THE EFFECT OF RULES’ SPECIFICITY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS’ MORAL IDENTITY AND WHISTLE-BLOWING
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics Business
January, 2019
ANASTASIA BIZTA Student number: 3561305
Winschoterdiep 173A 9724 GS Groningen tel.:+31(0)647308877 email: a.bizta@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. Laetitia B. Mulder
Second assessor: Yingjie Yuan
Table of contents
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 3
THEORY SECTION 6
Whistle-blowing and Moral Identity 6
Rules 8
METHOD 11
Design and participants 11
Procedure 11
Independent Variable 12
Moral Identity 12
Scenario 12
Dependent variable 13
Whistle-blowing: 13
Other measures 14
LMX 14
Breadwinner. 14
Institutional support 14
Moral (dis)approval of the act. 15
Appraisal and moral judgment. 15
Career’s suffering. 15
Manipulation check. 15
RESULTS 16
DISCUSSION 19
CONCLUSION 22
REFERENCE LIST 23
THE EFFECT OF RULES’ SPECIFICITY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS’ MORAL IDENTITY AND WHISTLE-BLOWING
ABSTRACT
Whistle-blowing is identified as one of the most debated issues concerning the organizational culture and business ethics. While whistle-blowing constitutes a way to eliminate unethical behavior within the organizations, people often feel inhibited of reporting unethical acts. Aim of the present research is to identify the effect of specific or general rules on the relationship between individuals’ moral identity and whistle-blowing. In the research, the relationship between moral identity and whistle-blowing was examined. In addition, we examined the moderating effect of the specificity of rules on this relationship, resulting in the last hypothesis explored that the moral identity increases the whistle-blowing more strongly when specific rules are implemented rather than general rules. I expected that in presence of a specific rule, employees of high moral identity would blow the whistle more likely than in case of a general rule. A survey study consisted of a scenario with a manipulated factor (rule:
general/ specific) was conducted. The results did not confirm the expectations. Also, no support was found for the idea that rules would increase institutional support in case of blowing the whistle. Therefore, the results imply that the specificity of rules does not influence employees’ decisions to blow the whistle. Finally, limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Whistle-blowing, Moral Identity, general, specific, Rules
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, whistle-blowing within the organization has stimulated academic researchers’ interest. It also constitutes a debated issue within the organization because of its negative and positive outcomes. For instance, when investigations of wrongdoing are reported, the outcome is positive for the organization in terms of fraud elimination, but simultaneously negative for its reputation. Thus, whistle-blowing can be judged as good or bad by taking into account which of the outcomes and perspectives acknowledged are (Smith, Brown, 2008). Whistle-blowing constitutes an important instrument regarding the elimination of fraud and the assurance of an effective system of internal control, within the organization (Read, Rama, 2003). According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, whistle-blowing constitutes the most common method used in fraud recognition (ACFE, 2010, p.10). Moreover, it is referred as a mechanism for organizations to prevent unethical behavior (Eaton, Akers, 2007).
Since whistle-blowing does not occur frequently, it is crucial we study which factors instigate people to blow the whistle. Plethoras of research have concentrated on conditions which instigate employees to blow the whistle. There are also conditions associated with emotions, such as fear, which inhibit employees blow the whistle (Coan, Allen, 2004). It is important to know what determines whistle-blowing. Research on this question has already shown that determinants of whistle-blowing are relevant to individual demographic characteristics (e.g., Cassematis&Wortley, 2013), attitudes, situational factors (MacNab&Worthley, 2008;
Miceli, Near, Rehg, & Van Scotter, 2012; Near &Miceli, 1996) and perceived personal cost (Hyun, Yoon, 2015). In addition, moral identity influences whistle-blowing (Proost et al., 2013). However, no research has been done considering the effect of rules on this relationship. Therefore, in our research, we focus on the effect of rules’ specificity on the relationship between the individual’s moral identity and whistle-blowing.
One factor that may affect people to blow the whistle is the moral identity of a person. Moral identity is defined as the extent to which being a moral person is crucial
to individual’s identity (Aquino, Reed, 2002). It is one kind of self-regulatory mechanism that motivates moral action (e.g., Blasi, 1984; Damon & Hart, 1992;
Erikson, 1964; Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998) and its formation is associated with a number of individual characteristics (Hart, 2005). Research has been shown that moral identity not only fosters ethical behavior in organizations as it is associated with beliefs, behaviors and attitudes that incentivize people act ethically (Aquino &
Reed, 2002; Reynold&Ceranic, 2007; Blasi, 1984), but also whistle-blowing (Lui et al. , 2016; Proost et al. , 2013). Nevertheless, individuals may feel inhibited to blow the whistle because of the perception that they may suffer from negative consequences such as retaliation or sanctions (Greenberger, Miceli, & Cohen, 1987;
Near &Miceli, 1986; Ponemon, 1994).
Furthermore, one factor that may foster individuals, especially high moral identifiers, to blow the whistle is organizational rules or ethical codes. Also, the type of rules may matter in this case. Ethical behavior is fostered in the presence of organizational rules. Corporate ethical codes or rules are written documents which aim to affect employees’ behavior (Stevens, 1994). Rules are distinguished in how they are formulated. A rule can be formulated in a specific way. For instance “No member of the organization accepts or gives gifts or services to a client or official”.
But rules can be formulated in more disconcert or general way as well. “Act in the best interest of the company while performing your job for the company”. In general, people are inclined to compare behavior with norms to verify whether or to what extent a violation has occurred (Malle et al., 2014; Treviño, 1992).Αccording to George Homans, 1958, the more specific the formation of the rules is, the more they are developed as normative moral rules. Thus, we can argue that specific rules affect employees’ ethical decisions regarding observed wrongdoing.
In this context, in the present research, I investigate whether specific or general rules are more successful in fostering whistle-blowing among people with a high moral identity. Prior research has already provided evidence about the relation of morality and whistle-blowing. Employees with a high level of moral identity would be more likely to attempt to correct wrongdoing in a timely manner through internal
or external whistle-blowing, than employees with a low level of moral identity (Lui et al. , 2016). Moreover, moral whistle-blowing is a type of whistle-blowing that moral involvement motivates the actor (Glazer, 1989). Regarding the effect of rules on ethical decisions of employees, a specific rule instigates stronger effect than does a general rule (Mulder, Jordan, Rink, 2015). This is because a specific rule provides people with less latitude than a general rule when they evaluate or explain their decisions ethically (Mulder, Jordan, Rink, 2015). We expect that the specific rules have greater influence on individuals of high moral identity than general rules when they detect an unethical behavior and they intend to blow the whistle.
The theoretical contribution of the present research is the attempt to replicate earlier findings with regard to the effect of moral identity on whistle-blowing regarding the unethical behavior within an organization. Furthermore, the study might also induce evidence about the influence of specific and general rules on this relation, which can encourage employees to report observed wrongdoing according to rules that are implemented. Evidence will reinforce the theory of moral whistle-blowing (Weaver, Reynolds, Brown, 2014) about moral intuitions of employees to blow the whistle since they might feel untouched to the rules and they may act accordingly.
Little do we know about the rules which moderate the relation of individuals with high moral identity and their intention to blow the whistle.
This research has several practical implementations which can be taken into account. First and foremost, regarding the HR department, the discerning of the degree of moral identity in line with the specific organizational rules could be effective concerning the enforcement of whistle-blowing. In this respect, the HR department could detect the potential employees’ moral identity in order to result in efficient recruitment and thus in avoidance or elimination of fraud within the organization. Hence, the type of rules implemented in the organization will enforce the employees to report unethical behaviors. This aspect could be also beneficial for the organization as a whole. Appropriate rules in combination with employees of high or low moral identity could provide the organization a range of advantages because of
the source of feedback that the whistle-blowing provides (Lindsay, Lindsay, Irvine, 1996).
THEORY SECTION
Whistle-blowing and Moral Identity
Whistle-blowing is defined as the report of illegal or unethical practices by organization members, under the control of their employers to persons or organizations that may be able to take action (Near &Miceli, 1985). Whistle-blowing is perceived as an important ‘instrument’ regarding the elimination of fraud and the assurance of an effective system of internal control, within the organization (Read, Rama, 2003). Furthermore, it is one of many ‘pro-social behaviors’ that may prevent and rectify organizational wrongdoing (Miceli et al. 1991). Thus, the basic motivation for whistle-blowing is to stop wrongdoing that has substantial negative consequences to the organization and its members, to customers as well as to society at large (Miceli et al., 2008). Moreover, it is inferred as a mechanism for organizations to prevent unethical behavior (Eaton, Akers, 2007). In addition, two types of whistle-blowing can be identified in terms of expansion, internal and external (Near &Miceli, 1996;
Park et al. , 2008). Internal whistle-blowing entails that the wrongdoing is reported to persons inside the organization such as management or supervisors. On the other hand, external whistle-blowing entails that the wrongdoing is reported to the authorities or the public outside of the organization such as civil servants or police (Near &Miceli, 1996). Most employees when observe wrongdoing are inclined to blow the whistle internally. (Ponemon, 1994; Hooks et al., 1994). Yet, further distinctions of whistle-blowing arise accordingly to the criteria of perception, motivation, behavior and ramifications, which are linked (Watts, Buckley, 2015).
There are occasions where employees are aware of unethical behavior or wrongdoing but they are inhibited of blowing the whistle. This is owed to the fact that they are afraid of negative ramifications of blowing the whistle, such as dismissal (Read, Rama, 2003). Additionally, employees avoid blowing the whistle since they
perceive that they will suffer from retaliation or sanctions on behalf of the wrongdoer, especially when it comes for a wrongdoer of higher position such as supervisor (Greenberger, Miceli, & Cohen, 1987; Near &Miceli, 1986; Ponemon, 1994). Other reasons that influence negatively employees’ intentions to blow the whistle, apart from job loss and career suffering, are the defamation of whistleblower’s character which leads to potential ostracism (Read and Rama, 2003) as well as the threat of organizational survival (Miceli& Near, 1984, 1985; Gundlach et al. , 2003).
One of the factors that influence whistle-blowing is moral identity. Moral identity is defined as the extent to which being a moral person is crucial to individual’s identity (Aquino, Reed, 2002). Aquino and Reed (2002) defined moral identity as “a self-conception organized around a set of moral traits”. Furthermore, Aquino and Reed (2002) empirically identified two dimensions of moral identity:
internalization and symbolization. Internalization reflects the degree to which a set of moral traits is central to the self-concept, whereas symbolization reflects the degree to which these traits are expressed publicly through a person’s actions in the world.
Moreover, moral identity entails a predictor of the importance individuals pose on consistency to moral acts (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Its formation is associated with a number of individual characteristics, development (Hart, 2005) and it is one kind of self-regulatory mechanism that motivates moral action (e.g., Blasi, 1984; Damon &
Hart, 1992; Erikson, 1964; Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998). It has been shown also that moral identity motivates people morally since they desire to maintain self-consistency (Hardy, Carlo 2005).
It has been argued that in a situation where employees have a high level of moral identity, they would be more likely to attempt to correct wrongdoing in a timely manner through internal or external whistle-blowing (Lui et al., 2016). Specifically, the more integrated an individual’s identity is in their perception of specific moral traits, the more adverse the reaction of individual will be while witnessing organizational wrongdoing that confronts these internalized traits (Zhao et al., 2008).
Moral whistle-blowing is a type of whistle-blowing that moral involvement motivates the actor (Glazer, 1989). Indeed, there is research which provides evidence about the relation of morality and whistle-blowing. According to Proost et al., 2013, the
employees who are strongly moral identifiers are more likely to report the wrongdoing on which they are aware of than the low moral identifiers. Taking all the above into consideration, we assume that there is a positive relation between moral identity and whistle-blowing.
Hypothesis 1 : There is a positive relationship between the Moral Identity and the Whistle-blowing
Rules
Nevertheless, it may not always be so evident that employees with high moral identity blow the whistle when they encounter unethical behavior or wrongdoing.
Besides the negative consequences with regards to job loss and career suffering, there are also other factors which prevent employees from blowing the whistle. Lack of institutional support may inhibit employees to blow the whistle since they feel unprotected or that they betray organizational loyalty. Research has suggested that in organizations which are governed by ethical codes and culture in general, employees feel less fear of retaliation when they are to report the wrongdoing (Zhang et al., 2009). In addition, employees when they feel supported by colleagues and supervisors, whistle-blowing is more likely to happen (Near & Miceli ,1996).
Moreover, employees may feel ambiguous about whether a behavior is indeed regarded as unethical. As a result, their actual decision of whistle-blowing will be conditioned on the presence of rules and especially on their specificity.
Rules indicate ethical guidelines since values and norms are communicated (Mulder, Jordan, Rink, 2015) and they can be integrated in laws (Feldman &Harel, 2008) or codes of conduct (Kaptein, 2011). Rules have the main goal to reinforce ethical behavior and are installed by an authority to foster collective welfare (Mulder et al, 2015, Mulder&Nelissen, 2010). Rules and laws have the symbolic value of indicating what behaviors are disapproved of and thus express what is perceived as morally wrong (McAdams, 2000) and that rule violators are morally convicted (Cooter, 1998).
As far as the type of rules is concerned, we can distinguish general and specific rules. Specific rules induce details regarding the targeted behavior, while general rules are formulated more broadly. For example, a general rule is “drive safely”. In contrast, a specific rule is “do not drive with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher”. Both rules aim at the same behavior, but the latter is more explicit than the former. Specific rules instigate stronger effect on employees’ ethical decision than do general rules (Mulder, Jordan, Rink, 2015). This is because a specific rule provides people less latitude to evaluate or explain their decisions ethically than a general rule (Mulder, Jordan, Rink, 2015). As far as the general rules are concerned, they reveal values considered to be important by people (Weaver &Treviño, 1999).Prior research has suggested that specific rules are more successful in steering ethical behavior than general rules. Mulder et al. (2015) state that “specific rules give a distinct mandate about what is right and wrong”, meaning that specific rules very clearly explain the situations and what behavior is morally acceptable in these situations, which leads to more ethical behavior.
Possibly, the specificity of rules may not only directly affect someone’s own unethical behavior, but also the inclination to blow the whistle when observing unethical behavior. Most research on rules and whistle-blowing concerns policies with regard to whistle-blowing itself. A number of organizations have implemented codes or rules for whistleblowers to be used in decision making about whether to blow the whistle as well as through the process of whistle-blowing to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Companies with policies regarding disclosure of wrongdoing have higher rates of both internal and external reporting than those without (Barnett et al, 1993). Data on whistle-blowing in probation departments support that the lack of internal mechanisms for dealing with criticism leads to external disclosure (Rosecrance, 1988). Organizations with a code of ethics seemed more aware of the importance of listening to employee concerns (Winfield, 1994) in case of observed unethical behavior. Consequently, it can be argued that specific and general rules, within an organization regarding unethical behavior, influence employee’s decision making concerning the whistle-blowing.
Hypothesis 2: Specific and general rules affect the decision making of whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowing is a prosocial behavior which aims to promote welfare (Dozier &Miceli, 1985) since the basic incentive to blow the whistle is to rectify wrongdoing, which provokes negative ramifications to the organization and its members or the society as a whole (Miceli et al., 2008). Furthermore, rules may activate the moral identity of individuals (Aquino et al., 2009; Mulder& Aquino, 2013). The rule with regard to unethical behaviors itself may also determine whether people have to blow the whistle since they determine what actions are tolerated and give ethical guidelines. Consequently, we can assume that rules affect the relationship between moral identity and whistle-blowing. When general rules are implemented, high moral identifiers may feel engaged to the rule and supported by the organization’s management and thus, it is more likely to blow the whistle. On the other hand, specific rules might be more determinant for high moral identifiers than general rules, because specific rules reduce the ambiguity with concerns to the unethical behavior. Last but not least, a specific rule reduces the fear of negative consequences that may high moral identifiers feel inhibited to blow the whistle because is clear what is expected on behalf of the organization.
Hypothesis 3 : Moral identity increases whistle-blowing more strongly when specific rules are implemented in an organization rather than when general rules are implemented.
METHOD Design and participants
A scenario study was performed by two (rule: general/specific) conditions.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. On average study took 11 minutes to complete. The dependent variables, as well as all the additional explanatory variables, were measured on a continuous scale. A sample of 246 participants (54.9% female) was used. Participants were all either employees or had previous working experience in different positions in firms of different disciplines.
All participants signed an informed consent form in order to induce their agreement about the use of their data for research purposes. The researcher’s own network was used to identify participants by means of email and social media. Participants received a link which led them to the online study. The dominant age group of the sample was from 25-34 years old with the percentage of 60.2%. Regarding the educational level of participants, bachelor’s degree represented the highest proportion of 45.9%
followed from the master’s degree with the percentage of 32.1%.
Procedure
In the present research, the participants received a general questionnaire which measured demographics and some additional information concerning conditions in the workplace such as the relationship with their supervisor or their income. In this part of questionnaire, participants were asked to fill in the name of their supervisor. Their answer was inserted in the scenario in order to be personalized. Participants read a scenario in which the formulation of rule was manipulated. Additionally, according to the scenario, the intentions of blowing the whistle about the mentioned unethical behavior were measured. Furthermore, additional exploratory variables were measured. These measures included the moral motivation, appraisal and moral judgment, moral anger and career’s suffering. Finally, manipulation check of rule was presented.
Independent Variable
Moral Identity was measured with an adapted scale of Aquino and Reed (2002). To accomplish the measurement, participants were asked to read a list of nine characteristics that might describe a person (i.e., caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind) and then to envision “the kind of person who has these characteristics [and] imagine how that person would think, feel, and act.” The nine characteristics were shown by Aquino and Reed (2002) defined a moral prototype (i.e., a person who is moral). Then, after being asked to think about someone who possesses these traits, participants were presented with the ten items (α=.68): (1) “It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics”, (2) “Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am”, (3 ) “I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics”
(reverse coded), (4) “Having these characteristics is not really important to me”
(reverse coded), and (5) “I strongly desire to have these characteristics”, (6) “I often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics”, (7) “The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbies) clearly identify me as having these characteristics”, (8) “The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these characteristics”, (9) “The fact that I have these characteristics is communicated to others by my membership in certain organizations”, (10) “I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these characteristics”. For each of the aforementioned items, a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used.
Scenario
Participants were asked to imagine that they are working in a medium-sized company in the trade discipline and specifically as employees in sales department.
Their supervisor in that hypothetical situation was the same as their current supervisor in order to make the scenario specialized. In this situation as it is described in the scenario the participant uncover an unethical behavior on behalf of the supervisor.
Specifically, respondents were presented with the following scenario: “Please imagine the following: You work at ABC, which is a medium-sized company in the trade
discipline. You do not have tenure, and your contract is ending soon. Whether or not you will get tenure, or whether you will be laid off, strongly depends on how your superiors rate you. So, in other words, your job depends on your supervisor and his/her appraisal. Imagine that in this situation, you have the same supervisor as you have now. So, in your case this is: supervisor (name).Try to imagine that supervisor (name) is not only your supervisor in your actual job in real life, but also in the situation that you are currently imagining. In your company "ABC", employees often travel in order to widen the client list of ABC. Hence, managers and employees of sales department travel in order to communicate with the existing clients, but also to broaden their network. Travel expenses related to the company are covered by the company when employees show the respective proof of the expenses.” Then, respondents read either the general rule or the specific rule according to the random distribution determined by the program of Qualtrics and they continued to read the scenario.“In ABC, there is a rule: The company rule is that travel expenses and expenses on lodging and meals, should be reasonable and not be excessive. In ABC, there is a rule: The company rule is that travel expenses with concern to lodging should include not more than a standard hotel room and a maximum of
€ 90 per person per day for meals. Imagine that one day, supervisor (name) asks you to send some hand written invoices to the accountancy office. By chance, the first invoice you observe refers the personal data of supervisor (name). By chance, based on this invoice, you notice that supervisor (name) is reimbursing for a double exclusive suite and daily meals over € 200. This arouses your suspicion and you look at archived invoices. You found out that this type of expenditure happens in every trip of supervisor (name) in the last year.”. Finally, they had to indicate the likelihood of reporting their supervisor’s behavior to someone of higher hierarchy.
Dependent variable
Whistle-blowing: Participants’ intentions to blow the whistle were measured by asking them to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale the likelihood to report
supervisor’s behavior to someone of higher hierarchy (director) within the organization (1=extremely unlikely, 7= extremely likely).
Other measures
LMX was measured with an adapted scale of Scandura & Graen (1984).
Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (α=.89) ranging from (1=strongly disagree) to (7=strongly agree) the extent to which the seven items represent the relationship with their supervisor. (1) I usually know where I stand with supervisor (name) and I know how satisfied supervisor (name) is with what I do, (2) supervisor (name) understands my problems and needs, (3) supervisor (name) recognizes my potential, (4) Regardless of how much formal authority supervisor (name) has built into his/her position, supervisor (name) would be personally inclined to use power to help me to solve problems in my work, (5) Regardless of the amount of formal authority that supervisor (name) has, I can count on supervisor (name) to
"bail me out" at his/her expense when I really need it, (6) I have enough confidence in supervisor (name) that I would defend and justify his/her decisions if supervisor (name) were not present to do so, (7) My working relationship with supervisor (name) is effective.
Breadwinner.Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to whichthey are the main providers of their household, meaning the extent to whichtheir household is dependent on their income, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not at all, 5=Completely).
Institutional support. To assess whether the participants feel supported on behalf of the company, participants were presented with a 5 items (α=.78) on 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). The scale presented with the same starting sentence “In the company ABC, in the situation as described…” , which was followed by the subsequent statements: (1) “…the rule makes clear that I should report the wrongdoing”, (2) “… I would feel supported by the top management if I would report the wrongdoing”, (3) “…top management expect from employees to report the wrongdoing”, (4) “…I feel protected by the organization if I would report the wrongdoing”, (5) “…there is probably a policy about reporting wrongdoing”.
Moral (dis)approval of the act. To test whether participants assess the supervisor’s behavior as moral or not, they were asked to indicate the extent to which reimbursing cost for an expensive hotel room and expensive meals during a business trip: (1) “…is something I morally disapprove of”, (2) “…is something I do not object to” (reverse coded), (3) “…is morally acceptable” (reverse coded), (4) “…is morally incorrect”, (5) “…is not social towards colleagues”, (6) “…ought not to be done”, (7)
“…is not so bad” (reverse coded), (8) “…is “not done””, on a 7-point Likert scale (α=.84) (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).
Appraisal and moral judgment. An adapted scale from Russell and Giner-Sorolla (2011) was presented to the participants in order to indicate how they appraise the supervisor’s behavior (α=.79). The following statements were displayed to them: (1) “Supervisor (name) harmed other people”, (2) “Supervisor (name) violated the rights of other people”, (3) “What supervisor (name) did was intentional”, (4) “Supervisor (name) was not aware of any harm that might be caused to other people” (reverse scored), (5) “Supervisor (name) meant to do what he/she did” , (6) “ What supervisor (name) did was wrong”, (7) “Supervisor (name) harmed himself/herself.”, (8) “What Supervisor (name) did was justified.”(Reverse coded), (9) “What Supervisor (name) did was fair.”(Reverse coded), (10) “What Supervisor (name) did was bad.”, (11) “Supervisor (name) should be held accountable for his/her actions.”, (12) “Supervisor (name) was not aware of any harm that might be caused to himself/herself” (reverse scored). The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7=
Strongly agree).
Career’s suffering. At this point the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their career would suffer in case they would blow the whistle regarding their supervisor’s behavior, on a 5-point Likert scale (1= Not at all, 5= A great deal).
Manipulation check. At the end of the survey respondents received a text, in which the differences between general and specific rules were explained. The text
was presented as it follows: “ In real life, some rules are more specific than others:
they clearly specify what behaviors will not be tolerated (for example: “Keep within the 50 km/h limit.”). Some rules are more general than others: they provide general guidelines for behavior (for example “Drive safely.”) (Mulder et al., 2015). Then, participants were asked to think about the rules in the company ABC and were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very specific, 7 = very general) whether the rules at the company were formulated in a specific or general way.
RESULTS
From the 246 participants who filled in the survey until the measurement of dependent variable (whistle-blowing), only 230 of them filled in the survey completely.
Manipulation check.A T-Test was performed with the rule condition as independent variable and the question measuring the extent to which people perceived the rule to be specific or general, as dependent variable.There was a main effect of rule on perceived rule formulation, F(1,224)= 95.79, p < 0.001. In the specific rule condition people indicated to a greater extent that the rule in the company regarding the travel expenses was specific (M=2.89, SD=1.89) than in the general rule condition (M=5.17, SD=1.59). This suggests that our manipulation test was successful.
Correlations. Table1 provides descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between variables. In contrast to hypothesis1, there was no significant relationship between moral identity and whistle-blowing. Also, there was no significant correlation between whistle-blowing and the subscales of moral identity, which are internalization and symbolization.
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations
variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.Age3 3.20 .77
2.Gender1 1.55 .50 -.08
3.Education2 5.86 1.41 -.15* -.07 4.Position 5.35 1.46 -.29** .13* -.15* 5.Moral Identity 5.16 .67 -.07 .23** .10 .01 6.Breadwinner 3.17 1.37 .39** -.05 -.02 -.25** .01
7. LMX 4.9 1.21 -.01 -.11 -.04 -.02 .11 -.06
8.career’s suffering 2.98 1.08 -.11 .15* .17** .08 .14** .05 -.18**
9.Institutional support 4.3 1.15 -.12 -.03 .01 -.01 .09 -.17** .15* -.07 10.Moral anger 1.92 .62 -.14* .06 .06 -.02 -.05 -.02 -.12 .26** .27**
11.Moral judgement 4.55 .80 .02 .08 .01 -.01 .04 .00 -.37** .13* .27** .29**
12.rules(general/specific) 0 1 -.05 .07 .03 .07 -.01 -.06 -.02 .03 .04 .02 .06 13.whistle-blowing 3.55 1.84 .05 .01 .07 -.04 .03 -.12 -08 -.05 .44** .35** .29** .05
Notes.N4=246.+p< .10, *p < .05, **p< .01
**Correlation significant at the .01 level
* Correlation significant at the .05 level
1 For gender, 1 = male, 2 =female.
2 For education, 1= less than high school, 2= high school, 3=some college, 4=trade/technical/vocational training, 5=associate degree, 6=bachelor’s degree, 7=master’s degree, 8=doctorate degree.
3 For age, 1=under 18, 2=18-24, 3=25-34, 4=35-44, 5=45-54, 6=55-64, 7=above 65.
4 For 8. N=242, 9. N=232, 10. N=228, 12. N=123 for general (-1) N=123 for specific (1)
A linear regression analysis conducted in order to test the first hypothesis of how the rules influence the relationship between moral identity and whistle-blowing.
Moral identity was standardized and rules centralized (-1 = general, 1 = specific rule)
before cross-products were computed.No significant effects are found. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected. People hesitate to blow the whistle as it is revealed from the results. Therefore, variables such as LMX (the relationship between the supervisor and subordinate) and breadwinner (the extent to which the participant is the main provider of the household) could be reasons that affect employees on their decision of not blowing the whistle. Regression analysis conducted including the variable breadwinner as control variable while the other variables of the model remained constant. However, there were not significant effects as it was expected.The results of the regression for the independent variable and the dependent moderated by the rules with the contribution of the control variables are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Regression Results for moderation of rules and control variables
variables B SE T P
LMX -.12 .05 -2.15 .03
Breadwinner -.10 .04 -2.30 .02
Career suffering -.06 .06 -1.02 .30
Moral identity .03 .06 .48 .58
Rule .02 .06 .73 .67
MIxRule -.08 .06 -1.05 .17
N=246, DV: Whistleblowing
Finally, other possible dependent variables that might be influenced by moral identity and rules were used in an additional analysis. We had argued that rules would increase institutional support, which would encourage high moral identifiers to blow the whistle. Therefore, a regression analysis was conducted for the exploratory variable as dependent variable. Nevertheless, against to our expectations, institutional
support as dependent variable does not reveal significant effect. Results are presented in table 3.
TABLE 3
Variables B SE T P
Moral Identity .10 .06 1.56 .12
Rule .03 .06 .58 .56
MIxrule -.08 .06 -1.35 .17
N=246. DV: Institutional support
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of moral identity and specificity of rules on whistle-blowing. We examined the relationship between moral identity and intention to blow the whistle and the moderating effect of rules (general or specific) on this relationship. In align with the first assumption of the positive relation of moral identity and whistle-blowing, we hypothesized that specific and general rules affect the decision making of whistle-blowing. Finally, the last hypothesis was that moral identity increases whistle-blowing more strongly when specific rules are implemented in an organization, rather than when general rules are implemented. However, against to our expectations, the results did not confirm the assumptions.
Moral identity did not increase whistle-blowing as it was expected. According prior findings employees of stronger moral identity is more likely to blow the whistle of an unethical behavior they had been aware of rather than employees of lower moral identity. A potential reason why this study did not prove the positive relations can be the cultural differences since most of participants were Greek. The survey was distributed to our network and participants were presented the purpose of the study
word that might mean that internal whistle-blowing is perceived as a negative action at the workplace in Greece. Employees may feel that betray their colleagues or they will be negatively criticized, even rejected, in case they would blow the whistle.
It has been shown also that moral identity motivates people to act morally.
However, even if they consider the act as immoral they might be inhibited of blow the whistle. Employees are afraid of negative consequences that whistle-blowing evokes, such as dismissals and career jeopardizing, sanctions and retaliation. This is also revealed from this study since molar identity influenced the way that employees interpret the negative consequences in their career. Thus, career’s suffering might be an explanation concerning the decision of employees of not blow the whistle.
According to Gundlach et al., 2003, the defensive or offensive impression management tactics influence whistle-blowers perceptions about costs and benefits of whistle-blowing. Consequently, management tactics which were not considered in this survey might be a reason why participants perceived that the cost of career suffering greater than the benefits of whistle-blowing.
Furthermore, the results showed that the specificity of rules has no significant effects on whistle-blowing. Apparently, making a rule more specific does not motivate employees to blow the whistle. Also, data showed that the specificity of rules did not increase institutional support in order to reinforce the employees’
intentions to report unethical behaviors. Institutional support in the sense that employees feel protected and supported by the top management of the organization was expected to have different outcomes with concerns to whistle-blowing. As a result, maybe the presence of a rule is more important to give employees the feeling that they are supported than the formulation of the rule.
Practical implications
This research has some implications for policy makers. The results indicated that the formulation of rules did not affect employees’ inclination to report wrongdoing. Even in case that the rule is specific, employees are inhibited to blow the whistle. Consequently, policy makers in organizations can use this information when
they are formulating rules that will refer specifically to whistle-blowing. In this research, the rules which were introduced were about the travel expenses. Therefore, specific rules, which determine when a behavior is perceived as unethical and should be reported, can be induced in the organizations. Moreover, they can also induce a policy by into account that employees should be supported and protected against negative ramifications of whistle-blowing. For example, the policy with specific guidelines on grounds of whistle-blowing can protect employees from retaliation or defamation guaranteeing their anonymity when blow the whistle.
Limitations and further investigation areas
Noteworthy limitations revealed from this research. While the survey was completed from an adequate number of participants, which was larger rather than what we expected, the sample was rather homogeneous. Most of the participants were Greek and of the group age of 25-34. Additional information about the sample is that the dominant percentage of 40% was of waged employees (machine operators, clerical/secretarial and support staff and technicians), followed by a percentage higher than 20% of employees whom position was not mentioned as a choice in the survey.
Consequently, the same research could be repeated in a more heterogeneous sample.
Furthermore, attention test was not included in the survey. Thus, we could not identify participants who did not complete the survey in appropriate way. Attention check would provide us the chance to exclude participants who were not concentrated on the survey or replied irrelevant answers. Consequently, the results might be more accurate.
Moreover, the scenario had also its limitations. Participants were asked to imagine a situation and then to make a decision. Hence, such an expenditure occurred in real working conditions might have different results concerning their decision to report their supervisor. Furthermore, in the situation as described in the scenario, misleading information was mentioned concerning the way in which employee uncover the unethical behavior of their supervisor. The scenario mentioned that the employee saw the archived invoices of last year. However, employees of sales
department have no access in archived invoices and especially of earlier months, since accountants are responsible for them and the invoices constitute classified documents.
To conclude, institutional support and career’s suffering indicate factors that may influence the decision and intentions of employees to blow the whistle. On the one hand, the information of this study can be used as a further step on research with regards to institutional support and which factors increase it since the rules in this research had no effects.
CONCLUSION
In this research, the moderating effect of the specificity of rules on the influence of moral identity on whistle-blowing was investigated. Both moral identity and specificity of rules showed no effect on whistle-blowing. Nevertheless, whistle-blowing constitutes an important way of eliminating the unethical behavior in the workplace. Because of the inhibition of people to blow the whistle, further research on whistle-blowing and institutional support is recommended.
REFERENCE LIST
ACFE (2010). Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse: Global Fraud Survey.
Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I. (2002).The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423.
Barnett, T., D.S. Cochran and G.S. Taylor (1993). J. of Business Ethics, 12, 127-136.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. Morality, moral behavior, and moral development, 128-139.
Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. (2004).Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological psychology, 67(1-2), 7-50.
Cooter, R. (1998).Expressive law and economics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27(S2), 585-607.
Dozier, J. B., &Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. AcademyofManagementReview, 10(4), 823 836.
Eaton, T., & Akers, M. (2007).Whistleblowing and good governance. Cpa Journal, 77(6), 58-59.
Feldman, Y. (2009). The expressive function of trade secret law: Legality, cost, intrinsic motivation, and consensus. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 177-212.
Feldman, Y., &Harel, A. (2008). Social norms, self-interest and ambiguity of legal
norms: An experimental analysis of the rule vs. standard dilemma. Review of Law & Economics, 4(1), 81-126.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., &Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist
temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203.
Glazer, M. P., & Glazer, P. M. (1989). The whistleblowers: Exposing corruption in
government and industry. New York.
Gundlach, M. J., Douglas, S. C., &Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle:A social information processing
framework. AcademyofmanagementReview, 28(1), 107-123.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005).Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human development, 48(4), 232-256.
Hart, D. (2005, January). The development of moral identity.In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 51, p. 165).
Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Ford, D. (1998).Urban America as a context for the
development of moral identity in adolescence. Journal of social issues, 54(3), 513-530.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
Hyun, J., & Yoon, J. (2015).Determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies. PublicPersonnelManagement, 44(4), 450-472.
Lindsay, R. M., Lindsay, L. M., & Irvine, V. B. (1996).Instilling ethical behavior in organizations: A survey of Canadian companies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 15(4), 393-407.
Liu, Y., Zhao, S., Jiang, L., & Li, R. (2016). When Does a Proactive Personality Enhance an Employee’s Whistle-Blowing Intention?: A Cross-Level Investigation of the Employees in Chinese Companies. Ethics &
Behavior, 26(8), 660-677.
Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147-186.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38(3), 525-544.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988).Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41(2), 267-281.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., &Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., &Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the whistle and why?. ILR Review, 45(1), 113-130.
Mulder, L. B., &Nelissen, R. (2010).When rules really make a difference: The effect of cooperation rules and self-sacrificing leadership on moral norms in social dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 57-72
Mulder, L., Jordan, J., & Rink, F. (2015).The effects of specific and general rules on ethical decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,126,115-129.
Near, J. P., &Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of management, 22(3), 507-526.
Ponemon, L. (1994). Enhancing communication to assist in fraud prevention and detection: Comments. Auditing, 13(2), 118-118.
Proost, K., Pavlinská, A., Baillien, E., Brebels, L., & Van den Broeck, A. (2013).
Employees’ intention to blow the whistle: The role of fairness and moral identity. PsihologiaResurselorUmane, 11(2), 15.
Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules.The philosophical review, 64(1), 3-32.
Read, W., & Rama, D. (2003). Whistle-blowing to internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(5), 354-362.
Rosecrance, J. (1988). Whistleblowing in probation departments, J. of Criminal Justice, 16, 99-109.
Russell, P. S., &Giner-Sorolla, R. (2011). Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality. Emotion, 11(2), 233.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of applied psychology, 69(3), 428.
Smith, R., & Brown, A. J. (2008). The good, the bad and the ugly: Whistleblowing outcomes. Whistleblowing in the Australian public sector, 109.
Stevens, B. (1994). An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: "Where do we go from here?" Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 63-63.
Taylor, E. Z., & Curtis, M. B. (2010). An examination of the layers of workplace influences in ethical judgments: Whistleblowing likelihood and perseverance in public accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 21-37.
Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 38-64.
Watts, L. L., & Buckley, M. R. (2017).A dual-processing model of moral
whistleblowing in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 669-683.
Weaver, G. R., &Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and Values Oriented Ethics Programs: Influenceson Employees’ Attitudes and Behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(02), 315-335.
Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice. Journal of Management, 40(1), 100-129.
Winfield, M. (1994). In: Whistleblowing, Subversion or Corporate Citizenship, G.
Vinten (ed.), 21-32.
Zhang, J., Chiu, R., & Wei, L. (2009). Decision-making process of internal whistleblowing behavior in China: Empirical evidence and
implications. JournalofBusinessEthics, 88(1), 25-41.
