A 22-month longitudinal study of (self)employed disabled workers (_Following the preference of the lead author who identifies as disabled, the linguistic self-presentation by our participants, the precedent of _(Hein and Ansari, Academy of Management Journal 65:749–783, 2022)_, and the clarification note included in Jammaers & Zanoni’s recent review of ableism _(Jammaers and Zanoni, Organization Studies 42:429–452, 2021)_, we chose, and consistently use, the term “disabled employees” throughout the paper. We do so to underscore the premise of the social model of (...) disability, which explains that “people are disabled first and foremost by society, not by their individual, biological impairment. To us this term most clearly highlights that it is society (and possibly organizations) that disable and oppress people with impairments, by preventing their access, integration and inclusion to all walks of life, making them ‘disabled’.” _(Jammaers and Zanoni, Organization Studies 42:429–452, 2021_: 448_)) models the growing centrality of the body in meaning-making. We inductively explain how body dramas of suffering or thriving initially instigate cycles of meaning deflation and inflation at work. Our disjunctive process model shows that, at the beginning of the pandemic, disabled workers performed either dramas of suffering or on dramas of thriving. However, as the global pandemic unfolded, disabled workers begun crafting composite dramas that deliberately juxtaposed thriving and suffering. This conjunctive process model stabilized meaning-making at work by acknowledging the duality of the disabled body, as both anomaly and asset. Our findings elaborate, and bridge, emerging theories of body work and recursive meaning-making to explain how disabled workers explicitly enroll their bodies to make meaning at work during periods of societal upheaval. (shrink)

Does speaking up ruin one’s life? Organizational and whistleblowing research largely accept that “whistleblower” is a negative label that effects one’s well-being. Whistleblowing research also emphasizes the drawn-out process of speaking up. The result is a narrative of the whistleblower as someone who suffers indefinitely. In this paper, I draw on theories of stigma, labelling, and identity, specifically stigmatized identity, to provide a more nuanced understanding of whistleblower stigma as relational and temporary. I analyse two cases of whistleblowing, one where (...) the label “whistleblower” was accepted, and one where it was eventually rejected. By comparing how the whistleblower responds to stigmatizing and non-stigmatizing others, I explore how whistleblower stigmatization emerges, or does not, in interactions. This paper makes two important contributions. First, I add to the growing research on whistleblower stigmatization a more nuanced and developed framework: one that sees the interaction between whistleblowers and others as relational. Second, I provide an understanding of the identity “whistleblower” as one that can be temporary and revisable. Research has highlighted how whistleblowing is a process, but little attention has been paid to how one “moves on” from being a whistleblower and the potential stigmatization associated with the role. Rather than assuming a whistleblower is stuck with this identity—and the associated stigma—for life, I provide insight on how “whistleblower” can be a positive label that opens one up to support, and even when it is stigmatized, it does not have to be an end state. (shrink)

Organizational transgressions cause recurring scandals. Often disclosed by whistleblowers, they generate public outrage and force organizations to respond. Recent studies have tried to answer the question: “What happens after a transgression becomes publicly known?” They highlight organizational responses marked by recognition of the transgression, penance and reintegration of the organization. However, that research only deals with transgressions involving illegal organizational practices. This article broadens the field of study to include legal but unethical organizational practices. It is based on the case (...) study of a recent scandal: LuxLeaks (2010–2018). This scandal concerns tax avoidance practices that were advised by the international audit and consulting firm PwC to hundreds of companies and made public by whistleblowers. The case data result from cross-comparisons of several organizational (PwC) and governmental (Luxembourg) communication documents as well as parliamentary, judicial and press documents. The article’s results highlight a legalistic organizational response that is so far under-explored in the literature. This response is marked by a rhetoric of denial, reformism and self-victimization and by judicial retaliation against the whistleblowers. It reveals the paradoxes of “legalization” in contemporary organizations, and its role in the perpetuation of unethical corporate practices. (shrink)

Whistleblowing is the most effective way to unveil wrongdoings. Indeed, whistleblowers often protect their organizations by providing crucial information. While existing research about whistleblowing focuses on the intentions of whistleblowers to report a wrongdoing _after_ a wrongdoing is observed, we seek to understand how individuals view whistleblowing _before_ a wrongdoing is observed. Drawing on self-determination theory our findings of 34 interviews at diverse Canadian nonprofit organizations support our framework and highlight that when a congruence of shared values exists, trust functions (...) as a core belief of the organization, which positively influences an autonomous view of whistleblowing. Based on our findings, we propose a conceptualization of whistleblowing mindset as the root of whistleblowing behaviours that can be influenced by shared or divergent values. We define a whistleblowing mindset as a mental disposition that predetermines individual interpretations and reactions to the witness of a wrongdoing. Our research contributes to the literature by establishing the importance of the whistleblowing mindset in the implementation of whistleblowing programs and providing insights into how shared values can influence the autonomous view in individuals’ whistleblowing mindsets. (shrink)

Whistleblowing is an effective tool against fraud and corruption in organizations. However, as researchers have struggled to acquire data on actual whistleblowers, research relies on hypothetical intention data and student samples, which is seen as a major limitation. Using a field study of 1,416 employees from China, Germany, and Russia, the purpose of this article is to identify differences and similarities between intention and actual whistleblowing decisions, thus aiding research and interpretation of prior and future studies. I also contribute by (...) analyzing whether findings can be generalized across different cultures and whether status and power influence the whistleblowing process. My results reveal that the key difference between hypothetical and real decisions is not in variables that affect the process, but in effect sizes: Employees underestimate the effect of situational (retaliation) and organizational (compliance measures) variables in hypothetical compared to actual whistleblowing. Thus, reliance on intention research is not inherently problematic, when effect sizes are interpreted with caution. I also find that results are similar across countries and that status and power may not be decisive factors in whistleblowing. My findings should also be of interest to practitioners and policymakers, as they assist in designing effective whistleblowing systems and environments in organizations. (shrink)

Drawing on Butler’s theoretical background, research on the ethics of violence has focused on the importance of dominant society-wide schemes and norms in building individuals’ moral sense of violence. Studies explain how violence is normalized and made socially acceptable. In our analysis, we build on the pragmatic sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot that places particular importance on the fact that fairness must always be appreciated in situations and provide a “grammar” to describe competing normative approaches. Studying rugby, we show how (...) the different market players (consumers, broadcasters, journalists) justify the violence that occurs during rugby matches. We contribute to the literature on the ethics of violence by providing a pragmatic understanding of violence. We contribute to the economies of worth by investigating violence in a regime of justice and justification work in a reality test (in contrast to a test of worth). This understanding of violence enables us to offer some recommendations to encourage more responsible justification work about violence. (shrink)

Whistleblowers who need to decide whether or not they should report wrongdoing usually experience several anxieties and pressures before making a final decision. As whistleblowers continue to attract the attention of a wide range of stakeholders, more research is necessary to understand the effects of the perceived seriousness of threats and perceived seriousness of wrongdoing, as well as the effect of the rationalization process on the intention to blow the whistle. We make the original proposal that the rationalization process can (...) affect how PST and PSW trigger whistleblowing intentions. We tested our model using employees of tax offices operating in an emerging economy. We suggest several research findings, which can be summarized as follows: PST reduces individuals’ intention to blow the whistle. That is, the greater the threat perceived by whistleblowers, the higher the likelihood they will choose to remain silent; we find evidence of a positive relationship between PSW and whistleblowing intention, whereby PSW increases individuals’ intention to blow the whistle. That is, the more serious the wrongdoing perceived by potential whistleblowers, the more likely they are to choose to blow the whistle; and we find evidence of the important role of rationalization in moderating the relationships between PST, PSW, and whistleblowing intention. The implications of these findings for business ethics scholars, managers, and end-users interested in whistleblowing are also presented. (shrink)

Ethics and integrity should be intertwined within the concept of Responsible Research. Integrity Officers should also be Ethics Officers, enforcing compliance with rules and norms, but also raising awareness on the meaning of ethics in researchers’ daily work. Paul Ricoeur’s definition of Ethics – “the aim of living a good life with and for others in just institutions” (Ricoeur in Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press, 1994 ) –, points out the relational dimension of Ethics that matters to all (...) the stakeholders in scientific research. The dialogical interaction between Ethics and Integrity can help to prevent researchers from assuming self-regulation as the only possible path to be followed. In this paper, the challenges and the opportunities posed by this approach will be outlined and discussed, mainly, the challenges of building trust bottom up, while setting up restrictions to comply with rules and norms top down. Concerning the opportunities, the focus will be on making better science and building a solid network among the various stakeholders of the research system. (shrink)