part5. Views about yourself
Thank you for filling in the questions above. Finally, I would like to ask some questions about how you view yourself. These questions are not work related.
There are nine characteristics: Caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind. The following questions are based on those characteristics.
You need to choose to what degree you agree or disagree the statements about the nine characteristics.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Q35. I often wear clothes that identify me as having the nine characteristics shown above.
1 2 3 4 5
Q36. The types of things I do in my spare time clearly identify me as having these characteristics.
1 2 3 4 5
Q37. The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these characteristics.
1 2 3 4 5
Q38. The fact that I have these characteristics is communicated to others by my membership in
certain organizations. 1 2 3 4 5
Q39. I am activated involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these
characteristics. 1 2 3 4 5
Thank you again sincerely for having completed the questionnaire patiently!
And Best Wishes for you!
Q41. Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am.
1 2 3 4 5
Q42. A big part of my emotional well-being is tied up in having these characteristics.
1 2 3 4 5
Q43. I would be ashamed to be a person who has these characteristics.
5 4 3 2 1
Q44. Having these characteristics is not really important to me.
5 4 3 2 1
Q45. Having these characteristics is an important part of my sense of self.
1 2 3 4 5
Q46. I strongly desire to have these characteristics.
1 2 3 4 5
Q47. If I were the hero in the scenario described before, I would feel emotionally good when I
revealed the wrongdoing. 1 2 3 4 5
Q48. If I were the hero in the scenario described before, I would feel emotionally good when I
decide not to reveal the wrongdoing. 5 4 3 2 1
Appendix B
Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of the participants
Operational layer Middle Managers Top Management
N=40 N=35 N=17
M SD M SD M SD
Gender
a.24 .43 .17 .38 .32 .47
Intention to blow the whistle
b3.84 .75 3.86 .65 4.76 .51
The wrongdoing is serious
b4.59 .50 4.51 .51 4.76 .44
The wrongdoing goes against my moral standards
b
4.59 .50 4.54 .51 4.88 .33
Fear for retaliation
b3.46 1.05 3.86 .85 4.71 .47
Note:
a
0 indicates male, and 1 indicates female.
b
