When private internal investigators turn against the whistleblower
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355717730835 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Petter Gottschalk |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
When private internal investigators turn
2017, Vol. 19(4) 229–237
ª The Author(s) 2017
against the whistleblower: The case of
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Norwegian police
DOI: 10.1177/1461355717730835
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Petter Gottschalk
Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
The work of fraud examiners in private internal investigations is important to many auditing and law firms. They are hired
by public and private organizations when there are suspicions of misconduct and financial crime. Such suspicions are
sometimes disclosed by whistleblowers who attempt to disclose practices that they perceive as illegal, immoral or
illegitimate. This article presents a case from the Norwegian police in which whistleblowers expressed concerns about
overtime, use of private cars, and the procurement of equipment for personal use. The main whistleblower was also the
ombudsman within the organization, where he repeated his accusations and allegations so frequently that he became the
main subject of the private internal investigation. This study finds some support for the blame game hypothesis.
Keywords
Police management, internal investigation, whistleblowing, blame game, fraud examination
Submitted 07 May 2017, Revise received 21 Aug 2017, accepted 21 Aug 2017
Whistleblowers attempt to disclose information about prac-
purpose of this article is to test the blame game hypothesis
tices that they perceive as illegal, immoral or illegitimate
which suggests that fraud examiners may be hired to place
(Atwater, 2006; Bjørkelo et al., 2011; Vadera et al., 2009;
the blame for negative incidents wherever the client
Vadera and Aguilera, 2015). Private internal investigators
requires (Gottschalk, 2016).
are hired to reconstruct the past following suspicions of
misconduct, often reported by whistleblowers (Brooks and
Whistleblowing about deviant behaviour
Button, 2011; Green and Podgor, 2014; Miller, 2010).
Whistleblowers are supposed by be treated as sources of
Whistleblowers attempt to disclose information about prac-
information by internal investigators, and are meant to be
tices that they perceive as illegal, immoral or illegitimate.
protected against reprisals and revenge. Investigators
Fraud investigators reconstruct the past following suspi-
should never play the blame game (Gottschalk, 2016).
cions of misconduct and financial crime. Whistleblowers
However, in practice, this is sometimes very different.
are an important source of information for many fraud
As illustrated in this article, private internal investigators
investigators. In the following, the characteristics of whis-
sometimes turn against the whistleblower. The case study
tleblowers, their trustworthiness as information sources and
reported here is from the Norwegian police who have been
the quality of the information they disclose are discussed.
hit by several whistleblowing scandals, as a result of which
We emphasize the problems, symptoms and ailments
the main police officers’ union in Norway advised its mem-
faced by whistleblowers in a situation in which any
bers not to blow the whistle any more (Andersen, 2016).
This case study is important because the work of fraud
Corresponding author:
examiners in private internal investigations is growing
Petter Gottschalk, Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior,
without being subject to any regulation in most jurisdic-
BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveine 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway.
tions (Button and Gee, 2013; Schneider, 2006). The
Email: petter.gottschalk@bi.no
230
International Journal of Police Science & Management 19(4)
identified persons are considered innocent until proven
under the control of their employers, to persons or organi-
guilty (Bjørkelo et al., 2011). Because persons are neither
zations that may be able to effect action’.
prosecuted nor convicted, and may indeed be innocent, the
Vadera et al. (2009: 555) identified the following char-
quality of information from the whistleblower is proble-
acteristics of whistleblowers and whistleblowing:
matic. Rather than representing an example where the
whistleblower was right in the end, this case study
Federal whistleblowers were motivated by concern
presents a situation in which the whistleblower may have
for public interest, were high performers, reported
been wrong.
high levels of job security, job achievement, job
Suspicions of misconduct and crime in organizations
commitment and job satisfaction, and worked in
often arise when whistleblowers disclose information about
high-performing work groups and organizations.
potential wrongdoing (Atwater, 2006). Because miscon-
Anger at wrongful activities drove individuals to
duct and white-collar crime are difficult to detect and pro-
make internal reports to management. Retaliation
secute, whistleblowers are important sources of
by management shifted individuals’ focus away
information in subsequent fraud examinations and police
from helping their organizations or victims and
investigations (Vadera et al., 2009). Whistleblowers may
toward attaining retribution.
be able to provide forensic evidence in addition to witness
Whistleblowing was more likely when observers of
statements (Vadera and Aguilera, 2015).
wrongdoing held professional positions, had more
However, use of the whistleblower as a source of infor-
positive reactions to their work, had longer service,
mation in a fraud investigation is not without problems.
were recently recognized for good performance,
The trustworthiness of both the source (whistleblower) and
were male, were members of larger work groups,
the information (facts) has to be evaluated carefully by
and were employed by organizations perceived by
investigators before being included as pieces in an investi-
others to be responsive to complaints.
gative puzzle.
Whistleblowing was more frequent in the public sec-
The focus on organizational members who speak out
tor than in the private.
about perceived wrongdoing has increased in recent years.
Whistleblowing was strongly related to situational
Whistleblowing has gained recognition as an organiza-
variables with seriousness of the offense and suppor-
tional instrument of social control because it can terminate
tiveness of the organizational climate being the
wrongdoing and bring offenders to justice (Bjørkelo et al.,
strongest determinants.
2011).
Inclination to report a peer for theft was associated
Johnson (2005: 75) defines whistleblowing as:
with role responsibility, the interests of group mem-
bers, and procedural perceptions.
Whistleblowing is a distinct form of dissent consisting of four
elements: (1) the person acting must be a member or former
Zipparo (1999) identified two main factors that deter
member of the organization at issue; (2) his or her informa-
public officials from reporting corruption: (1) concern
tion must be about nontrivial wrongdoing in that organiza-
about not having enough proof, and (2) absence of legal
tion; (3) he or she must intend to expose the wrongdoing, and
protection from negative consequences.
(4) he or she must act in a way that makes the information
Miceli et al. (2009) suggest that employees can be
public.
encouraged to report wrongdoing both before and after
concerns are expressed. Before concerns are expressed,
Vadera et al. (2009: 554) give the following definition of
employees can be encouraged in their development of
whistleblowing:
moral identity and moral agency, in creating a tough anti-
Whistleblowing is the disclosure by organizational members
retaliation policy that permits the disciplining or dismissing
(former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices
of employees who retaliate against whistleblowers, and in
under the control of their employers, to persons or organiza-
disseminating the policy through the intranet, in orientation
tions that may be able to effect action.
materials and elsewhere. After concerns are expressed,
employees can be encouraged to focus on the wrongdoing
Atwater (2006) defines whistleblowing as an act by
alleged in the complaint and not on the complainant, to
which an individual reveals wrongdoing within an organi-
investigate reports fully and fairly, and to take swift action
zation to those in positions of authority or to the public,
when the complainant is well founded.
with the hope of rectifying the situation. Bjørkelo et al.
In a study of corruption in public procurement in the
(2011: 208) argue that the most widely applied definition
European Union, Wensink and Vet (2013) found that
in research is ‘the disclosure by organization members (for-
approximately 40% of fraudulent activities are detected
mer or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices
following a whistleblower alert. They recommend further
Gottschalk
231
investment in good functioning systems for whistle-
Police investigations differ from private ones because
blowers, including proper protection....
To continue reading
Request your trial