Whistleblowing - The Innocent Bystander et al

Whistleblowing Studies

In order to design and successfully implement organisational systems with appropriate communication channels that encourage, rather than inhibit whistleblowing, it is prudent to have a complete understanding of the theory which accounts for the actions of whistleblowers. Without this knowledge there is no foundation upon which to design appropriate and effective systems (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009)

The behaviour exhibited by people that blow the whistle has been studied by researchers who have developed a number of distinct frameworks and theories which emanate from multiple sources. Those frameworks and theories can be broadly categorised as follows:

  • Justice approach;
  • Power perspective;
  • Prosocial approach;
  • Ethical-decision making models;
  • Bystander intervention model; and
  • Ethical climate theory.

The justice approach focuses on injustices in the workplace (Graham, 1986; Janet P. Near et al., 1993) while the power approach focuses on the power relationship that exists between a whistleblower and an organisation to assist in explaining whistleblowing decisions (Miceli & Near, 1985, 1992, 2002). The prosocial approach explores how a sense of social duty motivates people to blow the whistle (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1988; Miceli & Near, 1992; Janet P. Near & Miceli, 1986, 1996). Ethical decision-making models have also been studied as it is considered that the decision to blow the whistle or remain silent is comparable to the process in which other ethical decisions are made within an organisation (T. M. Jones & Ryan, 1998; Logsdon & Yuthas, 1997; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). The Bystander intervention theory was developed by Latane and Darley as a result of a number of persons having witnessed a murder but no one either intervened or called authorities (1970). Similarities have been found between bystander intervention and whistleblowing (Johnson, 2003). The literature argues that ethical climate theory is a component of an organisation’s ethical culture and assists individuals in determining which issues are ethics related, and how to approach and solve various moral and ethical dilemmas with which they are faced (Cullen, Praveen Parboteeah, & Victor, 2003; Cullen, Victor, & Stephens, 1989).

An examination of each of these frameworks and theories will yield an understanding of the body of research work and ascertain which areas will be of particular relevance in designing whistleblowing policies and systems.

The Justice Approach

Researchers have used the Justice Theory approach in an attempt to explain whistleblowing behaviour (Janet P. Near et al., 1993). While the Justice Theory approach has been used to address many areas within organisations the specific area of focus for the purposes of this article relate to its application of perceptions by employees of injustice within the workplace which motivate whistleblowing events (J. Greenberg, 1990a, 1998; J. Greenberg & Alge, 1998; R. Greenberg, 1993). This concept of unjust events providing employee motivation to blow the whistle is further explored through what has been described as the attribution theory. This theory helps researchers to understand situations in which employees perceive injustice in their workplace (J. Greenberg, 1990b; J. Greenberg & Alge, 1998). It proposes that employee perceptions of fairness within an organisation are based on the causal factors that the offending behaviour is attributed to. This theory helps researchers and commentators to understand whistleblowing behaviour, particularly in respect of how it relates to employees perceiving acts of wrong-doing and their subsequent motivation to blow the whistle. It is not a theory which will assist in determining which whistleblowing channels of communication they prefer to report the whistleblowing event and whether those channels should be managed internally or externally.

The Power Perspective Approach

While the Power perspective approach explores how a sense of social duty motivates people to blow the whistle it also seeks to explore how the whistleblowers are viewed by the organisation in which the wrongdoing is occurring. The organisation can either view the whistleblower as a friend or an adversary (Miceli & Near, 1992; Janet P. Near & Miceli, 1995). The organisation is likely to view the whistleblower as a friend if it accepts that the whistleblowing event will bring about positive organisational change. This is most unlikely when organisations directly benefit from wrongdoing, and the whistleblowing event threatens the authority, viability and structure of an organisation. In such instances the likelihood of retaliation occurring is far greater and interestingly, the event is less likely to be reported when it involves a high status member of an organisation (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1992; Miceli & Near, 1994; Miceli, Rehg, Near, & Ryan, 1999; Janet P. Near & Miceli, 1995).

The research in this field shows the reporting of whistleblowing events internally to an organisation by whistleblowers as ineffective for instigating corrective action and often causes them to report the event to an outside organisation such as the media or government regulatory agency. As a result a lot of research has centred on when individuals report the whistleblowing events to outside organisations (Miceli & Near, 1992, 2002; Janet P. Near & Miceli, 1995).

The Prosocial Approach

This approach seeks to examine the influence of an individual’s sense of social duty vis-à-vis reporting a whistleblowing event. In other words, an individual’s sense of social duty compels them to report organisational wrongdoing thus the behaviour is therefore viewed as prosocial (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1985; Miceli & Near, 1988; Miceli & Near, 1992).

This approach to whistleblowing has its foundations in the Bystander intervention model which was developed by Latane and Darley in an attempt to understand how it was that a large number of people witnessed a crime and all failed to both intervene and report the matter to authorities (1970). The theory postulates that cognitive moral development should have a positive influence on decisions to blow the whistle but later studies have differing results (Brabeck, 1984; Miceli & Near, 1992; Miceli, Near, & Schwenk, 1991; Street, 1995). For example, Brabeck (1984) identified a positive relationship between the two while the research of Miceli et al. (1991) was in direct conflict.

Ethical-Decision Making Model

The basis for ethical decision-making models is comparing the whistleblowing process to ethical decision-making within organisations. The decision-making model of both Jones and Ryan (1998) and Logsdon and Yuthas (1997) are used as a basis to depict the ethical decision-making process in organisations and are shown at Figure 1.

Figure 1. Ethical and whistleblowing decision-making process in organizations. Adapted from Jones (1991), Latane and Darley (1970), Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), Miceli and Near (1992), and Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thomas (1999).

Figure 1 uses the models of both Jones and Ryan (1998) and Logsdon and Yuthas (1997) as the basis to illustrate the ethical decision-making process in organisations. Rest et al. (1999) have a four stage model as does Latane and Darley (1970) and Miceli and Near (1992) all of which are comparable. Miceli and Near credit Latane and Darley’s model which was developed for Bystander Intervention as the basis of their whistleblowing model at Figure 1.

Bystander Intervention Model

This approach to whistleblowing is linked to the Prosocial approach as cited above. It arose out of a study conducted by Latane and Darley (1970) as a result of a murder that was committed in 1964 which some 38 people witnessed but chose not to either intervene or report the matter. The study gave rise to the theory that the greater the number of people who witness an emergency incident, the greater the diffusion of responsibility and the less likely it will be that someone will intervene. Additional studies suggested that the larger the size of the group the further the accountability was dispersed reducing the individual cost of someone not acting (Fritzsche, Finkelstein, & Penner, 2000). Other studies have then questioned the correlation between intervening in an emergency situation and the decision to blow the whistle and question the validity of the model to the decision of whistleblowing (Berkowitz, 1978) but despite these findings similarities were found between the Bystander Intervention model and whistleblowing which were described as ‘Striking’ (Johnson, 2003).

Ultimately the theory suggests that the more people contained in an organisation the less likely they are to blow the whistle due to the diffusion of responsibility. This of course pre-supposes the notion that the whistleblowing event is perceived as an emergency situation and is witnessed by large numbers.

Ethical Climate Theory Approach

The Ethical Climate has been described as a component of an organisation’s ethical culture which helps to determine which issues or moral dilemmas organisation members consider to be ethically significant or relevant and what criteria they should use to resolve them (Cullen et al., 2003; Cullen et al., 1989). Research indicates that the moral climate of an organisation provides a context within

 ...which certain behaviours are likely to occur if other supportive individual and contextual conditions also exist (Vidaver-Cohen, 1998, p. 1220).

The Ethical Climate model is able to interface with the first and second stages of the four stage model of the ethical decision-making models posed in Figure 1 and therefore assist employees to identify moral issues which require attention and resolution (Latane et al., 1970; Miceli & Near, 1992; Rest et al., 1999).

The Ethical Climate has two dimensions the first of which is the criteria used for organisational decision-making, while the second is the locus of analysis. The first dimension comprises three possible organisational ethical decision-making criteria all of which

...correspond to philosophy’s three major classes of ethical theory: egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology:
  1. Egoism, or maximising self-interest;
  2. Benevolence, or maximising joint interests; and
  3. Principle (Cullen et al., 1989).

The second dimension identifies three possible loci of analysis:

  1. Individual,
  2. Local; and
  3. Cosmopolitan (p. 54).

By cross-tabulating these two dimensions Victor and Cullen have identified nine possible separate ethical climates (1988, p. 104):

  1. Egoism and Individual locus of analysis = Self Interest;
  2. Egoism and Local locus of analysis = Company Profit;
  3. Egoism and Cosmopolitan locus of analysis = Efficiency;
  4. Benevolence and Individual locus of analysis = Friendship;
  5. Benevolence and Local locus of analysis = Team Interest;
  6. Benevolence and Cosmopolitan locus of analysis = Social Responsibility;
  7. Principle and Individual locus of analysis = Personal Morality;
  8. Principle and Local locus of analysis = Company Rules and Procedures; and
  9. Principle and Cosmopolitan locus of analysis = Laws and Professional Codes.

How Do Your Policies and System Measure Up?

How effective is your organisation’s whistleblowing policies and program? Have the policies and the program been developed to take account of these whistleblowing theories?

Contact me if you would like a review of your existing policies and system or the provision a bespoke external whistleblowing system

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whistleblowing-innocent-bystander-et-al-ralph-lake-jd-ma-cfe?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-network_publishes-183-null&midToken=AQFzzJ9Daxbu_w&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=3L4Y1zedOQTCI1