Whistle-blowing intentions and behaviour in Ugandan public procurement
| Published date | 04 June 2018 |
| Date | 04 June 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-06-2018-008 |
| Pages | 111-130 |
| Author | Brenda Tumuramye,Joseph Mpeera Ntayi,Moses Muhwezi |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management,Government,Economics,Public finance/economics,Taxation/public revenue |
Whistle-blowing intentions
and behaviour in Ugandan
public procurement
Brenda Tumuramye,Joseph Mpeera Ntayi and Moses Muhwezi
Department of Procurement and Supply Chain Management,
Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to investigate the whistle-blowing behaviour in Ugandan publicprocurement
by using whistle-blowing supporting institutions, procuringand disposing entity (PDE) ethical climate and
whistle-blowingexpectancy.
Design/methodology/approach –A quantitative cross-sectionalsurvey was conducted using a sample
of 118 drawn from a population of 179 central government (PDEs). Data were collected using self-
administered questionnaires,resulting in 222 usable questionnaires from 70 PDEs, representing a response
rate of 62.71 per cent.
Findings –The results revealthat the whistle-blowing supporting institutionsand PDE ethical climate are
significant predictors of whistle-blowing intentions and behaviour, accounting for 30.2 per cent of the
variance. The authors therefore recommend that whistle-blowing supporting institutions, like the Whistle
Blowers Protection Act, should be reviewed and strengthened to promote whistle-blowing intentions and
behaviour. Thiscould be done through reviewing the Act to make it enforceable, giving powerto the whistle-
blowers, strengthening policies,developing safeguards against retaliation by making every chief executive
officer in the public sector accountable,increasing whistle-blowing incentivesand providing whistle-blowing
hotlines for anonymous whistle-blowers. PDEs should also create conduciveethical climates that encourage
people to voice their concerns internallyor externally, and ethical committees should be established within
PDEs and other bodies such as the Inspector General of Government for ensuring that whistle-blowing
systems are in place and promoted. There is a need to increase whistle-blowing expectancy through the
effectivehandling of reported cases to their conclusion and theuse of role models.
Keyword Whistle blowing
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employees are an important source for detecting wrongdoing in organizations (Kaptein,
2009). According to KPMG (2007), 25 per cent of the frauds in organizations in Europe, the
Middle East and Africa were brought forward by employees. Park et al. (2008), in their
attempt to explain whistle-blowing behaviour, proposed a typology of whistle-blowing
based on three dimensions; formallyor informally, internally or externally and identified or
anonymously. Blowing the whistle formally entails employees reporting wrongdoing
through formal organizational protocols or communication channels, while whistle-blowing
informally comes out when the whistle-blower personally informssomeone he/she trusts or
close associates about the wrongdoing. Internal whistle-blowing refers to reporting
wrongdoing to a supervisor or someone else within the organization who can correct the
wrongdoing, while external means reporting a wrongdoing to outside parties believed to
have the power to correct it. Identified whistle-blowing necessitates providing identity,
while anonymous whistle-blowing involves failing to provide identification about the
Whistle-
blowing
intentions and
behaviour
111
Journalof Public Procurement
Vol.18 No. 2, 2018
pp. 111-130
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1535-0118
DOI 10.1108/JOPP-06-2018-008
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1535-0118.htm
whistle-blower. Irrespective of the method used to whistle blow, research agrees that
whistle-blowingis an effective tool for preventing wrongdoing in organizations.
Given the critical importance of employees in reporting wrongdoing, it is important to
create mechanisms for whistle-blowing within organizations. In fact, Callahan et al. (2002,
p. 195) reveal that failures to create opportunities for internal reporting of wrongdoing
“foolishly invite catastrophes”. Organizations with well-developed anonymous reporting
systems develop a robust and reliable monitoring and control system that forces
wrongdoers to refrain from wrongdoing. Despite this evidence, most employees in public
entities occasionallywitness wrongdoing, and their intention to blow the whistleis normally
subjected to fear of retaliation. According to the third Public Procurement Integrity Survey
Report of (2016), 9.9 per cent of the respondentsindicate that their choice to keep quiet about
the misdeeds of the public officials in Uganda is a result of fear of victimization as the
wrongdoers normally commandhigh social status in communities. A case in point relates to
the Office of the Prime Minister, in which the whistle-blower revealed procurement-related
scam among others. The identity of the whistle-blowerwas revealed, resulting in the loss of
his job. Among other things reported by the whistle-blower is the over payment of 23
companies that suppliedfood to the Office of the Prime Minister by Shs 8,647,602,417. There
were no documents to support the payment of Shs 13, 716,991,979 paid out to Farm
Engineering for ploughingin Karamoja.
Additionally, in 2013, a devoted reporter in Kasese was mysteriously found dead while
following up a story involving misappropriation of Universal Primary Education funds. A
whistle-blowerwho exposed fraud in a cobaltcompany in Uganda leading to recoveryof over
Shs 5.4b lamentedhaving lost his job as a result of whistle-blowing andnever received his 5
per cent reward as the law stipulated. This action of non-payment is contraryto Sections 15
and 16 of the Whistle Blowing Protection Act (2010) that encourages whistle-blowing
behaviour. TheAct provides for a five-year jail termfor anyone who reveals the identity of a
whistle-blower and prevents whistle-blowers against victimization. Unfortunately, this
section of the Act is difficult to enforce given the ethical climate in Ugandan procuring and
disposing entities (PDEs) and the position and power wielded by the wrong doers. These
undesirableoutcomes seem to affect whistle-blowing behaviourin Ugandan PDEs.
A number of studies conducted in the developed world have attempted to explain
whistle-blowing intentions and behaviour by using individual factors (attitudes toward
whistle-blowing, perceived behavioural control, independence commitment, personal
responsibility for reporting and personal cost of reporting), isomorphic factors (perceived
organizational support and team norms), issue-specific factors (perceived moral intensity)
(Alleyne et al., 2013), the ethical culture (Kaptein, 2009), national culture (Tavakoli et al.,
2003), type and seriousness of the wrongdoing (Near et al., 2004), employees’response to
observed wrongdoing and organizational structure (King, 1999). However, these studies
offer inadequatestandardized explanations of whistle-blowingintentions and behaviour in a
developing world context like Uganda, due to the differences in cultural orientations and
absence of a whistle-blowing theory. For example, while most employees in the developed
world can easily voice against wrongdoing in the public sector, the rights of many
employees in the developing countries are either unknown or cannot be successfully
claimed. This, coupled with unfavourable economic conditions such as highunemployment
rate, makes employees in the public sector to perceive employment a special favour or
reward from chief executive officers (CEOs)who wield unquestionable power and authority
(Ntayi, 2013). In fact, a number of CEOs treat public institutions as an extension of their
private property with absolute and unquestionable powers to hire and fire at will. Public
sector employees frequentlyuse phrases like “never cross your boss, if you know the source
JOPP
18,2
112
To continue reading
Request your trial