Can Laws Protect Whistle-Blowers?

Abstract

Data collected over three time periods, from 1980 to 1992, show massive changes in the ways in which federal employees reported wrongdoing and the effects on them for having done so. Laws intended to encourage whistle-blowing seem to have two desired effects: to reduce the incidence of perceived wrongdoing and to increase the likelihood of whistle-blowing. However, two unintended effects are also observed: perceived retaliation increased and whistle-blowers increasingly sought anonymity. The basic model predicting retaliation is essentially the same in the three time periods in which data were collected. Implications for research, practice, and the design of future legislation are discussed.

A Word to the Wise: How Managers and Policy-Makers can Encourage Employees to Report Wrongdoing

“…Of these countries, the USA, the UK, and Australia have probably most closely documented and discussed the effects of their laws. In fact, results from a recent survey in Australia (Brown and Australian Research Council Linkage Project, 2007) show rates of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing very similar to those found in the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) surveys in the USA (e.g., Miceli et al, 1999), perhaps in part because of similarities in the laws in the two nations.…”

The Impact of Moral Reasoning and Retaliation on Whistle-Blowing: New Zealand Evidence

“…Empirical evidence suggests that the number of whistle-blowing cases is on the rise (Miceli et al, 1999). Specifically, the results show that in 1980, only 26% of federal employees who believed they witnessed a wrongdoing blew the whistle but this increased to 48% in 1992 (Miceli et al, 1999).…”

Do transformational-oriented leadership and transactional-oriented leadership have an impact on whistle-blowing attitudes? A longitudinal examination conducted in US federal agencies

“…Miceli, Near, and Dworkin 2008). Concerning gender, men may fear retaliation less than women, because women are traditionally under-represented (Miceli et al 1999). This variable was measured using the mean number of men for each agency.…”