Challenges Confronting Whistleblowing and the International Civil Servant

Abstract

More than 800 international governmental organizations employ thousands of civil servants. Whistleblowers in them confront problems that are both common and uncommon compared with their nation-state counterparts. Drawing upon the relevant literature, as well as stakeholder interview data, a research framework is developed identifying whistle-blower challenges. These dilemmas focus on loyalty, impartiality, and immunity, as well as the desire to hold organizations accountable in a governance system lacking in sufficient checks and balances. In addition, significant hurdles confronting whistleblowers include definitions and policies, retaliation and restitution concerns, visa and short-contract constraints, and a resource gap along with judicial composition issues. Future research is needed because international public servants play a significant role in ensuring a transparent and accountable global system.

Whistleblowing Motivation and Gender: Vignette-Based Study in a Local Government

“…On the other hand, a person who decides to report wrongdoing could also become positively emotionally charged. It can be achieved through the mechanisms of selfsacrifice as an expression of duty or loyalty (Lindblom, 2007), either to the organization or the broader public interest (Moloney et al, 2019;Pemberton et al, 2012;Taylor, 2018). Several studies have argued that whistleblowers are often highly committed and conscientious members of their organization (Berry, 2004;Brewer & Selden, 1998;Dworkin, 2007;Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005) and they are essential to maintaining a "bond of trust," particularly in relation to government institutions (Bowman, 1980, p. 16).…”

“….disclosure about significant wrongdoing in a particular organizational role" (p. 866). Whistleblowing research situated in the public sector has emphasized the importance of expanding legislative and institutional protections as a necessary move to guard against misconduct, corruption and graft, and to prevent delegitimization of governmental and public service organizations (Domfeh & Bawole, 2011;Dworkin & Brown, 2013;Moloney et al, 2019).…”

“…Many of these issues are structural and systemic, based in organizational culture and leadership, as well as in human resource policies (Berry, 2004;Cook, 2008;Eaton & Akers, 2007;Kaptein, 2011), the structure of which have notable impact in terms of either facilitating, mitigating, or even punishing the reporting of wrongdoing (Brennan & Kelly, 2007;Kaplan et al, 2009). Fear of retaliation and punishment, as well as risk versus rewards, is also a common focus in whistleblowing research (Domfeh & Bawole, 2011;Fatoki, 2013;Keil et al, 2010;Liyanarachchi & Adler, 2011;Miceli et al, 2012;Moloney et al, 2019;Rehg et al, 2008), and is commonly linked to the availability of both internal and external, as well as anonymous, reporting avenues (Feldman & Lobel, 2010;Kaplan et al, 2009;Miceli et al, 2012;Moloney et al, 2019).…”

“…Therefore, this study expands the subset of whistleblowing research with a gender component that is situated in the public sector, where it has received relatively minor attention. Some of the key research in this subset has focused on military/civilian employees on a military base (Miceli et al, 2012;Near et al, 2004;Rehg et al, 2008), on Merit Systems Protection Board (Cassematis & Wortley, 2013;, and recently on international governmental organizations (Moloney et al, 2019).…”

Creating Space for Public Administration in International Organization Studies

“…This includes IOs having no state-like constitutional basis to protect its international civil servants, the acknowledged difficulty of prosecuting international civil servants for misbehavior, and the challenge of holding an IO to account. This includes a frequently mentioned “inequality of arms” between the international civil servant and an IO’s General Counsel (Gross, 1958; Moloney et al, 2019). While civil society pressure has encouraged globally prominent IOs to improve internal due processes (Government Accountability Project, 2014), such activities cannot be framed as “procedures designed to protect individuals from malicious, arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional harm at the hands of government” (Rosenbloom, 1983, p. 223) as IOs are neither entwined to an international constitution nor required to answer (global) citizen group questions.…”