Perceived Credibility of the Whistleblower as Mechanism Linking the Type of Whistleblowing to the Degree of Retaliation: A Moderated Mediation Study
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
The degree of retaliation against whistleblowers is on the rise. Therefore, there is a need for further research with regard to the relationship between whistleblowing and retaliation. The current established main effects of this relationship are too simplistic and the time has come to develop and investigate moderating and mediating factors. In a field study within de Gemeente Hengelo, I found that perceived personal credibility of the whistleblower functions as mediating mechanism between the type of whistleblowing (e.g. internal or external) and the degree of retaliation the perceivers of the whistleblowing act exhibit. Moreover, support was found for the effect of a positive versus a negative outcome of the whistleblowing act as a conditional, indirect effect on this relationship. However, this effect was only significant for external whistleblowing, and not for internal whistleblowing.
Keywords: INTERNAL WHISTLEBLOWING, EXTERNAL WHISTLEBLOWNG, PERCEIVED CREDIBLITY, RETALIATION, PRO-SOCIAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL MOTIVES, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DEVIANCE, FAIRNESS THEORY.
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
Whistleblowing Conceptualized ... 6
Hypotheses Development ... 8
Retaliation and whistleblowing ... 8
Type of whistleblowing and perceived credibility ... 9
Perceived credibility and the degree of retaliation... 11
Perceived credibility as a mediating mechanism ... 11
The moderating role of the outcome of the whistleblowing act ... 12
METHOD ... 14 Participants ... 14 Design ... 14 Procedure ... 15 Manipulations ... 15 Measures ... 16
Perceived Personal Credibility ... 16
Retaliation ... 16
Data Analyses ... 17
RESULTS ... 18
Tests of mediation ... 18
Tests of moderated mediation ... 19
DISCUSSION ... 21
Limitations and Future Research ... 23
REFERENCES ... 26
INTRODUCTION
Currently, quite shocking statistics are available with regard to the amount of unethical behavior that occurs within organizations. According to research from Mayer, Kuenzi and Greenbaum (2010) “Evidence showed that within companies, approximately 56% of the employees observed at least one act of misconduct at their work. These unethical behaviors included lying to internal or external constituents (25%), engaging in abusive behavior (21%), misreporting hours worked (17%), abusing the internet (16%), violating safety standards (15%), discriminating (13%), stealing (11%), and sexually harassing a colleague (10%)” (p.7). However, employees are still hesitant to blow the whistle and report these kinds of misconducts at work. Why is that the case? An answer can be found within the negative consequences of blowing the whistle about these misconducts. According to research, several negative consequences of whistleblowing may arise. The whistleblower may be seen as disloyal by other employees (Bok, 1980; Bowie, 1982; Rusbult, Zembrodt & Gunn, 1982). Moreover, it may even lead to retaliation against the employee who blew the whistle (Nader, Petkas & Blackwell, 1972; Near & Miceli, 1985).
Whistleblowing gained significant media attention in the last month, due to Edward Snowden, one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers. He was responsible for disclosing numerous top-secret documents to the public from one of world’s most secretive organizations: the National Security Agency (Greenwald, MacAskill & Poitras, 2013). As a result, Snowden is on the run with the CIA in close pursuit. This is not an appealing image for future employees who want to blow the whistle on unethical misconduct. Even though this example is quite extreme, due to the involvement of American federal law, evidence showing the negative consequences of whistleblowing and the hesitance to report is nonetheless prevalent.
characteristics of the organization (Brewer & Shelden, 1995; Near & Miceli, 1985), have deliberately been studied. However, not much research exists on how others see the whistleblower. Do the surrounding colleagues perceive the whistleblower as a hero or as a snitch?
research has been dedicated to the influence on positive versus negative outcomes on this relationship. However, this may be a key factor.
In conclusion, this paper investigates the mediating effect of personal credibility on the relationship between the choice to blow the whistle internally or externally and the degree of retaliation the perceivers feel. Moreover, it explores the effect of a positive versus a negative outcome as a conditional, indirect effect on this relationship. This research will be focusing on theoretical contributions to the literature in two important ways. First of all, in order to extend the literature about whistleblowing, this paper will conduct a field study to investigate the relationship between the choice to blow the whistle internally or externally, and the degree of retaliation the other employee’s exhibit towards the whistleblower. During this study a mediating mechanism (e.g. perceived credibility), that has hitherto not been investigated, will be included. Therefore, I will look from a different perspective to the main effect the type of whistleblowing has on the degree of retaliation the perceivers feel, thereby bringing a more profound and updated view to the existing literature. Second of all, no singular whistleblowing research, so far, included the outcome of the whistleblowing act, even though this may play a key role. By introducing this aspect within the research, several new options to investigate whistleblowing will originate.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Whistleblowing Conceptualized
Near and Miceli (1985) 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" (p.4).
observing misconduct. They have the choice to blow the whistle, to exit the organization or to alternatively remain silent out of loyalty or neglect (Farell, 1983). When the employee makes the decision to blow the whistle, he or she faces a dilemma concerning to whom report the wrongdoing. Should the employee keep it internal, or external?
Internal whistleblowing concerns reporting the wrongdoing to an instance within the affecting organization (MacNab & Worthly, 2008), who can take immediate action. This definition also includes announcing the misconduct outside the original chain of reporting (e.g. to management) by making use of confidential hotlines that are available within the company (Miceli, Near & Dworkin, 2008). Moreover, internal whistleblowing provides organizations an opportunity to investigate and correct the wrongdoing, thereby avoiding the more negative consequences of external whistleblowing (Dworkin & Near, 1987). Effective internal whistleblowing systems have been identified as one possible solution in order to protect organizations from external whistleblowing (Barnett, 1992).
External whistleblowing can be defined as “reporting the wrongdoing to someone outside the organization who may be able to stop or correct it, such as the media, a government agency, a non-governmental organization, or a professional organization” (Kaptein, 2011, p. 515). Moreover, this type of whistleblowing may lead to negative publicity, public embarrassment, regular investigation, large fines, or lawsuits (Barnet, Cochran & Taylor, 1993; Berry, 2004), since it not only exposes the misconduct to the society, but also displays an unsuccessful organization which is unable to stop and improve the misconduct itself.
Hypotheses Development Retaliation and whistleblowing
The colleagues of the whistleblower, the perceivers, need to make two types of decisions after they have experienced a whistleblowing act. First, they need to decide whether to neglect the statement the whistleblower made or to take appropriate action. Second, they need to consider whether to reward or to retaliate against the whistleblower (Near & Miceli, 1986).
According to the English Oxford Dictionary, retaliation is the action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge. Regh, Miceli, Near and Van Scotter (2008) define retaliation as “undesirable action taken against a whistleblower—in direct response to the whistleblowing— who reported wrongdoing internally or externally, outside the organization.”
Retaliation may take several forms, such as being excluded from staff meetings, being pressured to drop the suit, receiving a less desirable workload or a loss of perquisites (e.g. parking privileges) (Parmerlee, Near & Jensen, 1982). All these retaliatory acts may be motivated by the desire to silence the whistleblower completely, prevent a full public knowledge of the complaint, discredit the whistleblower, and/or discourage other potential whistleblowers from taking action (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005, p. 279).
Results of a study by Dworkin and Baucus (1998) indicated that managers respond differently when retaliating against internal versus external whistleblowers. However, retaliation is not always suggested by the management of an organization. It is more likely that different forms of retaliation are initiated by the whistleblowers’ supervisors or coworkers (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Therefore, this research focuses on the colleagues of the whistleblower in determining the degree of retaliation they experience towards the whistleblower.
organization rather than causing a scandal outside the organization by spreading the misconduct externally (Tsahuridu & VandeKerckhove, 2007). This line of reasoning has been supported by Larmer (1992), who states that a loyal employee blows the whistle internally. Being perceived as disloyal by other colleagues will increase the degree of retaliation colleagues feel towards the whistleblower. Therefore, external whistleblowers will perceive a higher degree of retaliation by their colleagues.
Moreover, another line of reasoning leading the development of this hypothesis, is based on research conclusions about whistleblowing and retaliation. Whistleblowers reporting misconducts through external channels are more likely to receive retaliation (Dworkin & Baucus, 1998), and such retaliation is likely to be more serious than when internal channels are used (Near & Miceli, 1986). So, the utilization of external channels is more likely to elicit retaliatory behaviors. This is consistent with research from Weinstein (1979), who concluded that organizations are more likely to retaliate against whistleblowers who are stating their complaint publicly.
Together, these arguments suggest that the degree of retaliation perceivers encounter will be higher when the whistleblower blows the whistle externally compared to internally. Stated formally:
HYPOTHESIS 1. External whistleblowing leads to more retaliation than internal whistleblowing.
Type of whistleblowing and perceived credibility
According to Alleiger (2009) being personally credible is about actions. What you do will determine whether fellow colleagues will trust and respect you, thereby seeing you as believable. Due to the aforementioned differences with regard to the consequences of the two types of whistleblowing, the perceived personal credibility of the whistleblower may therefore be influenced.
The first aspect “competence” has to do with being intelligent, trained and informed enough to blow the whistle (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Moreover, according to Ponemon (1994) “being (ethically) competent is the ability to define the problem and develop a strategy for dealing with it”. Therefore, whistleblowers developing a strategy in order to blow the whistle internally may be seen as intelligent and trained, since they preserve the company from image destruction. In contrast, evolving the strategy to blow the whistle extern, thereby damaging the company’s reputation, will be seen by the colleagues as diminishing competent. Secondly, the goodwill aspect reflects whether perceivers think that the whistleblower has the best intentions by blowing the whistle. What are the motives behind the whistleblowers’ decision? According to research from Holtzhauzen (2012, p. 91) “real motives of whistleblowers will vary from one situation to another and cannot be entirely known by others, but their motives are often perceived to be the deciding factor in judging their credibility”. Based on literature about motives (e.g. pro-social and anti-social whistleblowing), anti-social behavior in organizations is “any behavior that brings harm, or intended to bring harm to an organization, its employees and stakeholders” (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1996). In contrast, pro-social behavior is the opposite, and is designed to help and bring good to the people and organization. Consequently, by keeping it internal, colleagues (the perceivers) may classify the whistleblowing act as pro-social, thereby feeling a sense of goodwill for the whistleblower. Due to the fact that he or she gave the organization or person the opportunity to investigate and correct the wrongdoing itself, without the negative consequences of external whistleblowing. In contrast, based on the same line arguments, external whistleblowing may be perceived as anti-social, thereby decreasing the perception of personal credibility due to the lack of goodwill the whistleblowing act reflects.
Lastly, the trustworthiness concept is deliberately investigated within the credibility research (Alleiger, 2009; McCroskey & Teven, 1999). According to McCroskey and Teven (1999), trust is associated with being honest, moral and ethical. Blowing the whistle internally may be seen as a decision that scores high on these three aspects. The opposite is likely to be the case for external whistleblowing.
higher levels of personal credibility, while external whistleblowing will lead to lower levels of personal credibility. Formally stated:
HYPOTHESIS 2: External whistleblowing lead to lower levels of perceived credibility of the whistleblower than internal whistleblowing.
Perceived credibility and the degree of retaliation
According to research about strategic decisions, credibility can be closely linked with believability and rationality, which can be delineated by a retaliatory response by one party based on a harmful action of the other (Kilgour & Zagare, 1991). Consistent with these findings is the conclusion from research by Mbatha (2005, p. 214), who found that “the organizational response to an act of whistle blowing is influenced firstly by the credibility of the whistle blower, because if people are trusted, such an action may be taken seriously”. Therefore, both researchers suggest that the perceived credibility will influence the response of the perceivers to the whistleblowing act. I expect that low perceived credibility of the whistleblower will increase the degree of retaliation the perceivers feel towards the whistleblower. Moreover, when the whistleblower is perceived as highly credible, the degree of retaliation colleagues feel will decrease. This conclusion has been drawn on grounded conclusions in the literature. Stated formally:
HYPOTHESIS 3: Perceived Credibility will be negatively related to the degree of retaliation.
Perceived credibility as a mediating mechanism
by the perceivers mediates the relationship between the type of whistleblowing and the degree of retaliation. Formally stated:
HYPOTHESIS 4: Perceived Credibility mediates the relation between the type of whistleblowing (e.g. internal and external) and the degree of retaliation.
The moderating role of the outcome of the whistleblowing act
The perceptions by the perceivers about the outcome of the whistleblowing act are undoubtedly influencing their opinions towards the whistleblower (Smith & Brown, 2008). However, the different outcomes of the whistleblowing act are interrelated in complex ways, and “defining them as positive or negative will depend on whose perspectives are acknowledged” (Smith & Brown, 2008, p. 109). Since this research is based on the perceivers’ feelings towards the whistleblower, this perspective will be taken as a starting point.
To define and conceptualize what can be classified as a positive and a negative outcome, a first look has to be taken to the literature about positive and negative deviance. Whistleblowing can be classified as deviance, since it is a departure from norms of ethically questionable behavior and it may benefit society by addressing ethically questionable behavior (Appelbaum, Iaconi & Matousek, 2007). According to the same authors, whistleblowing may be classified as positive as well as negative deviance. This classification is “highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the disclosure of the organizational offence by the whistleblower” (Appelbaum et al., 2007, p.589). An example of this is if an employee knows that his or her current employer is involved in unethical affairs. By disclosing this information internally or externally, blowing the whistle would be considered as a positive deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004). Since he or she “departs from organizational norms, it is “voluntarily and intentional”, and lastly, the goal of the whistleblower “can be labeled as honorable” (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004, p. 837). But not all whistleblowing can be stated as positive deviance. For example, some whistleblowers may use it in order to take revenge on an employer, or they may gain a financial reward for exposing the organizational misconduct (e.g. fraud) (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004).
the individual, group, or organization towards which it is directed” (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986, p.711). On the contrary, anti-social whistleblowing can be classified as stopping the perceived wrongdoing, thereby creating benefits for themselves or intentionally harming others. To customize this literature about the whistleblowers’ deviance and perception of motives to this research, I argue that the outcome of the whistleblowing act can be seen by the perceivers as an act of pro-social, positive deviance or as one of anti-social, negative deviance. This will influence their opinion about the credibility of the whistleblower, and also indirectly the degree of retaliation towards him or her.
Moreover, in order to further develop the distinction between a positive and negative outcome, a look has to be taken at Fairness Theory. This theory focuses on the implications of accountability for fairness judgments, which exist out of three interrelated components: (a) a negative state of events where someone can hold accountable for, (b) the event must be voluntarily assessed by the accountable person, and (c) those harmful actions must violate some ethical principle of interpersonal conduct (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). These three judgments will determine the fairness of an outcome, which can be termed as “distributive justice”, and explains the negativity of the specific situation (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2001). Therefore, perceivers of the whistleblowing act will also refer to the fairness of the outcome of the whistleblowing act in order to determine how to respond to it.
Based on aforementioned literature, I suggest that a fair, positive outcome of the whistleblowing act, not designed to harm others, may influence the relationship between the type of whistleblowing and the perceived credibility by the perceivers in a positive manner. Moreover, an unfair, negative outcome, designed to harm others, will influence the same relationship negatively, by decreasing the perceived credibility the surrounding colleagues experience with regard to the whistleblower. These assumptions lead to the expectation that the outcome of the whistleblowing act will conditionally influence the strength of the indirect relationship between the type of whistleblowing (internal or external) and the degree of retaliation, thereby showing a pattern of moderated mediation between the four variables. This is depicted in Figure 1. Stated formally:
METHOD Participants
The five hypotheses were tested by means of a scenario study among employees (n = 98) working at several departments within “Sociale-Zaken” at the gemeente Hengelo. The respondents were primarily female (63.3%). The mean age was 43.11 years (SD = 10.84) and the average organizational tenure length was 14.11 years (SD = 10.12). Some employees had previous experience with whistleblowing (12.2%). Five employees had experienced internal whistleblowing (5.1%), four employees had experienced both types of whistleblowing already (4.1%), and three employee’s had experienced external whistleblowing previously (3.1%).
Design
The scenario study employed was a 2 (type of whistleblowing: internal or external) by 2 (outcome of the whistleblowing act: positive or negative) design, creating four experimental conditions: (1) Internal whistleblowing with a positive outcome, (2) Internal whistleblowing with a negative outcome, (3) External whistleblowing with a positive outcome, and (4) External whistleblowing with a negative outcome.
I developed four different vignettes, described in the procedure section below. According to Finch (1987, p. 105), vignettes can be described as “short stories about hypothetical characters in specified circumstances, to whose situations the interviewee is invited to respond”. Past research indicates that due to a realistic content of these vignettes, participants are allowed to imagine themselves as the character explained within the hypothetical situation (Patel, 2003). Therefore, a relevant occurrence for the Gemeente Hengelo was used in order to develop the vignettes for this study.
Positive versus Negative Outcome
Internal versus External Whistleblowing
Perceived Credibility
Whistleblower Degree of Retaliation Figure 1
Procedure
All participants were approached through personal contact and participated voluntarily. First contact was established by an e-mail, which was sent to all the employees working at the concerning department. This e-mail contained basic information about the researcher, background information with regard to the whistleblowing and retaliation process, and when I would distribute the survey.
Paper and pencil questionnaires were distributed to all the employees working on the day that I visited the Gemeente Hengelo. According to research, face-to-face surveys will result in a higher response rate than comparable mail surveys (Hox & de Leeuw, 1994). Therefore, I chose to administer the printed questionnaires face-to-face.
Furthermore, the participants did not need to finish the questionnaires immediately. The time-frame I utilized was one week. One day before the deadline, a reminder e-mail was sent to all the employees. After the deadline expired, I went back to the department and gathered the data. Participants were personally thanked for their cooperation.
Manipulations
The independent variable, the type of whistleblowing, and the moderating variable, the outcome of the whistleblowing act, were manipulated during this research with help of vignettes. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four versions and were instructed to read the following text:
The Mayor of Hengelo, S. Schelberg, is hiring his own son to arrange several transfers to different meetings. Normally, this is not a problem. However, Ria Janssen found out that the total amount of payment for these transfers is 2 times higher than at other transfer companies
Until this point, all participants read the same text, describing the main problem. I then manipulated the following text in order to create the four conditions aforementioned:
Ria Janssen decides to confront the head of the department [contact the local newspaper] with these illegal practices, who decides to solve these problems within the organization [who published an article about it the next day]. As a result, the Gemeente Hengelo saved 3000 euro annually [the mayor received a lot of criticism that led to his resignation].
With regard to version 1 (internal / positive), 29 were handed out and 27 came back (93.1%). Version 2 (internal / negative) was handed out 28 times, of which 21 came back (75%). The third version (external / positive) was distributed 29 times, of which 22 came back (75.8%). The fourth version (external / negative) was handed out 28 times of which 28 came back (100%).
Measures
Perceived Personal Credibility
In order to measure this mediating variable, the participants provided ratings of the perceived personal credibility of the whistleblower using an eighteen-item measure developed by McCroskey and Teven (1999).
Participants were asked to rate, for example, the extent to which they thought that the whistleblower was “intelligent”, “trained”, informed”, and “moral” by using a 7-point response format (1_strongly disagree, 7_strongly agree). The rest of the items can be found in Appendix I, Table 4.
The eighteen questions with regard to perceived personal credibility were factor analyzed using principal component analysis with varimax (orthogonal) rotation. The analysis yielded one factor, explaining 47.01% of the total amount of variance in the individual items. The Cronbach’s Alpha of this measure was 0.93.
Retaliation
In order to measure the dependent variable retaliation, I developed a new six-item measure to assess the degree of retaliation to the whistleblower described within the vignettes. The development of these items was based on research about whistleblowing and retaliation (Bok, 1980) and common sense. More specifically, I included items that measured several forms of retaliation, and also supporting behavior towards the whistleblower.
A principal components analysis with varimax rotation confirmed that the six items measuring the degree of retaliation loaded on one factor, accounting for 61.1% of the total amount of variance in the individual items. The reliability of this measure has been estimated with help of Cronbach’s Alpha (αCredibility = 0.87).
Data Analyses
Hypotheses 1 – 4 suggested a model with indirect effects, whereby the relationship between the type of whistleblowing (e.g. internal or external) and the intended degree of retaliation towards the whistleblower is influenced by the perceived credibility of the whistleblower. This influence can be classified as a simple mediating effect.
In order to measure this mediational process, the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) was used. This test provides a significance level for the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through a mediator (Sobel, 1982). According to research by Cole, Walter and Bruch (2008), the Sobel Test is based on the assumption that the indirect effect has been normally distributed. They suggest therefore to use the statistical method “bootstrap” which defines confidence intervals (CI’s). Bootstrapping is a manner to investigate whether the normal distribution will lie within its bounds of 95% probability. In order to measure the mediational process with help of the Sobel Test and include Bootstrapping, the SPSS Macro with the name PROCESS will be used. This test has been developed by Hayes and Preacher (2004).
Hypothesis 5 suggests a moderated mediation model. The definition of the term moderated mediation has been developed by James and Brett (1984). They explained the term as a simple mediation model that involves relations which require the presence of a moderator; the strength of the indirect effect investigated within the simple mediation model aforementioned will depend on the level of the moderator.
In order to test this conditional indirect effect, again I will use the SPSS Macro developed by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007): PROCESS. This statistical program will provide whether there is a significant conditional indirect effect of the moderating variable.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all variables. An examination of the correlations discloses that the type of whistleblowing is negatively related to the degree of retaliation (r = -.41, p <.01) and also negatively to the perceived credibility (r = -.33, p <.01). Moreover, the perceived credibility is positively related to the degree of retaliation (r = .63 <.01).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Type of whistleblowinga 1.51 0.50 -
2. Perceived Credibility 4.64 0.99 -.33** -
3.Outcome of the whistleblowing actb 1.50 0.50 .12 -.25* -
4. Degree of Retaliation 5.02 1.17 -.41** .63 -.09 - Note. n = 98.
a
Rating is based on the distinction between (1) Internal Whistleblowing and (2) External Whistleblowing
b
Rating is based on the distinction between (1) Positive Outcome and (2) Negative Outcome
* p < .05 (2-tailed) ** p < .01 (2-tailed) Tests of mediation
confirmed the results of the Sobel Test, with a bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect not containing a zero (95% bootstrap CI = -.42, to -.07).
Note. n = 98. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
Tests of moderated mediation
Table 3 provides an overview of the results for the test of Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 stated that the outcome of the whistleblowing indirectly affects the relationship between the type of whistleblowing and retaliation (through perceived personal credibility), such that perceived personal credibility will especially have a negative influence on the degree of retaliation via perceived credibility when the outcome of the whistleblowing act is negative (as described in Figure 1). The results indicated that the outcome of the whistleblowing act indeed had a negative effect on the relationship between the type of whistleblowing and perceived credibility (B = -.22, t = -2.40, p = <.05).
Table 2
Regression Results for Simple Mediation
Variable B SE t p
Direct and Total effects Degree of Retaliation regressed on type of
whistleblowing
-0.27 0.10 -2.80 .006
Perceived Credibility regressed on type of whistleblowing
-0.33 0.10 -3.44 .001
Degree of Retaliation regressed on
Perceived Credibility, controlling for type of whistleblowing
0.65 0.10 6.77 .000
Degree of Retaliation regressed on type of whistleblowing, controlling for perceived Credibility
-0.27 0.10 -2.80 .006
Value SE z p
Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution
Sobel -0.21 0.07 -3.04 .002
Value SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Note. n = 98. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000.
In order to determine whether this effect fully supports Hypothesis 5, the form of this interaction should be delineated (see Figure 2). Consistent with our expectations for both types of whistleblowing a positive outcome of the whistleblowing act led to an increased level of personal credibility, while a negative outcome led to decreased personal credibility. However, the decline in personal credibility is significantly larger for external whistleblowing than for internal whistleblowing.
Figure 2
Interaction pattern
Even though the aforementioned results show that he outcome of the whistleblowing act indeed influence the effect of the type of whistleblowing on the perceived credibility, they do not directly assess the indirect conditional effect on retaliation. An examination of this conditional indirect effect of the type of whistleblowing on the degree of retaliation (through
3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50
Internal Whistleblowing External Whistleblowing
P er ce iv ed C re di b ili ty Positief outcome Negative outcome Table 3
Regression Results for Conditional Indirect Effect
Predictor B SE t p
Perceived Credibility
Constant 0.03 0.09 0.29 0.77
Type of whistleblowing -0.31 0.09 -3.30 0.00
Outcome of the whistleblowing act -0.21 0.09 -2.28 0.03
perceived personal credibility) was done at two levels of the outcome of the whistleblowing act: the negative outcome and the positive outcome. The normal-theory tests indicated that the hypothesis significantly holds for external whistleblowing (95% bootstrap CI = -0.66 to -0.11), but not for internal whistleblowing (95% bootstrap CI = -0.22 to 0.11).
In conclusion, external whistleblowing led to more retaliation than internal whistleblowing (through perceived personal credibility) when the outcome of the
whistleblowing act was negative, instead of positive. These findings support Hypotheses 5.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the influence of the type of whistleblowing on the degree of retaliation that colleagues of the whistleblower intent to engage in towards the whistleblower. An integrated conceptual scheme (Figure 1) was developed to indicate that the relationship between internal versus external whistleblowing and the degree of retaliation is more complex than prior research has indicated.
I expected that external whistleblowing would lead to more retaliation than internal whistleblowing. The results of this research support this statement, which is consistent with literature about whistleblowing and retaliation (Baucus & Dworkin, 1995; Near & Miceli, 1985). However, in order to extend the existing literature, I also predicted that perceived credibility of the whistleblower by the surrounding colleagues would operate as a mediating device between the type of whistleblowing and the degree of retaliation. The results of this study support this prediction, suggesting that external whistleblowing indeed has a negative effect on retaliation, because they perceive the whistleblower as less credible. This is consistent with literature about the perceptions of motives (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1996; Holtzhauzen, 2012) and perceptions about perceived credibility (McCrosky & Teven, 1999; Alleiger, 2009), stating that external whistleblowing leads to lower levels of perceived credibility than internal whistleblowing. These lower levels of perceived credibility will therefore increase the level of retaliation the perceivers exhibit towards the whistleblower. An explanation for this can be found within the negative consequences external whistleblowing encounters (Barnet, Cochran & Taylor, 1993; Berry, 2004).
The outcome of the whistleblowing act (e.g. positive or negative) serves as a conditional indirect effect on the relationship between the type of whistleblowing and the degree of retaliation by influencing the perceived credibility of the whistleblower. However, this is only serving as a conditional indirect effect for external whistleblowing and not for internal whistleblowing.
A negative outcome will create large differences within the perceptions of the surrounding colleagues towards the whistleblower compared to positive outcomes when the whistle is blown externally. An explanation for this can be that when the outcome is positive, the surrounding colleagues will perceive the whistleblower as credible, since he was acting prosocially and on a fair manner (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). This may function as a buffer for the negative effects external whistleblowing may cause, leading to less retaliation. In contrast, with a negative outcome, the whistleblower is already seen as being anti-social and unfair, leading to more retaliation inclinations. The external whistleblower will cause public embarrassment or triggers investigations. With a negative outcome, the perceivers of the whistleblowing act will feel betrayed since (1) the whistleblower did not provide the company an opportunity to correct the wrongdoing internally, thereby illustrating the negative effects of external whistleblowing, and (2) the outcome of the whistleblowing act is also negative, so the intentions of the whistleblower were anti-social. These two arguments together will lead to a significant increase of the retaliatory feelings towards the external whistleblower.
With regard to the internal whistleblower, a positive or negative outcome did not influence the degree of retaliation perceivers felt towards the whistleblower (through perceived personal credibility). An explanation for this is based on the fact that by keeping the whistleblowing act internal provides organizations an opportunity to investigate and correct the wrongdoing (Dworkin & Near, 1987). Therefore, not depending on whether the outcome of the whistleblowing act is positive or negative, the perceived credibility of the internal whistleblower remains similar.
external whistleblowing is influencing the degree of retaliation co-workers surrounding the whistleblower feel.
Lastly, by focusing on the perceivers of the whistleblowing act, this research contributes constructively to the literature about these perceivers. Since much research has already been focused on the characteristics of the whistleblower and situational factors (Near & Miceli, 1985), the time has come to focus more on the environment of the whistleblower.
Limitations and Future Research
This study contributes to the theory by providing a new angle with regard to the whistleblowing process theories that considers the outcome of the whistleblowing act as an indirect effect on the degree of retaliation the perceivers feel. However, besides these interesting contributions, some limitations must to be mentioned.
Firstly, this research is based on data collected at only one source, the Gemeente Hengelo, within a short time path. This led to internal generalization of the outcome of this study. However, the external generalizability of these findings might be limited to public companies within the Netherlands. Hence, there may be a possibility that different results could be obtained from different types of companies and sizes.
Moreover, with regard to the validity of this research, some bias might be created due to the fact that the data for two of the variables (e.g. personal credibility and retaliation) has been gathered with help of a questionnaire. Gathering data on this manner might result in self-reporting tactics and thereby also in varying styles to response, examples are inconsistent or extreme responding, negativism or moderacy. Therefore, to overcome this limitation, this study has to be re-tested by another experiment that measures actual behavior rather than self-report.
may have led to a more negative attitude towards whistleblowers during this research. In contrast, the opposite may be true when respondents experienced positive consequences.
Beyond mentioning study limitations, the present analysis also suggests other directions that may be interesting for future research. My conceptual scheme is not exhaustive.
With regard to the mediating variables, several gaps within the literature still exist. First, an interesting mediator can be organizational commitment of the surrounding colleagues. Currently, there are two different views in the literature with regard to organizational commitment and whistleblowing. At one hand, due to the fact that commitment will result in conformity and loyalty, committed employees are less likely to report an organizational wrongdoing. However, at the other hand, research suggested that organizational commitment may increase the chance on whistleblowing. The committed employees may be characterized as “reformers”, who want to get their organization “back on course” (Hirschmann, 1972). Since there are two opposing views, it may be interesting to look which one is true, and especially whether the type of whistleblowing has an effect on it. Moreover, perceptions of motives can also function as an interesting mediating mechanism. According to Near & Miceli (1996, p. 509) “Antisocial whistleblowers may act with the intent to harm the organization or their co-workers, or may violate procedural norms. Otherwise, prosocial whistleblowers, who embellish the truth in order to put forward a stronger case, may be regarded as at least somewhat antisocial because they have followed procedures that would be considered unjust.” Whether the other employees perceive the whistleblowing act as prosocial, will affect how they perceive the whistleblower in the end. Therefore, the perception of motives mediator may function as an important connection between the type of whistleblowing and the degree of retaliation.
With regard to the moderating variables, several interesting gaps exist and ask for further research. The first option is to include self-regulatory orientations (e.g. prevention or promotion focused). A prevention focus emphasizes safety, responsibility, and security needs, while a promotion focus emphasizes hopes, accomplishments, and advancement needs (Higgins, 1997). The relationship between internal versus external whistleblowing and the perception of the whistleblower may therefore differently be influenced by perceivers who are prevention focused than when they are more promotion focused.
perceivers of the whistleblowing act recognize and categorize the action of the whistleblower as either fair or unfair. This moderator may function as an extension to the positive versus negative outcome theory established during this research. The procedural justice is about whether perceivers think that the whistleblower follows "fair" reporting procedures. Of course, different subgroups may have different perspectives on what constitutes an outcome that is favorable to the organization and themselves (Near, Dworkin & Miceli, 1993). When the colleagues feel that fair reporting procedures have been used, which is probably the case when whistleblowers use internal channels, they may perceive the whistleblower differently than when perceivers feel that unfair reporting procedures have been used.
Finally, due to the limitations of this study mentioned, other studies should replicate our research by collecting data from more samples, within other organizations and different industries.
Since the amount of ethical misconducts within the workplace is rising, whistle-blowing seems to be more important than ever. Organizations need to guarantee their employees that they can disclose unethical misconducts without fearing retaliation by their colleagues. By creating a saver environment to blow the whistle, employees will be more eager to actually report unethical misconducts. This study provides an interesting angle, by which the outcome of the whistleblowing act contributes, on an indirect way, to the degree of retaliation surrounding colleagues feel. However, more research is needed to take a closer look with regard to whistleblowing, retaliation and effect of the outcome of the
REFERENCES
Alleiger, S. (2009). The Personal Credibility Factor, How to get it, keep it, and get it back (if you have lost it). (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press, 2009).
Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G.D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7, 586-598.
Barnett, T.R. (1992). A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship Between Selected Organizational Characteristics and External Whistleblowing by Employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 949-959.
Barnett, T.R., Cochran, D.S., & Taylor, G.S. (1993). The Internal Disclosure Policies of Private- Sector Employers: An Initial Look at their Relationship to Employee Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 127-136.
Berry, B. (2004). Organizational Culture: A Framework and Strategies for Facilitating Employee Whistleblowing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16, 1-11. Bok, S. (1980). “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibilities.” New York University Education Quarterly, 2, 2-7.
Bowie, N. (1982). Business Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982), 140-43. Brewer, G.A., & Selden, S.C. (1995). Whistleblowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic? Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 4, 710-725.
Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The history of organizational justice: The founder speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice, 2, 3-26. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). The affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945-958.
Dworkin, T.M., & Baucus, M.S. (1998). Internal vs. External Whistleblowers: A Comparison of Whistleblowing Processes. Journal of business ethics, 17, 1281-1298.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-607. Finch, J. (1987). The Vignette Technique in Survey Research, Sociology, 21, 105-14. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In
J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (2001), Advances in Organizational Justice (p. 1-55). California, Stanford University Press.
Giacalone, R.A., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. (London, U.K.: SAGE Publications, Inc. 1996).
Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E., & Poitras, L. (2013, June 10). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa- whistleblower-surveillance
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300. Hirschmann, A. (1972). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holtzhausen, N. (2012). Variables influencing the outcomes of the whistle blowing process in South Africa. School of Public Management and Administration. University of
Pretoria
Hox, J.J. & De Leeuw, E.D. (1994). A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and face to face surveys: applying multilevel modelling to meta-analysis. Quality & Quantity, 28, 329-344.
Hunton, J.E., & Rose, J.M. (2010). Effects of Anonymous Whistle-Blowing and Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle-Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 75-98.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
Kaptein, M. (2011). From Inaction to External Whistleblowing: The Influence of the Ethical Culture of Organizations on Employee Responses to Observed Wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 513-530.
Kilgour, D.M., & Zagare, F.C. (1991). Credibility, Uncertainty and Deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 303-334.
Label, W.A., & Miethe, T.D. (1999). Whistleblowing and external auditors. Journal of Applied Business Research, 15, 87-92.
Larmer, R. (1992).Whistleblowing and employee loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 125-128.
MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (2008). “Self-Efficacy as An Intrapersonal Predictor for Internal Whistle-Blowing: A U.S. and Canada Examination”. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 407-421.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R.L. (2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 7-16.
Mbatha, J.S. (2005). The ethical dilemmas of whistle-blowing and corruption in the South African Public Sector. Unpublished D.Admin Thesis. Empangeni: University of Zululand.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.
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.
Miceli, M.P., Dozier, J.B., & Near, J.P. (1991). Blowing the whistle on data fudging: A controlled field experiment. Journal of applied Social Psychology, 21, 271-295. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle- blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267-281.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P (1992). Blowing the Whistle. New York: Lexington Books.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J.P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in Organizations, LEA Organization and Management Series, Mahwah, NJ: Taylor and Francis.
Nader, R., Petkas, P.J., & Blackwell, K. (1972). Whistle Blowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility. New York: Grossman, 24-38.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M.P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1-16.
Near, J.P., Dworkin, T.M. & Miceli, M.P. (1993). Explaining the whistle-blowing process:
Suggestions from power theory and justice theory. Organization Science, 4, 393-411.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). ‘Effective whistleblowing’. Academy of Management Review, 20, 679-708.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22, 507-526.
Parmerlee, M. A., Near, J. P., & Jensen, T.C. (1982) Correlates of Whistle-Blowers’ Perceptions of Organizational Retaliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 17-34.
Patel, C. (2003). Some cross-cultural evidence on whistle-blowing as an internal control mechanism. Journal of International Accounting Research, 2, 69-96.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Podsakoff, N.P., & Lee, J. (2003). The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615-656.
Ponemon, L. A. (1994). Whistle-Blowing as an internal control mechanism:
Individual and organizational considerations. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13, 118-130.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 36, 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42, 185-227.
Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P. & Van Scotter, J. R. (2008). "Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relationships," Organization Science, Vol. 19, 221-240.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242.
Smith, R., & Brown, A. (2008). "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: Whistleblowing Outcomes". Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector: Enhancing the Theory and Practice of Internal Witness Management in Public Sector.
Spreitzer, G.M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 828-47.
Stansbury, J.M., & Victor, B. (2009). Whistle-Blowing Among Young Employees : A Life- Course Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 281-299.
Tsahuridu, E.E., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2007). Organizational whistleblowing policies: Making employees responsible or liable? Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 107-118. Verschoor, C.C. (2012). Retaliation for Whistleblowing Is on the Rise. Strategic Finance, 94, 13-14.
Victor, B., Trevino, L. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (1993). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: The influence of justice evaluations and social context factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 253-263.
Weinstein, D. (1979). Bureaucratic Opposition, New York: Pergamon Press.
Retaliation. (2013). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved May 9, 2013, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/
APPENDIX: Results Factor Analysis
Table 4
Factor Analysis for Perceived Credibility
Loadings Factor 1 Intelligent .635 Trained .488 Cares about me .720 Honest .736
Has the Gemeente Hengelo’s interest at heart .756
Trustworthy .768
Expert .555
Self-centred .484
Concerned about the Gemeente Hengelo .618
Honourable .704 Informed .756 Moral .756 Competed .799 Ethical .753 Sensitive .701 Bright .681 Genuine .715 Understanding .702 Eigenvalue 8.462 % of Total Variance 47.01% Table 5
Factor Analysis for Retaliation
Loadings Factor 1
I would repay Ria for her behaviour .690
I would defend Ria at colleagues who criticize her .800 I would help Ria during discussions about whether her behaviour was right .799
I would tend to gossip about Ria .850
I would speak negatively about Ria to other colleagues .850
I will publicly support Ria .770
