Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 315–326 | Cite as

The Implications of an Organization's Structure on Whistleblowing

  • Granville KingIII


Previous studies investigating reports of corporate or individual wrongdoing have failed to examine the effects of an organization's structure upon the decision to blow the whistle. This paper suggests that an organization's structure may perform a significant role in the decision to report versus not report an observed wrongdoing. Five organizational structures (that is, centralized, matrix, horizontal, hybrid, and divisional) were examined in regards to their effectiveness in encouraging or discouraging observers of unethical conduct channels for reporting such behavior. Discussion and implications are provided.


Economic Growth Significant Role Unethical Conduct Conduct Channel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, P. H. and R. T. Herschel: 1996, Organizational Communication: Empowerment in a Technological Society (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, T.: 1992, 'A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship Between Selected Organizational Characteristics and External Whistleblowing by Employees' Journal Of Business Ethics 11, 949–959.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, T., D. S. Cochran and G. S. Taylor: 1993, 'The Internal Disclosure Policies of Private-Sector Employers: An Internal Look at Their Relationship to Employee Whistleblowing' Journal of Business Ethics 12, 127–136.Google Scholar
  4. Bok, S.: 1995, 'Whistleblowing And Leaks' in S. Corman, S. P. Banks, C. R. Bantz and M. E. Mayer (eds.), Foundations of Organizational Communication: A Reader (Longman Publishers, White Plains), pp. 258–271.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, L. R.: 1989, 'Matrix Management in Hospitals: Testing Theories of Matrix Structure and Development' Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 349–368.Google Scholar
  6. Daft, R. L.: 1989, Organizational Theory and Design, 3rd ed. (West Publishing Co., St. Paul).Google Scholar
  7. Daft, R. L.: 1995, Organizational Theory and Design, 5th ed. (West Publishing Co., St. Paul).Google Scholar
  8. Daft, R. L.: 1998, Organizational Theory and Design, 6th ed. (South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati).Google Scholar
  9. Dalton, D. R., W. D. Tudor, M. J. Spendolini, G. J. Fielding and L. W. Porter: 1980, 'Organizational Structure and Performance: A Critical Review' Academy of Management Review 5, 49–64.Google Scholar
  10. Daniels, T. D., B. K. Spiker and M. J. Papa: 1997, (Brown and Benchmark, Madison).Google Scholar
  11. Elliston, F., J. Keenan, P. Lockhart and J. van Schaick: 1985, Whistleblowing Research: Methodological and Moral Issues (Praeger, New York).Google Scholar
  12. Farrell, D. and J. C. Petersen: 1982, 'Patterns of Political Behavior in Organizations' Academy of Management Review 7, 402–412.Google Scholar
  13. Ferguson, L. J. and J. P. Near: 1989, Whistleblowing in The Lab, unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, R. C. and W. A. Randolph: 1992, 'Cross-Functional Structures: A Review and Integration of Matrix Organization and Project Management' Journal of Management 18, 267–294.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, R. W. and G. Moorhead: 1986, Organizational Behavior (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  16. Griffin, R. W.: 1996, Management (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  17. King, G.: 1994, An Interpersonal Analysis of Whistleblowing, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  18. Larson, E. W. and D. H. Gobeli: 1987, 'Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights' California Management Review 29, 126–138.Google Scholar
  19. Lentz, S. S.: 1996, 'Hybrid Organization Structures: A Path to Cost Savings and Customer Responsiveness' Human Resource Management 35, 453–469.Google Scholar
  20. Miceli, M. P. and J. P. Near: 1994, 'Whistleblowing: Reaping the Benefits' Academy of Management Review 8, 65–72.Google Scholar
  21. Miceli, M. P. and J. P. Near: 1992, Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational & Legal Implications for Companies and Employees (Lexington Book, New York).Google Scholar
  22. Miceli, M. P., J. P. Near and C. R. Schwenk: 1991, 'Who Blows the Whistle and Why?' Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45, 113–130.Google Scholar
  23. Miceli, M. P. and J. P. Near: 1984, 'The Relationship Among Beliefs, Organizational Position, and Whistleblowing Status: A Discriminant Analysis' Academy of Management Journal 27, 687–705.Google Scholar
  24. Mintzberg, H.: 1981, 'Organization Design: Fashion or Fit?' Harvard Business Review 59, 103–116.Google Scholar
  25. Near, J. P. and M. P. Miceli: 1985, 'Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistleblowing' Journal Of Business Ethics 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. O'Hair, D., G. W. Friedrich and L. D. Shaver: 1995, Strategic Communication in Business and the Professions (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  27. Organ, D. W. and T. Bateman: 1986, Organizational Behavior (Business Publication Inc., Plano, Texas).Google Scholar
  28. Stewart, L. P.: 1990, 'Whistleblowing: Implications for Organizational Communication' in S. D. Ferguson and S. Ferguson (eds.), Organizational Communication (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick), pp. 303–316.Google Scholar
  29. Tosi, H. L., J. R. Rizzo and S. J. Carroll: 1994, Managing Organizational Behavior (Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  30. Westin, A. F.: 1981, Whistleblowing! Loyalty And Dissent in the Corporation (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Granville KingIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityNew AlbanyU.S.A.; E-mail

Personalised recommendations