Retaliatory effect on whistle blowing intentions: a study of Indian employees

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2019-0170
Pages1221-1237
Published date05 June 2020
Date05 June 2020
AuthorSunaina Kanojia,Shikha Sachdeva,Jai Prakash Sharma
Subject MatterFinancial risk/company failure,Financial crime
Retaliatory ef‌fect on whistle
blowing intentions: a study of
Indian employees
Sunaina Kanojia and Shikha Sachdeva
Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Business Studies,
University of Delhi, New Delhi, India, and
Jai Prakash Sharma
Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Business Studies,
Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose This paper attempts to f‌ind the essenceof whistleblowing in organizational structures,to ref‌lect
on whistleblowing mechanism and the perception of whistleblowing in the working class of a country.
Whistleblowingis exhibited as one of the quintessential elements of corporate governanceto prevent or detect
inundating corporate frauds.This study examines the whistleblowing intentions and its precursors withthe
knowledgeof repercussions, in context of Indian employees.
Design/methodology/approach Primary data has been analysed herein using a structured
questionnaire from 396 Indian employees of public and private sector companies of India using, multiple
regressionanalysis.
Findings It provides evidence that personal factors like organizational commitment, locus of control
impact whistleblowing intentionsvary by the type of fraud the employee encounters. The study presentsa
case for variation of considerable extent in non-f‌inancial fraud and f‌inancial fraud. Further, the kind of
organization the employee is working in is an essential antecedent for whistleblowing behaviour of an
employee. It highlights higher the perceived power or status held by the wrongdoer; higher would be an
employeesintentions to blow the whistle against him.
Practical implications It would help managers in developingan environment which would encourage
the employees by creating a self-check mechanism in the organization for improved conduct and better
corporate governance.The shreds of evidence show that locus of control playsa vital role in moderating the
impact of otherantecedents on whistleblowing intentions of the employees.
Originality/value Organizations expectationfrom the employees to blow the whistle against wrong doing
also makes the organization responsible for protecting the employee from the retaliation, which could follow after
the act of whistleblowing. Also, prompts forimbibing ethical conduct throughout the organizational hierarchy.
Keywords Whistleblowing intentions, Organizational climate, Locus of control, Commitment,
Severity of fraud, Retaliation
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
One perspective on whistleblowingdef‌ines it as:
[...] the disclosure by organizational members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or
illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be
able to ef‌fect action (Near and Miceli, 1985).
Another study justif‌ies whistleblowing as, raising concern about malpractice within an
organization or through an independent structure associated with it(Drew, 2003) [1]. Past
Ef‌fect on
whistle
blowing
intentions
1221
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.27 No. 4, 2020
pp. 1221-1237
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-12-2019-0170
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm
studies on whistleblowinghave found conceptual differences amongst the factors relatedto
the wrongdoer, the whistleblower, the wrongdoing and the situation in which the act of
whistleblowing has taken place (Mesmur-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Also, the
research on whistleblowingis more on intended behaviour rather than the actual practiceof
whistleblowers because of several reasons like the diff‌iculty of exploration of unethical
conducts in organizations (Chiu, 2003), breaching the conf‌identiality and anonymity of
actual whistleblowers of the organization by making an effort to gather data from them
(Sims and Keenan, 1998), and identifyingthe real whistleblowers.
The employer can fruitfully stimulate the intention to blow the whistle on corporate
wrongdoing by developing such anorganizational climate, as well as by the government of
the country by having imperative laws and statutes favouring the whistleblowers.
Moreover, whistleblowing intentions are affected by the kind of wrongdoing and its
severity. Additionally, demographic factors also play a vital role in impacting the
whistleblowing intentions of the potential whistleblowers. Also, it is pertinent that the
framework of whistleblower protection mechanisms needs to protect the naïve and law-
abiding corporations. The corporations also require an immunity against hoax calls or
planted fake alarms to savethe organizations time, cost and goodwill.
From the perspective of whistleblowingintentions of an employee of the organization, an
attempt has been made in this researchpaper to analyse various characteristic features that
would become a precursor for an employees intention to blow or not to blow the whistle
against frauds of f‌inancialnature and non-f‌inancial nature.
2. Whistleblowing intentions
Past empirical studies have observed organizational factors, circumstantial or situational
factors, individual/personalcharacteristics and demographic factorsplay an essential role in
encouraging or discouraging the intention to blow or not to blow the whistle (Near and
Miceli, 1990;Simsand Keenan, 1998;Miceli and Near, 1984).
2.1 Organizational Factors
The present study has considered organizational factors like organizational climate
(Rothschild and Miethe, 1999;Ahmad, 2011;Said et al., 2017;Zhang et al.,2009), type of
organization (Miceli and Near, 2013;Massengill and Petersen, 1989;Kohn and Kohn, 1986;
Hames, 1988 cited in Barnett et al.,1993) and presence of the hotline in the organization
(Camerer, 2007;Auriacombe,2007;Barker and Dawood, 2004;Ravishankar, 2002;Perks and
Smith, 2007;Hooks,1994;Elliston, 1985;Walter, 1995;Winf‌ield, 1994).
2.2 Situational factors
Research regarding circumstantial or situational factors taken up for this study includes
precursors like perceivedseverity of fraud/wrongdoing (Miethe and Rothschild, 1994;Miceli
and Near, 1985;Jones, 1991;Miceli et al., 1991b;Schultz et al.,1993) and perceived power/
status held by the wrongdoer (Miceli etal., 1999;Near et al., 1993;Brief and Motowidlo, 1986;
Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003;Miceli and Near, 1994;Miceli et al., 1991b;Cortina and Magley,
2003). Also, another implicitvariable undertaken in this study is the retaliatory effect which
has also been expounded by Alexander (2005), US Merit Systems Protection Board
[USMSPB] (1984), Near and Miceli (1987),Parmerlee et al. (1982),Mesmur-Magnus and
Viswesvaran (2005),Miceli and Near (2002),Near and Miceli (1986),Miceli and Near (1994),
Near and Miceli (1987) and Casal and Zalkind(1995).
JFC
27,4
1222

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT