To Blow or Not to Blow the Whistle: The Role of Rationalization in the Perceived Seriousness of Threats and Wrongdoing

Abstract

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 (PST) and perceived seriousness of wrongdoing (PSW), 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: (i) 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; (ii) 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 (iii) 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. ACFE. (2018). Report to the nations: 2018 global study on occupational fraud and abuse. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

  2. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduliader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers and the narrative of ethics. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32(3), 402–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alleyne, P., Charles-Soverall, W., Broome, T., & Pierce, A. (2017). Perceptions, predictors and consequences of whistleblowing among accounting employees in Barbados. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(2), 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alleyne, P., Hudaib, M., & Haniffa, R. (2018). The moderating role of perceived organisational support in breaking the silence of public accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 509–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Andon, P., Free, C., Jidin, R., Monroe, G. S., & Turner, M. J. (2018). The impact of financial incentives and perceptions of seriousness on whistleblowing intention. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ansari, A., Jedidi, K., & Jagpal, H. S. (2000). A hierarchical bayesian methodology for treating heterogeneity in structural equation models. Marketing Science, 19(4), 328–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Apaza, C. R., & Chang, Y. (Eds.). (2017). Whistleblowing in the world: Government policy, mass media and the law. Palgrave: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berger, L., Perreault, S., & Wainberg, J. (2017). Hijacking the moral imperative: How financial incentives can discourage whistleblower reporting. Auditing, 36(3), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, J. O., Hays, J., & Stuebs, M. T. (2016). Modeling accountant whistleblowing intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior and the fraud triangle. Accounting & the Public Interest, 16(1), 28–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cassematis, P. G., & Wortley, R. (2013). Prediction of whistleblowing or non-reporting observation: The role of personal and situational factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 615–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, C.-P., & Lai, C.-T. (2014). To blow or not to blow the whistle: The effects of potential harm, social pressure and organisational commitment on whistleblowing intention and behaviour. Business Ethics, 23(3), 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Culiberg, B., & Mihelič, K. K. (2017). The evolution of whistleblowing studies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 787–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Erkmen, T., Caliskan, A. O., & Esen, E. (2014). An empirical research about whistleblowing behavior in accounting context. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(2), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2013). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gao, J., Greenberg, R., & Wong-On-Wing, B. (2015). Whistleblowing intentions of lower-level employees: The effect of reporting channel, bystanders, and wrongdoer power status. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(1), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guthrie, C. P., & Taylor, E. Z. (2017). Whistleblowing on fraud for pay: Can I trust you? Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 2(1), A1–A19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hampton, C. (2015). Estimating and reporting structural equation models with behavioral accounting data. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Henik, E. (2015). Understanding whistle-blowing: A set-theoretic approach. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 442–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hiebl, M. R. W., & Richter, J. F. (2018). Response rates in management accounting survey research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(2), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Keil, M., Park, E. H., & Ramesh, B. (2018). Violations of health information privacy: The role of attributions and anticipated regret in shaping whistleblowing intentions. Information Systems Journal, 28(5), 818–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kenny, K., Fotaki, M., & Scriver, S. (2018). Mental heath as a weapon: Whistleblower retaliation and normative violence. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3868-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ketokivi, M., & McIntosh, C. N. (2017). Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Operations Management, 52, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kock, N. (2017). Common methods bias: A full collinearity assessment method for PLS-SEM. In H. Latan & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications. Springer International: Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Latan, H. (2018). PLS path modeling in hospitality and tourism research: The golden age and days of future past. In F. Ali, S. M. Rasoolimanesh, & C. Cobanoglu (Eds.), Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research (pp. 53–83). Emerald: Bingley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., de Sousa, Lopes, & Jabbour, A. B. (2018a). ‘Whistleblowing triangle’: Framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3862-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., de Sousa, Lopes, & Jabbour, A. B. (2019). Ethical awareness, ethical judgment and whistleblowing: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Latan, H., & Noonan, R. (Eds.). (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications. Cham: Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Latan, H., Ringle, C. M., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2018b). Whistleblowing intentions among public accountants in Indonesia: Testing for the moderation effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 497–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Liyanarachchi, G. A., & Newdick, C. (2009). The impact of moral reasoning and retaliation on whistle-blowing: New Zealand evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014a). The silent samaritan syndrome: Why the whistle remains unblown. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014b). Whistle while you work: Whistleblowing in the presence of competing incentives and pressures. Accounting Perspectives, 13(4), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Malhotra, N. K., Schaller, T. K., & Patil, A. (2017). Common method variance in advertising research: When to be concerned and how to control for it. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Maroun, W., & Atkins, J. (2014). Whistle-blowing by external auditors in South Africa: Enclosure, efficient bodies and disciplinary power. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(5), 834–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maroun, W., & Solomon, J. (2014). Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy forthe South African Audit Profession? Accounting Forum, 38(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Martin, B. (2014). Research that whistleblowers want – and what they need. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 497–521). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. Miceli, M. P. (2013). An international comparison of the incidence of public sector whistle-blowing and the prediction of retaliation: Australia, Norway, and the US. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Standing up or standing by: What predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing? Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 24, 95–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Murphy, P. R. (2012). Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4), 242–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Murphy, P. R., & Free, C. (2016). Broadening the fraud triangle: Instrumental climate and fraud. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nayır, D. Z., Rehg, M. T., & Asa, Y. (2018). Influence of ethical position on whistleblowing behaviour: Do preferred channels in private and public sectors differ? Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Near, J. P., Dworkin, T. M., & Miceli, M. P. (1993). Explaining the whistle-blowing process: Suggestions from power theory and justice theory. Organization Science, 4(3), 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistleblowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679–708.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2011). Integrating models of whistle-blowing and wrongdoing: A proposal for a new research agenda. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 302–323). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2016). After the wrongdoing: What managers should know about whistleblowing. Business Horizons, 59, 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., Scotter, J. R. V., & Miceli, M. P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistle-blowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Noonan, R., & Wold, H. (1986). Partial least squares path analysis. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 3769–3775). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Park, H., Bjørkelo, B., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2018a). External whistleblowers’ experiences of workplace bullying by superiors and colleagues. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3936-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Park, H., Blenkinsopp, J., Oktem, M. K., & Omurgonulsen, U. (2008). Cultural orientation and attitudes toward different forms of whistleblowing: A comparison of South Korea, Turkey, and the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 929–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Park, H., & Lewis, D. (2018). The negative health effects of external whistleblowing: A study of some key factors. The Social Science Journal, 55, 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Park, H., Vandekerckhove, W., Lee, J., & Jeong, J. (2018b). Laddered motivations of external whistleblowers: The truth about attributes, consequences, and values. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4082-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Patel, C. (2003). Some cross-cultural evidence on whistle-blowing as an internal control mechanism. Journal of International Accounting Research, 2(1), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(4), 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rachagan, S., & Kuppusamy, K. (2013). Encouraging whistle blowing to improve corporate governance? A Malaysian initiative. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Reckers-Sauciuc, A. K., & Lowe, D. J. (2010). The influence of dispositional affect on whistle-blowing. Advances in Accounting, 26(2), 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Scotter, J. R. V. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relationships. Organization Science, 19(2), 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. New York: Spinger.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  78. Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Seifert, D. L., Stammerjohan, W. W., & Martin, R. B. (2014). Trust, organizational justice, and whistleblowing: A research note. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and intrapersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Smaili, N., & Arroyo, P. (2019). Categorization of whistleblowers using the whistleblowing triangle. Joumal of Business Ethics, 157, 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Soni, F., Maroun, W., & Padia, N. (2015). Perceptions of justice as a catalyst for whistle-blowing by trainee auditors in South Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(1), 118–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Spekle, R. F., & Widener, S. K. (2018). Challenging issues in survey research: Discussion and suggestions. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(2), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Taylor, E. Z., & Curtis, M. B. (2010). An examination of the layers of workplace influences in ethical judgments: Whistleblowing likelihood and perseverance in public accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Trongmateerut, P., & Sweeney, J. T. (2013). The influence of subjective norms on whistle-blowing: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vandekerckhove, W. (2006). Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility: A global assessment. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Vaughn, R. G. (2012). The successes and failures of whistleblower laws. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  89. Wainberg, J., & Perreault, S. (2016). Whistleblowing in audit firms: Do explicit protections from retaliation activate implicit threats of reprisal? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Wilde, J. H. (2017). The deterrent effect of employee whistleblowing on firms’ financial misreporting and tax aggressiveness. The Accounting Review, 92(5), 247–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Wold, H. (1982). Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Vol. 2, pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Young, R. F. (2017). Blowing the whistle: Individual persuasion under perceived threat of retaliation. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Steven Dellaportas (section editor), three exceptional reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on prior versions of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hengky Latan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Scenario

Mark has worked as an employee in one of the tax service offices (KPP Pratama) in Indonesia for 5 years, holding the position of account representative (AR). His salary is quite satisfying. He also has a good relationship with his colleagues and feels part of a team. Everything was going well, until 1 day he felt torn between conflicting emotions. In his last assignment, related to monitoring taxpayer compliance, he found evidence of bribery cases involving his supervisor conspiring with taxpayers to carry out tax avoidance. The amount of money involved was significant. Mark realized that this fraud was very serious and brought potential harm in terms of causing significant losses to the government and society at large. In addition, he also found evidence of a number of cases of extortion against other taxpayers. This caused him to be unable to sleep for several nights.

Following these discoveries, Mark considered reporting these findings to the general director of taxes or to the relevant authorities through available reporting mechanisms. However, he considered that by revealing this misconduct, there was an inherent risk that might haunt him in the future. If he wanted to pursue this case, there would be a risk of being laid off of work, being treated unfairly, verbal harassment and intimidation, or poor performance appraisal. Mark wanted to forget this case, but he reasoned that the truth must be revealed, even though it is difficult. However, with his current qualifications, he would not find another salaried position in the current economic climate. After thinking about this for several days, Mark decided to postpone making a decision about the case until he found the right solution.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. To Blow or Not to Blow the Whistle: The Role of Rationalization in the Perceived Seriousness of Threats and Wrongdoing. J Bus Ethics 169, 517–535 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04287-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business ethics
  • Perceived seriousness of threats
  • Perceived seriousness of wrongdoing
  • Rationalization
  • Whistleblowing intentions