Moral Courage and Moral Whistleblowing Intentions
- Contextual Factors on Ethical Decision Making in the Dutch Military Organization
Author: Elisa Kerkhoven Student Number: 12960446 Submission Date: June 30th, 2021
Version: Final
Qualification: Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership Track Institution: University of Amsterdam / Amsterdam Business School
First Supervisor: Dr. W. van Eerde
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Elisa Kerkhoven who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Signature ___________________________________________
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 6
Introduction ... 7
Theoretical Background ... 10
Whistleblowing ... 10
Moral Courage ... 12
Conformity to Group Norms ... 14
Group Cohesion ... 16
Perceived Organizational Support ... 18
Data and Method ... 20
Method ... 20
Procedure and Sample ... 20
Measures ... 21
Whistleblowing Intentions ... 21
Moral Courage ... 22
Conformity to Group Norms ... 22
Group Cohesion ... 23
Perceived Organizational Support ... 23
Control Variables ... 24
Results ... 24
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation ... 24
Post-hoc Analysis of Social Identity and Group Cohesion ... 26
Hypotheses Testing ... 26
Moral Courage and Whistleblowing Intentions ... 26
Discussion ... 32
Theoretical Implications ... 37
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ... 38
Managerial Implications ... 40
Conclusion ... 42
References ... 43
Appendix A ... 52
List of Tables and Figures Tables
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations 27
Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Whistleblowing Intentions 27 Table 3 Individual Moderation Analyses of Moral Courage, Group Dynamics
and Perceived Organizational Support 31
Table 4 Joint Moderation Analysis of Moral Courage, Group Dynamics and
Perceived Organizational Support 31
Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Moral Whistleblowing Intentions Among Dutch
Armed Forces 20
Abstract
The whistleblowing process has been widely studied for years. Whereas prior research mainly focused on whistleblowing as a rational act resulting from a cost-benefit analysis, more recent research acknowledges the distinction between rational and moral whistleblowing. Moral whistleblowing is the act of the so called ‘moral agent’ who reports ethical misconduct, primarily motivated by a sense of moral duty. Individual differences, among which moral courage, have been argued to be detrimental to show moral whistleblowing intentions. The current study elaborates on the importance of moral courage in the moral whistleblowing process, in order to create a better understanding of the predictors of moral whistleblowing intentions externally (WIE), internally (WII) and non-action (WINA). Furthermore, in prior research, conformity to team norms, group cohesion and perceived organizational support have been found to be influential factors in the rational whistleblowing process. In the current study, these influential factors of the rational whistleblowing process are tested for on
whistleblowing intentions as a moral act, to create a better understanding of the possible influence of contextual factors on moral whistleblowing. In a sample of 219 employees of the Dutch military, the results of hierarchical linear regression, followed by moderation analyses showed the importance of moral courage on WII and WINA, whilst not being moderated by group dynamics (conformity to team norms and group cohesion) and perceived organizational support. Although moral courage does not seem to be related to WIE, group dynamics and perceived organizational support may be accepted as antecedents of WIE.
Key words: Moral Courage, Whistleblowing Intentions, Group Cohesion, Group Norms, Perceived Organizational Support
Introduction
“Above all we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon that adversaries in today’s world do not have”. – Ronald Reagan
It should not come as a surprise that ethical misconduct is a common phenomenon within the military (Giebels et al., 2018; Timmermans et al., 2021). During times of war the line between ethical and unethical oftentimes becomes thin. Ethical misconduct is not only a theme of attention in times of war, but also during daily peacetime operations. Mistreating the novices to gain acceptance by their new group members, harsh hazing periods, celebratory traditions accompanied by alcohol, sexual abuse and gender related inappropriate jokes, are just a few examples of the problematic military culture that still exists to date (Kuijpers, 2018). Despite of a having a handful of (former) military employees who willingly faced the consequences of blowing the whistle, unethical behavior within the Military organization seems to gain little attention in order to fight this problematic situation (NOS, 2018). Since the military is equipped with the most powerful weapons in the world to fight war, what kind of human weapons should the Dutch military deploy to fight the ‘internal war’ of ethical misconduct?
Whistleblowing can be seen 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 affect action’ (Near & Miceli, 1985, as cited in Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005, p. 278). Research found that individual differences in attitudes towards whistleblowing, perceived behavioral control, independence commitment, personal responsibility for reporting and personal cost of reporting, create a clear distinction in whether an (former) employee is (not) willing to blow the whistle (Alleyne et al., 2013;
Latan et al., 2018). Nonetheless, these individual differences are mostly related to rational whistleblowing, where incentives, job responsibilities or revenge are the main drivers to
report ethical misconduct (Watts & Buckley, 2017). More recent studies found that
whistleblowing mostly occurs as a moral act, initiated by an employee who morally acts upon wrongdoing, instead of blowing the whistle to earn a reward or to aim for revenge. Despite of the individual differences related to rational whistleblowing, whistleblowing as a moral act, seems to be driven by moral courage.
Moral courage is the type of brave behavior to enforce ethical norms whilst risking personal negative consequences at all costs, expected to be necessary to show moral whistleblowing intentions and actions (Osswald et al., 2011). Although it may be expected that military personnel possess a certain amount of courage, the frequently occurring ethical misconduct suggests either a lack of moral courage, or other influential factors that interfere with moral courage to report ethical misconduct (Olsthoorn, 2007). While theoretically the importance of moral courage in relation to whistleblowing is clear, the practical substantiation remains parsimonious. The current study elaborates on the theoretical proposition of the relationship of moral courage on whistleblowing intentions, as proposed by Watts & Buckley (2017), by the study of employees of the Dutch armed forces.
Empirical studies have shown that organizational factors influence the judgement of an employee on a situation being (un)ethical (Watts & Buckley, 2017; Alleyne et al., 2013).
Team norms, group cohesion and perceived organizational support are found to be influential factors on the relationship between individual level antecedents and rational whistleblowing intentions (Latan et al., 2018). This emphasizes the need for organizational interventions to deal with interfering factors that withhold employees from reporting. Therefore it is relevant to test if the same contextual influences matter when whistleblowing is merely a moral act. In addressing this research gap between rational whistleblowing and the relatively newer area of research on moral whistleblowing, a better understanding of the organizational efficiency of moral whistleblowing and the possible vulnerability of this concept is created. Despite the
benefits of and crucial reasons for having cohesive groups, especially during times of war (Siebold, 2007), the down side of being part of a (cohesive) group is that it might be of influence on the courage to stand up against unethical in-group behavior (Olsthoorn, 2007).
Blurring norms caused by depersonalization, due to identification with the group is a common phenomenon (Van Knippenberg, 2000). Subsequently, group cohesion has shown to be an influential factor on an individual’s intention to blow the whistle (Alleyne et al., 2019).
Therefore, the current study proposes that conformity to group norms and cohesiveness of the group influence a morally courageous employee’s intention to blow the whistle. Furthermore, since it is shown that perceived organizational support is of influence on an employee’s moral courage (Khelil et al., 2018), the current study proposes that perceived organizational support influences the intention to blow the whistle of a morally courageous employee.
This paper contributes to the existing whistleblowing literature in different ways.
Firstly, moral courage has found to be operationalizable and trainable, thus forming a construct that organizations might want to focus on to fight unethical behavior (Comer &
Sekerka, 2018; Lachman, 2010). Moreover, it is important to create a better understanding of moral courage for earlier recognition of wrongdoing, followed by blowing the whistle and therefore to fight ethical misconduct. Secondly, to increase the effectiveness of the
whistleblowing process of the organization, a comprehensive approach to influential factors is crucial, whereby the distinction between rational and moral whistleblowing is inevitable (Watts & Buckley, 2017). Lastly, a better understanding of the susceptibility of the
whistleblowing process in Military context is created. The Military as an organization where ethical misconduct is a common phenomenon (Giebels et al., 2018; Beeres et al., 2021), understanding of the predictors of whistleblowing intentions might help fighting the ‘internal war’ on unethical behavior within this organizational context.
Theoretical Background Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing has been subject of research for years. However, different areas and whistleblowing constructs still need more attention to create a better understanding of the whistleblowing process as a whole (Culiberg & Mihelic, 2017).
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 affect action’ (Near & Miceli, 1985, as cited in Mesmer- Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005, p. 278), became a prevailing construct because of the big scandals like Enron and Lehman Brothers (Dasgupta & Kesharwani, 2010). Regardless of the different definitions of whistleblowing, the act of whistleblowing can be seen as a process, consisting of four elements: 1. The person with the intention and responsive act to make information public. 2. The complaint or the wrongdoing that is being reported. 3. An
individual or group within the organization or the organization itself who is or are engaging in wrongdoings and 4. The receiving party of the whistleblower’s information (Dasgupta &
Kesharwani, 2010). Although whistleblowing should lead to elimination of ethical
misconduct to improve organizational effectiveness, organizations in general mostly try to avoid the reporting of wrongdoing (Sims & Keenan, 1998) and the whistleblowers act of reporting the misconduct is often ignored (Miceli et al., 1991, as cited in Mesmer-Magnus &
Viswesvaran, 2005, p. 278).
Once an individual has witnessed unethical behavior, the individual should choose between remaining silent or engaging in ethical behavior like whistleblowing, whilst facing the consequences of retaliation, denial and ignorance (Bjørkelo et al., 2011). Different whistleblowing studies point out different types of action employees engage in, once they witnessed wrongdoing in the workplace. In general, most of the whistleblowing studies make
either anonymously or with personal identification. Other studies add remaining silent and talking to another colleague to the latter two options (Gorta & Forel, 1995; Near & Miceli, 1985; Rothshield & Miethe, 1991). Park et al. (2005) successfully merged remaining silent and talking to another colleague, to create three options an employee might engage in: 1.
Whistleblowing externally (WIE), 2. Whistleblowing internally (WII) and 3. No action at all (WINA). In the current study, the whistleblowing options of Park et al. (2005) are used, with non-action as a counter indicative action opposed to whistleblowing internally and externally.
Whistleblowing as voicing about and acting upon unethical acts, requires certain individual characteristics that differ significantly between individuals (Jubb, 1999). Different individual characteristics and contextual factors have been found detrimental in the distinction between which individual would voice and blow the whistle and which individuals choose to remain silent (Dungan et al., 2019). Bjørkelo et al. (2010) showed in their research that individual differences in personality traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness and
domineering, lead to a distinction in whether or not to blow the whistle. Furthermore, other antecedents concerning individual traits, contextual and situational factors have been found related to whistleblowing intentions (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Miceli & Near, 2005), of which the individual differences with an ethical connotation such as moral courage, moral agreeableness and moral efficacy have been introduced more recently and have been addressed sparsely yet (Culiberg & Mihelic, 2017; Watts & Buckley, 2017).
Additionally, in earlier research on whistleblowing, whistleblowing as a result of a cost-benefit analysis has been studied widely. The possible outcomes of blowing the whistle are considered and weighed, to determine whether or not the pros outweigh the cons (Miceli
& Near, 1985). For some, a financial incentive may be the push to blow the whistle, for others whistleblowing is part of the job, as seen in the accountancy world, whilst others blow the whistle as an act of morality or blow the whistle out of revenge (Watts & Buckley, 2017).
Since research on real life whistleblowing cases show that most of the whistleblowers acted out of moral concern, more recent studies focus on whistleblowing as a result of ethical judgement and ethical action (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). Therefore, Watts and Buckley (2017) proposed a whistleblowing model of the whistleblowing process of the ‘moral agent’, the person who acts out of moral concern. The moral agent shows individual differences in moral sensitivity, moral identity, moral courage and prosocial expectations. Moral courage in particular, is the individual difference with an ethical connotation expected to be crucial in order to act upon wrongdoing, despite of the consequences (Dungan et al., 2019; Watts &
Buckley, 2017). Whereas attitudes towards whistleblowing, personal responsibility for reporting and personal cost of reporting are detrimental behavioral characteristics of the rational whistleblower (Alleyne et al., 2013; Latan et al., 2018), moral courage is expected to be the all-encompassing pro social behavior, crucial to blow the whistle as a moral act. Hence, indicating a clear distinction between rational and moral whistleblowing.
Although research largely relates the characteristics of the moral agent, among which moral courage, to whistleblowing intentions, these assumptions have sparsely been tested in practice yet. Therefore, this research focusses on moral courage as an antecedent of moral whistleblowing.
Moral Courage
Moral courage refers to a type of prosocial behavior without direct rewards for the morally courageous person and with high social costs (i.e. negative social consequences) (Bierhoff, 2002; Osswald et al., 2011). Therefore, moral courage is a crucial element within business ethics, especially in situations where moral action is needed (Simola, 2015). Multiple researchers have addressed moral courage as a crucial element when it comes to
whistleblowing as an act of ethical behavior. When violation of human rights and socially
accepted norms and values harm more than one person, moral courage is especially needed to address these issues (Kohn, 2015; MacDonald, 2015; Simola, 2015).
A strong relationship between moral courage and the intention to blow the whistle is to be expected. According to Jubb (1999), whistleblowing requires moral courage and it is undeniable that moral courage fits the type of determination typically exposed by
whistleblowing. Additionally, Watts and Buckley (2017) state that moral courage should be incorporated in the complex model of whistleblowing, since it is a determinant factor in the decision-making process on whether or not to blow the whistle. Whistleblowing often results in high personal costs, merely as the consequences of the confrontations between the morally courageous and the perpetrator (Osswald et al., 2010). Rejection from the group the
whistleblower belongs to or confrontation with the perpetrator are examples of the high costs a morally courageous may face. To blow the whistle, a person must be willing to engage in behavior that goes against these high costs (Watts & Buckley, 2017).
Contextual factors like organizational support and organizational protection mediated by perceived personal costs, public service motivation and education on whistleblowing seem to have a significant effect on whistleblowing intentions in governmental agencies (Cho &
Song, 2015). In studies of Cho and Song (2015) and Bjørkel (2016), trainable constructs to increase the likelihood of whistleblowing, have been emphasized by means to help the organization eliminate ethical misconduct to improve organizational effectiveness. Cho and Song (2015) found statistical support for public service motivation being positively related to whistleblowing intentions. This implies that people who have a strong desire to serve the public and to act upon the greater good, tend to be willing to blow the whistle on ethical misconduct. Serving the best interest of the collective at large, especially when violation of moral principles occur, is one of the elements of moral courage (Kohn, 2015; MacDonald, 2015; Simola, 2015). Whereas public service motivation has not found to be trainable (Chen
et al., 2021), moral courage potentially increases by making use of the appropriate ethical training (May et al., 2014; Comer & Schwartz, 2017). Hence, to increase the likelihood of ethical misconduct being exposed, it seems worthwhile to emphasize the importance of moral courage.
An individual’s moral courage will become more prominent and the urge to act with moral courage increases when prosocial norms are made salient (Osswald et al., 2011). In line with findings of Osswald et al. (2011), Comer and Schwartz (2017) found evidence that moral courage can be taught and improved via an ethics course that uses fiction in which morally courageous behavior is shown in a practical manner. Using novels encourages students to behave morally courageous and it eventually equips them with the tools to behave
accordingly in real life. Thus, the intensity of expressing moral courage is determined by how salient pro social norms are in the individuals mind.
Since the relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is to be expected and further research into the trainable construct of moral courage is of high managerial impact, the first hypothesis is proposed:
H1: There is a positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions.
Conformity to Group Norms
Sekerka and Bagozzi (2007) found that group norms are an influential factor in the ethical decision-making process. The extent to which an individual relates to the group with its groups norms, is crucial to determine whether or not an individual will show dissent against in-group norm violation (Packer & Chasteen, 2010). To understand an individual’s relatedness to group norms, an explanation by making use of the social identity theory can be made. Social identity theory describes the identification of an individual with a certain group via symbolic interaction. Symbolic interaction refers to verbal and non-verbal interaction between individuals. This symbolic interaction creates identification with a group, which
leads to adoption of the groups norms, values, behaviors and thoughts (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The Social identity theory points out that an individual who belongs to a group, adheres to the norms of the group (Steinel et al., 2010). This adherence is also known as a subtle form of depersonalization (Brewer et al., 1993), a process in which the individual loses parts of the self in order to fit into a certain group (Van Knippenberg, 2000). As described by Hogg and Reid (2006), adherence to group norms not only causes depersonalization on what to believe are the accepted norms and values, but it also influences what an individual with high group identity accepts as right and wrong behavior.
According to the social identity theory, it is expected that an individual who strongly identifies with the group and adheres to the norms, values and behaviors of that group has less accurate awareness of ethical misconduct (Brewer et al., 1993). Additionally, Hooks et al. (as cited in Alleyne et al., 2013) refers to the effect of group norms on an individual’s perception on the seriousness of wrongdoing. A decade later, the risk of blurring norms and values, because of depersonalization due to group conformity is used in research of Zhang et al.
(2009). Their research states that justification of ethical misconduct is a common phenomenon when the group labels an unethical event as ethical. Thus, the influence of organizational and group norms and an individual’s identification with that group are crucial in recognizing wrongdoing.
Conformity to group norms has found to be positively related to the cohesiveness of the group (Greenberger et al., 1987; Sanders, 2004, as cited in Alleyne et al., 2019, p. 72) and has found to be a determinant value for appropriate behavior. Prior study of Alleyne et al.
(2019) and Latan et al. (2018) used the relatedness of conformity to group norms and social cohesion, by measuring it as one construct: the moderating role of group cohesion. However, in military research norms and cohesiveness have found to be two distinct factors (Høigaard et al., 2006). In the study of Langfred (as cited in Høigaard et al., 2006, p. 220), an interaction
effect of group norms and group cohesion is created to determine team performance. The findings showed that combinations of high cohesion and low norms or vice versa exist, and that the interaction effect of these two lead to differences in performance. Moreover, in this military study two distinct variables are used to measure two constructs in a distinct manner, proposing the following hypothesis:
H2: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by conformity to group norms, such that it weakens the relationship.
Group Cohesion
Carron (as cited in Cota et al., 1995, p. 572) defined group cohesion as ‘a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives’. Group cohesion has been widely studied, mainly in the field of sports psychology and more recently also within broader organizational context (Rios
& MacKey, 2020). Generally spoken, high group performance leads to better organizational performance and is considered as highly beneficial (Rovio et al., 2009). Team members of a cohesive group tend to be more sensitive to others and are more likely to adhere to group norms and show more cooperative behavior towards the group (Alleyne et al., 2019).
Additionally, group cohesion in military organizations has been a topic of special interest since decades. Prior research predominantly focused on the benefits of having highly cohesive groups, both during war and during peace time (Bartone et al., 2002). Performance benefits, higher overall wellbeing, increased morale during times of war and combat
motivation are just a few of the desired effects of group cohesiveness (Bartone et al., 2002;
Siebold, 2007). However, Olsthoorn (2007) expected a negative influence of group cohesion on the moral courageousness to act upon ethical misconduct in military groups.
With regard to ethical decision making, two effects of cohesion are likely. First, positive influence by high group cohesiveness, due to a tendency to ethical conformity caused by enhanced discussion of ethics related phenomena (Schminke & Wells, 1999). Second, a negative influence. Olsthoorn (2007) argues that there is a relationship between moral
courage and social cohesion and that there is expected to be a particular unfavorable effect of social cohesion on moral courage, especially within military groups. High social cohesion might result in an individual’s lack of courage to dissent from the opinions of the group members. Therefore, Olsthoorn (2007) stresses the importance of fostering and persevering the ability to choose and stand up for an individual’s own opinion. In line with research of Olsthoorn (2007), the membership of a group may lead to engaging in unethical behavior, in order to benefit the group and the individual (Narayanan et al., 2006). This is especially the case in highly cohesive groups. This behavior has its root cause in the sense of urgency of the individual to take responsibility for the (un)ethical actions of the group.
Additionally, Nntayi et al. (2010) refer to the effect of strong cohesiveness
accompanied by a longing for consensus and the impact on the individual group members.
The strong longing for consensus diminishes the individual capability to express and show personal opinions. Nntayi et al. (2010) found group cohesiveness being inversely correlated with ethical behavior. Subsequently, in research on the moderating effect of group cohesion in auditing teams on the effect of different individual characteristics on the likelihood of
whistleblowing, Alleyne et al. (2019) found a significant moderation effect of group cohesion.
When group cohesion is strong, the likelihood of blowing the whistle reduces significantly.
This indicates that the intention on reporting an ethical misconduct might be influenced, specifically being reduced by the impact of the group cohesiveness on the individual employee.
Although the effect of group cohesion on group norms and values may be twofold, it either can have positive or negative influences on group norms and values, research of Giebels et al. (2018) found that one of the reasons of the Dutch military being a social unsafe environment is, inter alia, because of the high group cohesiveness. Their study points at high group cohesion and strong social identity being a catalyst for the protection of group
members, even when they engage in ethical misconduct. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H3: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by Group Cohesion, such that the relationship will be weakened.
Perceived Organizational Support
In earlier research the connection between whistleblowing intentions and perceived organizational support has been made (Alleyne et al., 2013; Hamid & Zainudin, 2015; Latan et al., 2018;). Perceived organizational support refers to the created beliefs of an employee of the extent in which the organization values their being and cares about their well-being (Eisenberg et al., 1986). An employee makes an assessment of how well he or she is treated by the organization and reciprocates the treatment he or she receives. Organizational
treatment is mainly evaluated via rewards and appraisal on the employees behavior. Rewards and appraisal regulate the behavior of the employee to be in line with organizational goals and values (Eisenberg et al., 1986; Hamid & Zainudin, 2015). When the employee perceives the organization to be capable and willing of providing a high level of support, the employee will show extra effort to help the organization attain its goals (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003, as cited in Alleyne et al., 2018, p. 513).
Subsequently, the social exchange theory explains that when employees perceive high levels of organizational support, they feel obligated to commit to the organization (Blau, 1964; as cited in Alleyne et al., 2013, p. 18). This is in line with the concept of perceived
organizational support, in which the perceived organizational care leads to a reciprocal relationship. Thus, it is expected that when an employee feels highly supported by their organization, commitment to the organization and organizational well-being is likely (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Furthermore, perceived organizational support encourages employees to strive for organizational goals that go beyond the call of regular professional duty (Alleyne et al., 2013; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Moreover, it may be assumed that higher levels of perceived organizational support stimulate prosocial behavior to act in line with organizational ethics (Adebayo, 2005, as cited in Alleyne et al., 2018, p. 513). Although perceived organizational support by itself may not be directly related to whistleblowing intentions (Alleyne et al., 2018), it has been shown that perceived organizational support, together with several individual characteristics (attitudes towards whistleblowing, perceived behavioral control, independence commitment, personal responsibility for reporting and personal cost of reporting), enhances the likelihood to blow the whistle (Alleyne et al., 2018).
Within the auditing world, perceived organizational support has been found to be an influential factor on whether or not an employee is willing to blow the whistle (Hamid &
Zainudin, 2015). Research of Alleyne et al. (as cited in Latan et al., 2018, p. 577) found that when an employee feels supported by their organization, it increases their confidence in whistleblowing being the right course of action. This increased confidence is caused by reduction of fear, worry and perceived social costs. When the employee perceives
organizational support, the risk of retaliation diminishes and trust in a satisfying outcome of the whistleblowing act rises (Cho & Song, 2015; Mayer et al., 2013).
Hence, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H4: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by perceived organizational support, such that the relationship will be strengthened.
The conceptual model of the current study is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Moral Whistleblowing Intentions Among Dutch Armed Forces
Data and Method Method
Procedure and Sample
The hypotheses were tested on a sample of employees of the Dutch Armed Forces.
The sample consisted of a diverse group of employees, military personnel and civilian personnel, working in different areas of the Armed Forces. Interns, contractors and reserve personnel are excluded from the sample, since their insights on the different variables of the study might differ significantly. The survey, see Appendix A, was distributed by commanders and managers within the researchers network, via e-mail. To reach as many people as
possible, the snowballing-technique was used. Some of the participants forwarded the e-mail
with survey link within their own network. The data was collected during the entire month of April, 2021. An explanatory email with survey link was sent, followed by two reminders. The survey was conducted in Dutch and consisted of validated measures. Translation and
backtranslation were done in a careful manner by native speakers. The voluntary nature of participation was emphasized and anonymity was guaranteed.
In total, 219 respondents filled in the entire survey with an average age of 42.93 (SD=11.86) years (ranging from 19 to 66). 82% of the respondents was military personnel and 18% civilian personnel. 28% of the 219 respondents works for the Dutch Royal Navy, 2%
works for the Dutch Army, 53% is Dutch Air Force personnel, 1% works for the Dutch Military Police and the remaining 16% works for supporting divisions. The average organizational tenure was 20.62 years (SD=12.95). 6% finished lower education (primary school, the first three years of high school HAVO/VWO and/or MBO 1), 53% finished middle education (MBO 2, 3 and 4 plus the last three years of HAVO/VWO) relative to 41%
who finished higher education (HBO/WO).
Measures
Whistleblowing Intentions
To measure whistleblowing intentions, the Whistleblowing Intention scale as introduced by Park et al. (2005), was used. This scale measures three different types of possible reactions from employees:- externally blowing the whistle, internally blowing the whistle, and no action at all- by asking the question: ‘If you found wrongdoing in your workplace, what would you do about it?’. Reporting externally was measured by three different items, reporting internally was measured by four different items and non-action was measured by two items. The corresponding Cronbach’s alpha in the study from Park et al.
(2005) is respectively .85, .78 and .72. On all whistleblowing statements the respondent had
to indicate how strongly he or she would agree or disagree with the statement, with answer possibilities ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Moral Courage
Moral Courage was measured by making use of the Moral Courage Scale, as created and validated by Sekerka et al. (2009). The Moral Courage Scale consists of 15 different statements, based on five different moral courage themes: Moral agency, multiple values, threat endurance, beyond compliance and moral goal. This scale was developed and tested in military context, since military personnel theoretically should employ a certain amount of moral courage in and outside of the workplace (Sekerka et al., 2009). Each theme is reflected by three different statements, with statements like: ‘When I do my job, I regularly take additional measures to ensure my actions reduce harms to others’ (moral agency). Endurance of threats and going beyond compliance consist of regular and reversed questioning, with items like: ‘When my job record may be affected negatively, I am unlikely to get involved with an ethical challenge’. The items have a 7-point response scale, with answers ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Midpoint of the scale is 4 (neutral). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the original scale in the study of Sekerka et al. (2009) is measured for every theme separately, with moral agency (.80), multiple values (.85), threat endurance (.83), beyond compliance (.88) and moral goal (.76).
Conformity to Group Norms
Conformity to Group Norms was measured via social identity, by making use of the Multidimensional in-group identification scale (MGIS), a 14-item questionnaire to measure In-Group Identity, as designed by Leach et al. (2008). The 14-items are divided in different themes with a certain amount of statements for each theme. The first theme is solidarity and consists of three statements. The second theme is satisfaction and consists of four statements, with sample item ‘I think that [In-group] has a lot to be proud of’. The third theme is
centrality, which consists of three statements. The fourth and fifth themes are individual self- stereotyping and in-group homogeneity, with both two statements per theme. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the original scale is measured per theme individually, with values of respectively .75, .85, .84, .81 and .80. All statements have a 7-point Likert scale answer possibility, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), with midpoint of the scale (4) as neutral.
Group Cohesion
Group Cohesion was measured at the individual level, by making use of the modified version of the Group Cohesiveness Scale, originally designed by Dobbins and Zaccaro (1986), a couple of years later modified by Buchanan (1988) and further tested by Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009). The Group Cohesiveness Scale, the modified version, consists of a 7- item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert answer possibility, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examples of the items are: ‘I feel that I am really a part of my group’ and ‘The group to which I belong is a close one’. Two of the seven statements are based on reversed questioning, to check the consistency of the respondents answers. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the original scale, as developed by Buchanan, is .83.
Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived Organizational Support was measured by making use of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). The SPOS consists of a 16-item questionnaire, with answer possibilities on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), and (4) neutral (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). The original work of Eisenberger et al. (1986) is a 36-item questionnaire, with a 7-item answer responsibility. The developed shorter version of sixteen items has found to be effective and reliable. The
Cronbach’s Alpha of the shorter version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support has found to be .84. An example of one of the items is: ‘The organization appreciates extra
effort from me’, with two reversed items with sample item ‘If given the opportunity, my supervisor would take advantage of me’.
Control Variables
In earlier whistleblowing research, background variables are used as control variables in the study. The control variables that are often being used are; age, organizational tenure and education (Bjorkelø et al., 2010; Chiu, 2003; Park et al., 2005). Age is measured on a numerical scale. Organizational tenure is measured in the same way as age, also on a numerical scale. Education is measured by making use of the different educational levels, often being used in Dutch survey studies (CBS, n.d.). These levels are divided into 8
categories, ranging from Dutch ‘Basisonderwijs’ (coded as 1) to ‘HBO-, WO-Master, Doctor of vergelijkbaar’ (coded as 8). To make the analysis less complicated, the educational levels were recoded, according to the Dutch CBS categories (CBS, n.d.) into ‘Lower level’ (coded as 1), ‘Middle level’ (coded as 2) and ‘Higher level’ (coded as 3).
Additionally, correlations with taking an ethics course, ‘Ethics Course’ was also tested for in the correlation table (0 = No, 1 = Yes).
Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables of this study are reported in Table 1. Furthermore, a reliability analysis was performed to assess the scale reliability per variable. The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in parentheses, Table 1, for every variable.
As the table indicates, starting with the control variables, no significant relationship was found between ethics course and any other variable, besides of the correlation with the other control variables. A significant positive relationship was found between moral courage
(r=-.22, p<.01). Organizational tenure has found to be significantly negatively related to WINA (r=-.22, p<.01). The last control variable, education, only showed a significant negative relationship with WIE (r=-.17, p<.05).
Moral courage showed significant relationships with all the other variables in this study, except for WIE. There is a significant positive relationship with WII (r=.19, p<.01), a significant negative relationship with WINA (r=-.38, p<.01), a significant positive
relationship with social identity (r=.34, p<.01), a significant positive relationship with group cohesion (r=.26, p<.01) and a significant positive relationship with perceived organizational support (r=.35, p<01). No significant relationship between WIE and moral courage was found, but a significant negative relationship between WIE and social identity was found (r=- .15, p<.05). Additionally, a significant negative relationship between WIE and group
cohesion was found (r=-.17, p<.01). Another significant negative relationship exists between WIE and perceived organizational support (r=-.16, p<.05). WII showed significant positive relationships with social identity and group cohesion, (r=.20, p<.01) (r=.19, p<.05). WINA, showed a significant negative relationship with two of the three moderating variables, namely social identity (r=-.19, p<.05) and group cohesion (r=-.20, p<01). Furthermore, social identity showed significant positive relationships with group cohesion and perceived organizational support (r=.81, p<01; r=.43, p<01). The high correlation between social identity and group cohesion raised concerns. The high correlation above .80 might be a problem for the
discriminant validity, since it is an indicator of multicollinearity. Therefore, further inspection of this relationship is crucial. A post-hoc analysis, as described in the next paragraph, was conducted.
The last significant relationship that has been found in this correlation matrix, is the significant positive relationship between group cohesion and perceived organizational support (r=.33, p<0.1). The Cronbach’s alpha for all individual scales is >.70, which indicates the use
of reliable scales in this study. The Cronbach’s alphas are in line with the reliability of the original scales, and therefore no adjustments were needed.
Post-hoc Analysis of Social Identity and Group Cohesion
Further inspection of the relationship between social identity and group cohesion was needed to inspect multicollinearity. A factor analysis was conducted to determine the Cronbach’s Alpha when the two scales where merged into one variable. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the merged scale ‘Group Dynamics’ is .94. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the individual factors is
>.30. This indicates that both separate scales fit into one reliable scale. The test of discriminant validity could not be passed. Therefore the two independent scales of social identity and group cohesion fit into one scale ‘Group Dynamics’ and this generic scale was used in further analyses.
Hypotheses Testing
Moral Courage and Whistleblowing Intentions
To test the first hypothesis, a hierarchical linear regression was performed, to evaluate the prediction of WIE, WII and WINA by moral courage, while controlling for age,
organizational tenure and education. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. It is evident that only the control variables were added for the first block of analysis. Moreover, only block 1 in the relationship between moral courage and WINA showed a model that is statistically significant F(3, 215) = 4.25; p<.01 and explained 6% of the variance of WINA, as explained by the control variables age, organizational tenure and level of education. However, a closer look at the individual variables revealed that none of the variables on its own showed a statistically significant effect. Although the overall model of block 1 of the relationship between moral courage and WIE showed no significance, the individual control variable education showed a significant negative effect (ß=-.17, p<.05). This control variable is the only variable that will be used in further analyses related to WIE.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Ethics Course .49 .50 -
2. Age 42.93 11.86 -.32** -
3. Organizational Tenure 20.62 12.95 -.24** .84** -
4. Education 2.34 .60 .25** -.19** -.30** -
5. Moral Courage 5.04 .52 .10 .19** .10 .02 (.74)
6. Whistleblowing Intentions Externally (WIE) 2.41 .77 -.11 .07 .07 -.17* -.01 (.74)
7. Whistleblowing Intentions Internally (WII) 4.03 .52 .00 .01 .02 .06 .19** .00 (.75)
8. Whistleblowing Intentions Non Action (WINA) 1.65 .65 .00 -.22** -.22** -.01 -.38** .09 -.30** (.88)
9. Social Identity 5.08 .90 .08 .10 .13* -.06 .34** -.15* .20** -.19* (.93)
10. Group Cohesion 3.66 .59 .04 .12 .11 -.04 .26** -.17** .19* -.20** .81** (.83)
11. Perceived Organizational Support 4.47 .87 .12 .05 .04 .04 .35** -.16* .03 -.08 .43** .33** (.91)
N=219, *p<0.05 **P<0.01 (2-tailed)
Step 1 Step 2 Adj. R2 ∆R2 ∆F Step 1 Step 2 Adj. R2 ∆R2 ∆F Step 1 Step 2 Adj. R2 ∆R2 ∆F
Step 1: Age .08 .08 .02 .03 2.20 -.04 -.11 -.01 .01 .44 -.10 .03 .06 .06 4.25**
Organizational Tenure -.04 -.05 .08 .12 -.15 -.22
Education -.17* -.16* .08 .07 -.07 -.07
Step 2: Moral Courage .02 .01 .00 .06 .20** .03 .04 8.67** -.36** .18 .12 31.52**
N=219. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. *p<0.05 **p<0.01 (2-tailed) Table 2
Whistleblowing Intentions Externally (WIE) Whistleblowing Intentions Internally (WII) Whistleblowing Intentions Non Action (WINA) Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Whistleblowing Intentions
Different results were shown with the addition from block 2, in which the independent variable moral courage was added to the analysis. Block 2 showed a statistically significant model for the relationship between moral courage and WII, F(4, 214) = 2.51; p<.05 and explained 4.5% of the variance in WII. The introduction of moral courage explained
additional 3.9%, after controlling for age, organizational tenure and education (∆R2= .04; F(1, 214) = 8.67; p<.01). In this model moral courage was statistically significant (ß=.20; p<01).
Additionally, block 2 also showed a statistically significant model for the relationship between moral courage and WINA, F(4, 214) = 11.52; p<.01 and explained 17.7% of the variance in WINA. The introduction of moral courage explained additional 12.1% of the variance, after controlling for age, organizational tenure and education (∆R2 = .12; F(1, 214)
= 31.52; p<.01). In this model moral courage was statistically significant (ß=-.36; p<.01).
The results of the hierarchical linear regression analysis show partially support for H1: There is a positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions. No statistical support was found for the relationship of moral courage on WIE.
Moderation Analysis
To test the other hypotheses, the PROCESS-macro (version 3.4, developed by Andrew F. Hayes) was used. This resulted in six individual analysis in which WII, WIE and WINA are regressed on moral courage, group dynamics (social identity and group cohesion
combined), perceived organizational support and the interaction terms of moral courage and group dynamics and moral courage and perceived organizational support. Subsequently, three joint moderation analyses were made, to test for the moderation effects of group dynamics and perceived organizational support at the same time. Only the moderation analyses with WIE as dependent variable will be controlled for education, since it was the only control variable showing a significant relationship with whistleblowing intentions. The automatic mean-center option of the PROCESS-macro was used to center the predictors around their
means. The interaction term is based on the adjusted, mean-centered predictors. The results of the individual moderation analyses are presented in Table 3 and the joint moderation analyses are presented in Table 4.
The individual moderation analyses showed that moral courage has a significant main effect on WII in the moderation analysis with perceived organizational support (ß=.21;
p<.05). Surprisingly, no significant direct relationship of moral courage on WII has been found in the moderation analysis of moral courage and group dynamics. Furthermore, the main effect of moral courage on WINA has also found to be statistically significant, (ß=-.45;
p<.01) in the moderation analyses between moral courage and group dynamics, (ß=-.47;
p<.01) in the moderation analysis of moral courage on perceived organizational support.
These results partially support H1: There is a positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions. Again, only for the component WIE, no support was found.
Furthermore, additional significant main effects were found in the moderation analyses on WIE. The relationship between group dynamics and WIE (ß=-.19; p<.05) and perceived organizational support and WIE (ß=-.16; p<.05) were also found to be statistically significant main effects, in contrast to the relationship moral courage on WIE, that has not been found statistically significant.
The joint moderation analyses showed that moral courage has a significant main effect on WII (ß=.17; p<05) and a significant main effect on WINA (ß=-.43; p<.01). Additionally, the main effect of group dynamics on WII has been found statistically significant (ß=.13;
p<.05). The moderation effects of group dynamics and perceived organizational support on the relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions (WIE, WII and WINA) have not been found to be statistically significant. Therefore, in this study there was no
support found for H2: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by conformity to group norms, such that it weakens the relationship;
H3: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by Group Cohesion, such that the relationship will be weakened;
H4: The positive relationship between moral courage and whistleblowing intentions is moderated by Perceived Organizational Support, such that the relationship will be strengthened.
Table 3
Coefficient SE t p F R2 Coefficient SE t p F R2 Coefficient SE t p F R2
Moral Courage*Group Dynamics
Intercept 2.96 .22 11.72 .00 F(4,214)=2.17 .07 4.02 .04 109.40 .00 F(3,215)=3.71 .06** 1.66 .05 36.53 .00 F(3,215)=9.15 .15**
Moral Courage .09 .12 .74 .46 .15 .08 1.89 .06 -.45 .11 -4.19 .00
Group Dynamics -.19 .09 -2.09 .04 .11 .05 1.95 .05 -.06 .06 -1.02 .31
Moral Courage*Group Dynamics .03 .17 .16 .87 .08 .12 .67 .50 -.09 .14 -.65 .52
Covariate: Education -.23 .10 -2.25 .03
Moral Courage*Perceived Organizational Support
Intercept 2.91 .24 12.31 .00 F(4,214)=2.32 .06 4.03 .04 109.15 .00 F(3,215)=2.43 .04 1.63 .04 40.33 .00 F(3,215)=9.71 .15**
Moral Courage .07 .12 .58 .56 .21 .08 2.65 .01 -.47 .09 -5.15 .00
Perceived Organizational Support -.16 .07 -2.17 .03 -.03 .05 -.58 .57 .05 .05 1.09 .28
Moral Courage*Perceived Organizational Support -.06 .13 -.43 .67 .01 .10 .11 .91 .10 .12 .85 .39
Covariate: Education -.21 .10 -2.08 .04
N=219, *p<0.05 **P<0.01 (2-tailed)
Individual Moderation Analyses of Moral Courage, Group Dynamics and Perceived Organizational Support
Whistleblowing Intentions Externally (WIE) Whistleblowing Intentions Internally (WII) Whistleblowing Intentions Non Action (WINA)
Coefficient SE t p F R2 Coefficient SE t p F R2 Coefficient SE t p F R2
Intercept 2.95 .25 11.87 .00 F(6,212)=1.92 .07 4.02 .04 104.24 .00 F(5,213)=2.45 .07* 1.64 .04 37.46 .00 F(5,213)=7.08 .17**
Moral Courage .12 .13 .95 .34 .17 .08 2.02 .05 -.43 .10 -4.30 .00
Group Dynamics -.15 .10 -1.46 .15 .13 .06 2.16 .03 -.10 .07 -1.41 .16
Perceived Organizational Support -.11 .08 -1.42 .16 -.07 .06 -1.26 .21 .08 .06 1.53 .13
Moral Courage*Group Dynamics .03 .17 .18 .86 .08 .13 .61 .54 -.14 .17 -.83 .41
Moral Courage*Perceived Organizational Support -.04 .14 -.31 .76 -.03 .11 -.24 .81 .15 .14 1.03 .31
Covariate: Education -.22 .10 -2.14 .03
N=219, *p<0.05 **P<0.01 (2-tailed) Table 4
Joint Moderation Analysis of Moral Courage, Group Dynamics and Perceived Organizational Support
Whistleblowing Intentions Externally (WIE) Whistleblowing Intentions Internally (WII) Whistleblowing Intentions Non Action (WINA)
Discussion
The current study of employees of the Dutch military investigated the relationship of moral courage on whistleblowing intentions and the moderating influence of group dynamics, conformity to group norms and group cohesion, and perceived organizational support on this link. Statistical support was found for moral courage as a predictor of whistleblowing
intentions internally and whistleblowing intentions non action. Furthermore, a person with high moral courage does not seem to be influenced by group dynamics and organizational support, on the intention to blow the whistle. However, the current study found group dynamics as predictor of whistleblowing intentions externally and internally and perceived organizational support as predictor of whistleblowing intentions externally. Whereas the individual difference in moral courage does not seem to predict the intention to blow the whistle externally, group dynamics and perceived organizational support seem to be relevant.
First of all, the current study unexpectedly found statistical evidence for a significant negative relationship between group dynamics on WIE, a significant positive relationship on WII and a significant negative relationship of perceived organizational support on WIE. This indicates that there are certain cases in which the individual has less intention to report externally. Group dynamics and perceived organizational support seem to be negative predictors in general of the consideration to blow the whistle externally. In an organization where group cohesion is supported alongside constructive group criticism, group cohesion seems to be a valid predictor of ethical behavior (Dungan et al., 2015). An individual’s critical view on group norms, group behavior and performance before conforming to general group processes and norms, is an essential part of the overall group ethical behavior. When an individual of the group dares to criticize the group, in-group problems seem to potentially be solved without blowing the whistle externally, but by reporting it internally (Bergemann &
Aven, 2020). Hence, a possible explanation for the negative significant relationship of group
dynamics and WIE and the positive significant relationship of group dynamics and WII would be that the employees of this sample perceive the group they belong to as a group that is open to in-group criticism and therefore are reluctant to blow the whistle externally when group dynamics increase.
Furthermore, prior research stresses the importance of perceived organizational
support in the whistleblowing process. When an employee perceives organizational support, a reciprocal relationship is established, causing the employee to reciprocate on the received treatment (Hamid & Zainudin, 2015). The organization should benefit of whistleblowing, by having the change to correct what is wrong. However, the current study did not find a significant relationship between perceived organizational support and WII and found a negative relationship on WIE. These results indicate that the more organizational support the employee perceives, the less likely it is that the employee reports unethical behavior outside of the organization. Following the reasoning of Blau (as cited in Alleyne et al., 2013, p. 18) concerning the theory of social exchange, when an employee perceives high levels of organizational support, the employee feels obligated to commit to the organization and to enhance organizational well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Since reporting wrongdoing outside of the organization is generally being seen as a highly unfavorable action, with oftentimes devastating consequences for the organization (Dasgupta & Kesharwani, 2010;
Sims & Keenan, 1998), it might be the case that the felt commitment to the organization due to perceived organizational support, prevents the employee from ‘harming’ the organization.
Thus, the reciprocal relationship caused by perceived organizational support, might prevent the employee from blowing the whistle externally.
Another interesting finding in the current study is the unexpectedly high correlation between social identity and group cohesion. This high correlation contradicts the claim of Langfred (as cited in Høigaard et al., 2006, p. 220), that in military context group norms and
group cohesion are two distinct factors. This prior research indicates that, when the variables are measured at the group level, group norms and group cohesion are distinct. In contrast, this does not seem to be the case at the individual level of this study. In the current study, social identity appears to be very similar to group norms at the individual level. Ahronson and Cameron (2007) refer to the conceptual and empirical overlap between group cohesion and social identity as predictors of several organizational outcomes. The current study confirms the overlap between the two measures. Moreover, the necessity to merge the two variables into one construct relates to the study of Alleyne et al. (2019), in which group cohesion as a moderator on the relationship of multiple individual characteristics on whistleblowing intentions (intern and extern) is investigated. In this study group cohesion is used as a
measure of conformity to team norms within auditing context, measured at team level, which showed significant results. Although group cohesion and conformity to team norms are theoretically distinct, in practice this indeed might not be the case.
The findings of the current study, the significant positive relationship of moral courage on WII and a corresponding significant negative relationship of moral courage on WINA, are in line with the proposition of Watts and Buckley (2017). No significant positive relationship was found of moral courage on WIE. Miceli and Near (1994) showed that for the majority of whistleblowers, the first action to engage in is reporting internally. When the reaction and action of the organization on reporting internally is not satisfying, then reporting externally might be the next step. These results imply that whistleblowing externally cannot be seen as direct intuitive moral action, but merely as the result of an unsatisfying first attempt to report wrongdoing. The results of the current study confirm the findings of Miceli and Near (1994), by finding no direct significant positive relationship between moral courage and WIE.
Subsequently, contrary to the hypothesized association, no statistical evidence was found of the moderating effects of group dynamics and organizational support on
whistleblowing intentions. These results contradict the findings of Alleyne et al. (2013, 2019) and Sekerka and Bagozzi (2007). In the study of Alleyne et al. (2019) statistical evidence was found for the moderating role of group cohesion on the relationship of six antecedents
(attitude, perceived behavioral control, independence commitment and personal responsibility for reporting) on internal whistleblowing intentions and for three antecedents (attitudes, independence commitment and personal cost of reporting) on external whistleblowing
intentions. Additionally, Latan et al. (2018) partially confirmed these conclusions by finding a significant moderating effect on attitudes and perceived behavioral control on both internal and external reporting, on perceived behavioral control on internally reporting and on
independence commitment and personal responsibility for reporting on externally reporting.
The first plausible reason why the current study did not find statistical support for the moderations of group dynamics and perceived organizational support, might be the impact of strong morally courageous prosocial behavior. The definition of moral courage clarifies that moral courage is a type of prosocial behavior, in which the fear of retaliation, social high costs and other negative consequences do not stop the morally courageous person from acting out of moral principles (Bierhoff, 2002; Osswald et al., 2010). This implies that the moral act of highly morally courageous people will not be affected by external factors. However, Osswald et al. (2010) state in the same research that ‘mood or bystanders do not affect moral courage, whereas other factors such as moral outrage play a role’ (p. 161), which suggests that there indeed are certain factors that might be of influence. Nevertheless, research on the vulnerability of moral courage in whistleblowing context, is scarce.
A second plausible explanation for the lack of statistical support of the moderation of group dynamics in the current study, is the level of measurement. Alleyne et al. (2019) used a multilevel analysis in which the individual results were nested in the group results. However, Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) concluded that the level of analysis itself should not be
problematic once it fits the research question of the study. Since group dynamics has found to be relatively high, it is possible that groupthink, in which the individual thought pattern merges with the thought pattern of the other individuals in the group as explained by Carron et al. (2003), might cause bias in the true determination of the cohesiveness of the group.
Although the importance of the role of perceived organizational support, in the whistleblowing process, seems obvious, consistency in prior research is lacking (Hamid &
Zainudin, 2015). Previous research concluded that perceived organizational support is needed for a person to assess if the organization will support the act of whistleblowing, by showing a proactive approach in tackling the wrongdoing in the organization, and in which way the organization will protect the employee from retaliation (Hamid & Zainudin, 2015). In contradiction to this point of view, Yuswono and Hartijasti (2018) found, a contradictory effect in a study of the public sector of Indonesia. Their study found that perceived
organizational support weakened the relationship of perceived behavioral control and attitudes towards whistleblowing on whistleblowing intentions. These findings also contradict the results of Latan et al. (2018), who found influence of perceived organizational support on the relationship of attitudes towards whistleblowing and personal cost of reporting on WII and WIE. Overall, the current study neither is in line with the findings of Yuswono and Hartijasti (2018), nor in line with results of Latan et al. (2018), thus did not find statistical evidence for the moderating effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship of moral courage on whistleblowing intentions.
Lastly, the significant negative relationship of education on WIE, is contradictory to research of Sims and Keenan (1998) in which they expected a positive relationship between education and whistleblowing intentions. Higher educated employees are expected to recognize wrongdoing earlier as such, compared to lower educated employees (Sims &
Keenan, 1998; Graham, 1994). A possible explanation for the findings of the current study is
