Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Birth of an Action Repertoire: On the Origins of the Concept of Whistleblowing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The standard account in whistleblowing research fixes the birth of the whistleblowing concept in the early 1970s. Surprisingly, there are no efforts to discuss why whistleblowing emerged as a distinct new action repertoire at this particular moment in time. Whistleblowing is a historical latecomer to an ethos of field transgression, which includes well-established forms of intervention such as watchdog journalism and political activism. Whistleblowing has strong affinities with these practices, but also holds its own unique place in ethics and democracy. We can only appreciate these qualities in full if we trace the historical origins of the concept. The article argues that the concept of whistleblowing crystallized at the intersection of a set of trends that picked up speed in the 1960s–1970s: individualization, changing perceptions of loyalty, declines in authority trust, new participation patterns, and a growing awareness of the dangers and complexities in human production and organization. This is not simply an exercise in disciplinary history. Whistleblowing is on the rise in these years, just as digitalization creates a whole new range of opportunities for disclosure. It takes an increasingly steady hand to isolate the distinct ethical-democratic contribution of whistleblowers within this complex reality. To achieve this, we need to be able to place whistleblowing on a broader sociological and historical map.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As the title suggests the Nader et al. book was based on the proceedings from a Conference on Professional Responsibility held on 30 January 1971.

  2. At the time, the concept was either split in two words or hyphenated. The exact origins of the whistleblower metaphor are unclear. The term was originally (in the late 1800s and early 1900s) associated with policemen making use of whistles, and later with refereeing in sports. During the 1960s the metaphor began to acquire its modern meaning as it was increasingly employed to denote individual actions that exposed something. This use of the metaphor was not necessarily positive. It was not until the volumes by Peters and Branch (1972) and Nader et al. (1972) that it acquired a distinct positive valuation as something desirable and important for the democratic process (Mueller, 2019, pp. 82–83).

  3. The term “action repertoire” is inspired by Charles Tilly’s (1995) notion of a “repertoire of contention”. In his historical studies on social movements, Tilly developed the repertoire concept to point to the known and established means that groups and individuals could employ to voice protests against authorities in a given historical and geographical setting. While Tilly used the notion to refer to the entire subset of available protest tactics and methods, my understanding of an “action repertoire” works at a lower level of generality as a I refer to whistleblowing as a distinct repertoire. The repertoire concept is nonetheless fruitful for two reasons. First, it indicates that there are in fact several tactics available within the overall umbrella of whistleblowing, the most crucial distinction perhaps being the one between internal and external whistleblowing (Dworkin and Baucus, 1998). Second, the term repertoire also carries with it a historical and sociological sensitivity as it suggests how whistleblowing is just one way of making claims about injustice and wrongdoing in society. As such, it prompts us to theorize differences and affinities between the various repertoires that are available for actors in democratic societies.

  4. Observers often differentiate between whistleblowing in private corporations and public institutions and organizations. While the article’s discussions tend to emphasize instances of whistleblowing related to, in particular, wrongdoing by the United States government or other public institutions such as the US military, I recognize that the period of the 1960s and 1970s that gave birth and shape to the concept of whistleblowing was also a period of numerous scandals involving business fraud in the United States (Balleisen, 2017; Pope & Lee, 2013). This dimension is especially central in the Nader et al. (1972) volume, whereas the book by Peters and Branch (1972) focuses mainly on wrongdoing related to US authorities.

  5. Although not discussed at length by Peters and Branch (1972) or Nader et al. (1972), the exposure of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968 constitutes an early, important example of whistleblowing from the same period. The story was broken in 1969 by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, but only after Ronald Ridenhour, a GI on active duty in Vietnam, had compiled eyewitness reports and sent a letter to US authorities and congressmen detailing the massacre (Gray & Martin, 2008).

  6. Peters and Branch (1972, p. 16) were highly aware of Nader’s efforts, including his work on whistleblowing.

  7. The emphasis on public interest is written into many of the legal frameworks that support whistleblowing, precisely to draw boundaries between whistleblowing and other forms of grievances and field transgression. The United Kingdom’s policy (United Kingdom Government, n.d.), for example, clarifies that “the wrongdoing you disclose must be in the public interest. This means it must affect others, for example the general public.” Later in the definition, it follows that “personal grievances (for example bullying, harassment, discrimination) are not covered by whistleblowing law, unless your particular case is in the public interest.” A similar note is struck in the United States’ Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which sets the legal framework for the case of the Ukraine whistleblower whose disclosures led to the impeachment of United States President, Donald Trump. The document (Congressional Research Service, 2019) states that legitimate whistleblowing must be motivated by an “urgent concern”, i.e. “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information”, but it also stipulates that it “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” In other words, for whistleblowing to merit protection the underlying motivation must concern more than the idiosyncratic grievances of particular individuals.

  8. In the United States, the 1970s ended with a nuclear disaster that profoundly strengthened this interpretation. The Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 exposed a range of significant and systematic security breaches, which led to a massive overhaul of the US nuclear industry (Zaretsky, 2018).

  9. In recent work, Beck (e.g. 2005) has expanded his observations on risk and uncertainty to include issues such as biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, financial flows, etc.

References

  • Alexander, J., & Jacobs, R. (1998). Mass communication, ritual, and civil society. In T. Liebes & J. Curran (Eds.), Media, ritual, and identity (pp. 23–41). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, C. F. (2002). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoyma, M., & Hudson, M. J. (2013). Minamata as negative heritage: Implications for Fukushima. Pacific Geographies, 40, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, T. G. (2016). Redefreiheit: Prinzipien für eine vernetzte Welt. Carl Hanser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balleisen, E. J. (2017). Fraud: An American History from Barnum to Madoff. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1986/1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

  • Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 1–55). Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2005). Power in the global age: A new global political economy. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørkelo, B., & Bye, H. H. (2014). On the appropriateness of research design: Intended and actual whistleblowing. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 133–153). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørkelo, B., Einarsen, S., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2010). Predicting proactive behavior at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, S. (1982). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. J., Lewis, D., Moberly, R., & Vandekerckhove, W. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook on whistleblowing research. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19–46). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service. (2019). Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf. Accessed 19 February, 2020.

  • Contu, A. (2014). Rationality and relationality in the process of whistleblowing: Recasting whistleblowing through readings of antigone. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(4), 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deHaven-Smith, L. (2011). Myth and reality of whistleblower protections: Official behavior at the top. Public Integrity, 13(3), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council, at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L1937&rid=4. Accessed 28 June, 2020.

  • Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, É. (1893/2013). The division of labor in society. Palgrave.

  • Dworkin, T. M., & Baucus M. S. (1998). Internal vs. external whistleblowers: A comparison of whistleblowing processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1281–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2007). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elliston, F. A. (1982). Civil disobedience and whistleblowing: A comparative appraisal of two forms of dissent. Journal of Business Ethics, 1, 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasterling, B., & Lewis, D. (2014). Leaks, legislation and freedom of speech: How can the law effectively promote public-interest whistleblowing? International Labor Review, 153(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldstein, M. (2006). A muckraking model: Investigative reporting cycles in American history. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, H. G., & Saunders, C. B. (1975). Blowing the whistle: The limits of organizational obedience. Academy of management proceedings (pp. 345–347), August.

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless speech. Semiotexte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition, and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 56–109). Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, C. (2002). Whistle blowers: Saints of secular culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(4), 391–99, 394.

  • Gray, T., & Martin, B. (2008). My Lai: The struggle over outrage. Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), 90–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421–461). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works—And why. Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, J. (2011). Monitory democracy: The secret history of democracy since 1945. In B. Isakhan & S. Stockwell (Eds.), The secret history of democracy (pp. 204–218). Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, J. (2018). Power and humility: The future of monitory democracy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, K. (2019). Whistleblowing: Toward a new theory. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koselleck, R. (1979). Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. (2014). Against obedience: Hannah Arendt’s overlooked challenge to social-psychological explanations of mass atrocity. Theory & Psychology, 24(5), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Kleiner, B. (2011). Whistleblower retaliation in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 40(4), 341–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., & Xiao, X. (2018). Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 41, 22–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., Pittroff, E., & Turner, M. (2020). Is a uniform approach to whistle-blowing regulation effective? Evidence from the United States and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindauer, M. J. (1975). Government employee disclosures of agency wrongdoing: Protecting the right to blow the whistle. University of Chicago Law Review, 42(3), 530–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1990). Political theory in the welfare state. De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1997). Limits of steering. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1980). The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Information (international Social Science Council), 19(2), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. S., & Tarrow, S. (1998). A movement society: Contentious politics for the new century. In D. S. Meyer & S. Tarrow (Eds.), The social movement society: Contentious politics for the new century. Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, T. (2019). Crisis of conscience: Whistleblowing in an age of fraud. Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at any speed. Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader, R., Petkas, P. J., & Blackwell, K. (Eds.). (1972). Whistleblowing: The report on the conference of professional responsibility. Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, T. (2021). The whistleblower hero in cinematic dramatization. The Sociological Review, 69(2), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., Bjørkelo, B., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2020). External whistleblowers’ experiences of workplace bullying by superiors and colleagues. Journal of Business Ethics, 161, 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmerlee, M. A., Near, J. P., & Jensen, T. C. (1982). Correlates of whistle-blowers perceptions of organizational retaliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrucci, R., Anderson, R. M., Schendel, D. E., & Trachtman, L. E. (1980). Whistleblowing: Professionals’ resistance to organizational authority. Social Problems, 28(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. (1998). Indecent exposures: Theorizing whistleblowing. Organization Studies, 19(2), 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, C., & Branch, T. (1972). Blowing the whistle: Dissent in the public interest. Washington Monthly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, K. R., & Lee, C.-C. (2013). Could the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 be helpful in reforming corporate America? An investigation on financial bounties and whistle-blowing behaviors in the private sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 597–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-democracy: Politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J. (2013). The fate of whistleblowers in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 886–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to control information about organization corruption. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, M. (2015). The rise of the right to know: Politics and the culture of transparency, 1945–1975. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, D., & Harutyunyan, K. (2015). Combatting corruption: The development of whistleblowing laws in the United States, Europe and Armenia. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanger, A. (2019). Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. B. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1995). Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom Government. n.d. Whistleblowing for employees. https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing. Accessed 9 March, 2020.

  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2019). 2019 Annual Report to Congress: Whistleblower Program. https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-2019-annual%20report-whistleblower%20program.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020.

  • Vandekerckhove, W. (2006). Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility: A global assessment. Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerckhove, W., & Phillips, A. (2019). Whistleblowing as a protracted process: A study of UK whistleblower journeys. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerckhove, W., Uys, T., Rehg, M. T., & Brown, A. J. (2014). Understandings of whistleblowing: Dilemmas of societal culture. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 37–70). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, K. D. (1975). Your employees’ right to blow the whistle. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanberg, C. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, L. L., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 669–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, D. (1979). Bureaucratic opposition: Challenging abuses at the workplace. Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiskopf, R., & Willmott, H. (2013). Ethics as critical practice: The ‘Pentagon Papers’, deciding responsibly, truth-telling, and the unsettling of organizational morality. Organization Studies, 34(4), 469–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiskopf, R., & Tobias-Miersch, Y. (2016). Whistleblowing, parrhesia and the contestation of truth in the workplace. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1621–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiskopf, R., Loacker, B., & Heinrichs, R. (2019). The ethico-politics of whistleblowing: Mediated truth-telling in digital cultures. Ephemera, 19(4), 671–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaretsky, N. (2018). Radiation nation: Three Mile Island and the political transformation of the 1970s. Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Thomas Olesen

Authors
  1. Thomas Olesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Olesen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olesen, T. The Birth of an Action Repertoire: On the Origins of the Concept of Whistleblowing. J Bus Ethics 179, 13–24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04868-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04868-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation