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)

In Britain, Employment Tribunals (ET) adjudicate on whistleblowing legislation. They do so with the overriding aim to adjudicate cases fairly and justly, by hearing parties on an equal footing. This paper presents research questioning this rule-of-law assumption vis-a-vis power imbalances that relate to whistleblowing. Using multinomial logistic regression analysis, we analyse all cases at ET in England and Wales between 2015 and 2018, that included a whistleblowing claim and that went to preliminary hearing or beyond. We find that several variables (...) have an effect on the relative representational strength (RRS) at ET, but not on the outcome of the whistleblowing claim. However, whistleblowing claims brought in combination of discrimination claims (41%) have lower RRS and less favourable outcomes for the whistleblowing claim. (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)