How to Whistle-Blow: Dissensus and Demand

Abstract

What makes an external whistleblower effective? Whistleblowers represent an important conduit for dissensus, providing valuable information about ethical breaches and organizational wrongdoing. They often speak out about injustice from a relatively weak position of power, with the aim of changing the status quo. But many external whistleblowers fail in this attempt to make their claims heard and thus secure change. Some can experience severe retaliation and public blacklisting, while others are ignored. This article examines how whistleblowers can succeed in bringing their claims to the public's attention. We draw on analyses of political struggle by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Specifically, we propose that through the raising of a demand, the whistleblowing subject can emerge as part of a chain of equivalences, in a counterhegemonic movement that challenges the status quo. An analysis of a high-profile case of tax justice whistleblowing-that of Rudolf Elmer-illustrates our argument. Our proposed theoretical framing builds upon and contributes to literature on whistleblowing as organizational parrhesia by demonstrating how parrhesiastic demand might lead to change in public perception through the formation of alliances with other disparate interests-albeit that the process is precarious and complex. Practically, our article illuminates a persistent concern for those engaged in dissensus via whistleblowing, and whose actions are frequently ignored or silenced. We demonstrate how such actions can move towards securing public support in order to make a difference and achieve change.

Intention without action? Differences between whistleblowing intention and behavior on corruption and fraud

“…Their irrelevance in the process indicates that power dynamics and relationships within the organization may not be decisive factors in such decision‐making overall. This is in line with arguments by Kenny and Bushnell (2020), who suggest that whistleblowers “speak out about injustice from a relatively weak position of power,” regardless of whether they inherit higher or lower positions. Contrast for example whistleblowers Cynthia Cooper, Vice President of Internal Audit at WorldCom or Sherron Watkins, Vice President of Corporate Development at Enron against Edward Snowden, an average employee: position or hierarchy may not play a decisive role.…”

“…Whereas an argument against this is that tenure and hierarchy do not protect from negative consequences as the cases around Sherron Watkins (Enron) or Cynthia Cooper (WorldCom) demonstrated. In regard to power dynamics, Kenny and Bushnell (2020) argue that the whistleblower comes from a weak position of power against the organization in any case.…”

Frugal Innovation Hijacked: The Co-optive Power of Co-creation

“…In those stages, we work more explicitly with Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) discourse theoretical concepts such as the logics of equivalence and difference (second stage) and empty and other ambiguous signifiers (third stage) in order to analyze the dynamics in the developments of the different discourses on the business-driven (previously philanthropy-driven) innovation for the poor; the community-driven innovation by the poor; and the governance-driven innovation with the poor. Within management and organization studies, a number of scholars have been inspired by Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) post-foundational discourse theory to investigate organizational phenomena with the conceptual tools provided by this theoretical approach (e.g., Islam et al, 2017;Kelly, 2013;Kenny & Bushnell, 2020;Kenny & Scriver, 2012;Nyberg & Wright, 2012;O'Doherty, 2015;Smolović Jones et al, 2020;Spicer & Böhm, 2007;Spicer & Sewell, 2010;Zueva & Fairbrass, 2019). By discourse, Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p. 105) refer to a "structured totality resulting from [an] articulatory practice", that is, "any practice establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified".…”

“…Both chains of equivalence and chains of difference are closely connected to the notion that every discourse competes for hegemony within a field of discursivity, attempting to dominate this field (Torfing, 1999). While discourses that are already dominant often rely on a chain of difference, where societal differences are institutionalized in a hegemonic order, counter-hegemonic discourses typically rely on as broad as possible chains of equivalence in order to stand a chance in challenging the hegemonic block (see e.g., Fougère & Solitander, 2020;Kenny & Bushnell, 2020). In order to hegemonize the field of discursivity a discourse needs to establish a chain (of difference or equivalence) that fixes the meaning of key 'floating signifiers' (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985), i.e.…”

Networked Whistleblowing, Counter-Hegemony and the Challenge to Systemic Corruption

“…The article investigates changing practices of whistleblower activism, with particular reference to the increased use of networks to reveal organizational misconduct. Major problems that whistleblowers face in disclosing corruption include the fact that they can be ignored within their own organizations (Alford, 2001;Kenny, 2019), or, if heeded, can find themselves isolated and targeted by other organizations including industry professional bodies and the media. Retaliation occurs in approximately one in every five acts of speaking out about organizational wrongdoing, and can include punitive legal action, smear campaigns, and blacklisting, among other measures (Alford, 2001;Mistry & Gurman, 2020).…”