Introduction
According to the tradition established in the scientific literature, whistleblowing is usually understood as the disclosure of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate actions within the company or transferring information about such actions to external bodies. Such exposure is considered an effective tool for improving the effectiveness of organizational management. It results in more equitable redistribution of income, increased transparency, accountability of the organization’s activities, and increased confidence. Whistleblowing is a means of intra-organizational control, prevention, and detection of corruption actions on the part of employees (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). This practice has taken on a positive connotation in business in recent years. Numerous laws protect whistleblowers for their activities of informing departmental bodies of potential violations. Like any other behavior, whistleblowing in the organization has its theoretical background. This research paper explores the principles, social foundation, and theoretical methodology that can explain this kind of workplace behavior among employees.
What Explains the Whistleblowing Behavior among Employees?
Whistleblowing is one of the most effective ways to expose bribery, corruption, and other kinds of wrongdoing. It also initiates internal organizational investigations into potential corporate violations. Whistleblowers must have the facts and be able to prove them. Before they inform the controlling person about violations, they need to understand the channels of information transmission. American researchers Myron and Penina Glazer studied the problem of whistleblowing and exposing corruption (Raymond et al., 2017). The conclusions they formulated can be briefly summarized as follows. The strong belief in personal responsibility that drives moralists is often reinforced by the feelings of professional ethics, religious considerations, and loyalty to society. The fighters for ethical purity often learned from their experience both the price that must be paid for whistleblowing and what it is rewarded with.
Control of employees over each other is part of civil society and a social contract on transparency and honesty. Whistleblowing is an information process, which consists of transferring secret information about someone’s wrong actions or violations to the authorities so that they can take action. Today, there is a growing need for organizations to support and protect whistleblowers from adverse impacts (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). Incentives provided by whistleblowing policy vary widely depending on the jurisdiction. The importance of the official disclosure procedure is that it allows control from within the state apparatus. Therefore, in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and in several other countries, there is a system of measures to protect whistleblowers from revenge.
The first country to adopt a whistleblower policy is the United States. These laws primarily protect whistleblowers from potential company retaliation, dismissal from jobs, or other unpleasant consequences as a result of disclosing information to the relevant authorities about violations committed by the company. In some jurisdictions, whistleblowers may be eligible for financial rewards to encourage this kind of behavior. In the United States, under the Dodd-Frank Act, a whistleblower may receive a reward for voluntarily submitting relevant information (Raymond et al., 2017). Thus, American managers support the whistleblowing behavior of their employees that expose unethical or criminal organizational practices.
Whistleblowing behavior is the reflection of ethical values and processes of modern society. It includes the personal position of the employee who publicly exposes the violations of the company, the ethics of the organization, and public morality. As a kind of social action, it is an exchange of values, built on the principle of rationality. People normally act and interact based on a certain interest, striving to obtain the greatest benefit out of the situation. Thus, whistleblowers are rational seekers of personal benefits that are their main motive and driving force. The determining characteristics of the social behavior of individuals are not in social relations, connections, and structures, but outside them, primarily in human psychology (Raymond et al., 2017). The more a certain type of behavior is rewarded, the more often it will be repeated. The higher the reward is, the more effort a person is willing to make to receive it.
The Social Psychology of Whistleblowing and Its Importance
Whistleblowers can play an important role in identifying fraud, abuse, and corruption. To protect the public good or the reputation of the company, whistleblowers often take risks. They may face harassment or dismissal from their jobs, or be sued for confidentiality breaches or defamation, and even face criminal charges. It is increasingly recognized that effective protection of whistleblowers from retaliation will facilitate disclosure and encourage openness and accountability in the workplace (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). There are various ways to report violations of the company or an individual. In this regard, official disclosures are divided into internal, external, and anonymous. External whistleblowing includes reporting a violation outside the organization, for example, in the media, authorized agencies, or anti-corruption officials.
The understanding of the reasons for whistleblowing behavior among employees is important because it is a multidimensional phenomenon that is related to personal, social, ethical, and motivational aspects. It brings together various facets of individual and social relations. Its essence lies in the disclosure of information about the wrongdoings of an individual or a group to other people or some state structures. The specified information must be processed in a certain way and presented in a proper form so that measures can be taken (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). The psychological factor plays an important role in this behavior since a person must be ready to become an informer. A personal predisposition is not enough to become a whistleblower. Society needs an appropriate microclimate that encourages this phenomenon, its constant stimulation through ideology or collective actions.
This action also requires a certain restructuring of the individual’s worldview and moral principles. Whistleblowing can be justified by the fact that it prevents greater trouble. The internal reasons why people disclose information are also varied. They can include simple greed, personal rivalry, or a sincere desire of the informer to help the organization or the state (Raymond et al., 2017). Sometimes, a sense of fear for the consequences or guilt drives an individual. This kind of behavior can be also actively encouraged by the state through a special system of legal measures. As a rule, these aspects of whistleblowing merge into a specific system of views, and it is often difficult to find a pure reason for this behavior. Therefore, it acts as an interdisciplinary object of study for psychologists, sociologists, ethicists, and political scientists.
Theoretical Foundations Used to Explore Whistleblowing
Social identity theory is one of those theoretical foundations that can be used to explore the phenomenon of whistleblowing. It can help to restore consistency in concepts related to organizational identification, as well as suggest effective ways to apply the theory to the practice of organizational behavior. It offers a socio-psychological approach to the consideration of this issue, developed mainly by Tajfel and Turner (Trepte & Loy, 2017). Based on the literature review of social identification theory, it is possible to consider the prerequisites and consequences of whistleblowing behavior within organizations.
Social identification has long been viewed as the most important factor influencing both employee satisfaction and the effectiveness of the organization as a whole. However, in theoretical and empirical work, the concept of organizational identification has often been confused with organizational commitment and acceptance, as well as emotional responses and behaviors. These constructs would be more correctly regarded as prerequisites and consequences of identification with the organization. It is known that social identification is a person’s perception of his or her unity with the group, and the result of social categorization, perception of the distinctive features and prestige of one’s group (Trepte & Loy, 2017). It leads to the support of institutions that embody identity, to stereotypical perception of oneself and others, and to other consequences that are traditionally associated with the formation of groups. This approach is projected on the issue of whistleblowing as well.
To some extent, social identification theory supports the idea that a person identifies himself or herself with social categories to partially increase self-esteem. This is understandable given the relative and comparative nature of social identity. It is believed that through social identification and comparison, the individual indirectly gets the success and status of the group. Indeed, it has been found that positive and negative intergroup comparisons have a corresponding effect on the self-esteem of group members. According to Mowday, organizational commitment is the relative strength of an individual’s identification with the organization (as cited in Chordiya et al., 2017). Thus, whistleblowing can be justified since commitment is characterized by the willingness to make efforts for the good of the organization and a desire to maintain membership in the organization. A person can also demonstrate a high level of commitment because the organization is suitable for the realization of the individual’s career goals.
Social learning theory is another theoretical foundation that explains whistleblowing through the viewpoint of a cognitive perspective. Learning is largely determined by the processes of modeling, observation, and imitation. People repeat the behavior of others, practically without realizing it; however, it does not happen automatically (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). They choose a model for imitation, carefully observe, remember, and evaluate whether it makes sense to imitate or not. People observe and subsequently learn a wide variety of social reactions, such as aggression, sexual behavior, emotional responses, and much more, including whistleblowing.
Social learning theory explores the presence of a reciprocal relationship between behavior, subject, and environmental variables. People are influenced by various personal and social aspects, but they also affect the environment. In his interpretation of the phenomena of social learning, Albert Bandura proceeds from the widespread use of symbolic representations of events (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Without acknowledging such symbolic activity, it is extremely difficult to explain the incredible flexibility of human behavior (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). He claims that changes in behavior caused by classical and operant conditioning, as well as reward and punishment, are actively mediated by cognition (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Self-regulation processes also play an important role in human behavior. For example, a whistleblower regulates his or her behavior by visualizing its consequences.
Within the framework of conservation of resource theory, whistleblowing behavior is considered as a means to preserve work or status in the organization. Resources are considered as the values that an individual or community possesses, as well as how these values can be kept and increased. Thus, with the help of whistleblowing, people try to preserve their social resources, for example, a position, affiliation with an organization, social status, and the place of individuals in the system of social stratification. A certain position in society can provide stability, respect, and privilege. For Stevan Hobfoll, it is much more difficult to prevent the loss of resources than to acquire new ones (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). For example, social contacts that are becoming increasingly important in the modern information society, are much easier to acquire than to maintain in the future.
Whistleblowing can be also considered as emotion and viewed through the prism of cognitive appraisal theories of emotions. The first cognitive moment for the emergence of emotion is the presence of a goal. If there is no purpose and it has not appeared when faced with the situation, there is no way for emotion to emerge. At some level, conscious or unconscious, a person must feel the presence of the goal for emotion to arise. In this case, the purpose is to convey information about the violations of the company or a particular individual. According to this theoretical model, emotion always communicates the essential features of the relationship between the subject and the environment (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). This relationship can bring either harm, such as humiliation, a threat to the achievement of a goal, or a benefit. Harm and benefit are simple ideas that mean something important to one or both partners, that is, compliance or non-compliance with their goals. For example, whistleblowing is harmful to the corrupt official, but it benefits the organization and, accordingly, the whistleblower.
Another theoretical foundation of whistleblowing behavior can be found in self-determination theory. This is a theory of human motivation which deals with such basic issues as personality development, universal psychological needs, life goals, aspirations, and the influence of the social environment on motivation, behavior, and well-being. The most famous authors of self-determination theory are Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Self-determination as a psychological construct is a volitional act carried out by a person of his or her free will. It is determined by an internal, conscious choice, and decision (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Thus, whistleblowing behavior can be viewed as self-determination or a feeling of freedom concerning both the forces of the external environment and the forces within the personality.
Self-determination theory distinguishes between autonomous and controlled motivation. When people are autonomously motivated, they have a desire for action. Controlled motivation, on the contrary, consists of both external regulation, in which human behavior is a function of external circumstances, reward, or punishment and introjected regulation, in which the regulation of actions is partially internalized (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). When people are controlled, they are forced to think, feel, and behave in a certain way. Both types of motivation, autonomous and controlled, shape the whistleblowing behavior, and they oppose amotivation which correlates with a lack of tendency for action.
Social Exchange Theory as a Proposed Theoretical Model
The theory of social exchange fully explains the reasons and reflects the essence of whistleblowing behavior. This theoretical model, which became widespread in the West, initially focused on the motives that determine the communication and interaction of people in the field of economic relations. The authors of this theory considered both material and spiritual values as objects of exchange (Cropanzano et al., 2017). From their point of view, exchange operations are performed by people in all areas of life form society. Therefore, knowledge of the mechanisms of social exchange contributes to the regulation of social relations. The authors of the theory George Homans and Peter Blau set themselves the task of explaining how the actions of individuals, despite the diversity of their mental characteristics, lead to the formation and maintenance of relatively stable social structures.
In terms of whistleblowing behavior, personal interests are the universal motive that drives the world. The central category of social exchange theory is social action, interpreted as direct contacts of individuals. People enter into new social connections and alliances for themselves in the expectation that this will be rewarded (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Whistleblowers report corporate misconduct to management or law enforcement because they find the action valuable. Interaction with another person can be directly rewarding, or it can bring indirect rewards in the form of trusting relationships with influential people. In each of these cases, it is assumed that the desire to satisfy some need underlies any association.
Not all needs or interests are met directly in social interaction. Not all social interactions are motivated as a leading factor by an interest in reward since it is also influenced by both irrational moments and moral values. However, many aspects of social life reflect an interest in benefiting from the social exchange (Cropanzano et al., 2017). This theory is far from being limited to strictly rational behavior focused on material gain. However, its main goal is to embrace all efforts for rewarding social experience, including the desire to search for personal advantages. Likewise, the whistleblowers must have an interest and gain some benefits from the participation in social exchange.
This theory pays special attention to the psychological processes that induce people to participate in the exchange. It explores the motives of those people who become whistleblowers. Above all, such individuals expect their actions to be paid off. Exchange refers to voluntary social actions that are driven by rewarding responses. This behavior ceases if a person does not receive the expected response. According to Blau, the quality of this exchange is affected by relationship between the actor and the audience (as cited in Cropanzano et al., 2017). A newcomer must meet the requirements of the group to be accepted. A whistleblower must inform about an offense to gain the trust of the higher authorities. The main argument and main motivation of a potential whistleblower is the opportunity to receive various kinds of encouragement.
Conclusion
Humans are social beings, and their leading feature is social activity. People socialize, interact with each other and expect that cooperation with others will be fruitful and rewarding. The concept of social interaction as an exchange process logically follows from the assumption that people seek to gain rewards in their r social associations. This perspective describes the process of social exchange that gives the foundation for the social exchange theory. This theoretical model is related to the employees’ behavior in the organizational context. When people expect their colleagues and management to behave properly, mutual responsibility between them and the organization is formed. This relationship affects the employees’ intention to act in the company’s interest and justifies whistleblowing in the workplace.
References
Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A cross‐national comparative study. Public Administration, 95(1), 178-195.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516.
Kanfer, R., & Chen, G. (2016). Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 6-19.
Raymond, S., Beddoe, L., & Staniforth, B. (2017). Social workers’ experiences with whistleblowing: To speak or not to speak? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(3), 13-29.
Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1-13.
Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2019). Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistleblowing intention. Journal of Business Research, 98, 277-288.