Public Perceptions of Whistleblowing

Heumann, Milton; Friedes, Al; Redlawsk, David P.; Cassak, Lance; Kesari, Aniket

doi:10.1080/10999922.2015.1093397

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, they were viewed as more legitimate, in other words, as proper authorities for reporting wrongdoing. These findings align with research suggesting stakeholders “want purity of motivation in their whistleblowers” (Heumann et al, 2016, p. 16). Much like those in the “innocent” condition, Greek organization respondents found the altruistic whistleblower more likeable than the selfish one.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Thus, we anticipate stakeholders to bestow positive attributions on altruistic whistleblowers and to disapprove when someone blows the whistle for material gain or as revenge against others (Miceli & Near, 1997). Indeed, Heumann et al (2016) found the public was less supportive of whistleblowers motivated by self-interests, rather than altruism. However, their conceptualization of self-interest was really self-preservation; they reduced self-interest to a desire to avoid retaliation and did not consider truly selfish motives such as monetary gain or revenge.…”

Section: Whistleblowing: Motives and Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions of Likeability, Credibility, and Legitimacy

Richardson

Garner

2019

International Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational wrongdoing remains a persistent, prevalent problem, one that leads to exponentially more injuries, deaths, and cost than street crime in the United States each year. Whistleblowing has become one of the primary ways in which wrongdoing is exposed and investigated, but without support from key stakeholders, whistleblowing may not affect constructive change. This study used an attribution theory framework to explore relationships between stakeholders’ perceptions of different types of whistleblowers. Specifically, we varied whistleblowers’ motives (altruistic and selfish) and involvement in wrongdoing (complicit or innocence) to test their effects on stakeholders’ intentions to ostracize the whistleblower and their perceptions of the whistleblower’s likeability, legitimacy, and three dimensions of credibility (goodwill, trustworthiness, and competence). Respondents were composed of two stakeholder groups, fraternity and sorority members and university alumni. Results indicate that both stakeholder groups found the innocent whistleblower more likeable and credible than the complicit whistleblower, while the fraternity/sorority respondents found the altruistic whistleblowers more likeable, credible, and legitimate, than their selfish counterparts. The article concludes with implications of the findings for whistleblowers, and limitations and directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Whistleblowing: Motives and Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions of Likeability, Credibility, and Legitimacy

Richardson

Garner

2019

International Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, this documentary analysis provides a detailed description of state government whistleblowing policies. It focuses on the codes and laws rather than relying exclusively on attitudinal data or case studies reported in many studies (Boehme, 2018; Hertsgaard, 2016; Heumann, Friedes, Cassak, & Kesari, 2015; Lewis & Kender, 2007, 2010; Schwartz, 2004; Ventriss & Barney, 2003) with their attendant problems of nonresponse bias and questions about generalizability. Nonetheless, content analysis of government documents does not include evidence of policy effectiveness.…”

Section: Document Analysis Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whistleblowing Policies in American States: A Nationwide Analysis

West

Bowman

2019

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American states have statutes with whistleblowing protection provisions for employees. These laws may focus on the duty to divulge misconduct, procedures for reporting disclosures, and protection from retaliation. The research question is, “What is the scope, content, and perceived effectiveness of these provisions?” The premise is that they have value, albeit uncertain, in the practice of public administration. To investigate this subject area, documentary and attitudinal data were gathered. This article presents the results of the first comprehensive study of state-level whistleblowing provisions. The importance of this work is evident for two reasons. First, though corruption varies across state lines, overall it is common. Second, given the low visibility and high complexity of organizational activities, detection of abuse rests in large part with the workforce.

show abstract

“…Beyond calling for a transformation of the legal framework, I want to point out the important role of whistleblowers in reporting corporate wrongdoing, as noted by Barak (2017) and Friedrichs (2010). Research in this area has been conducted mainly in the field of organizational behavior, which has focused on examining the retaliations and consequences faced by those that have blown the whistle in their organizations (Heumann et al 2016). We have learned that whistleblowers are often depicted as the enemies of the organization (Haglunds 2009) and are usually met with silence from superiors and coworkers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Tax Avoidance and Neutralization Techniques: A Case Study on the Panama Papers

Evertsson

2019

Crit Crim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the accounts provided by the CEOs of the corporations involved in the so-called Panama Papers scandal in order to advance the criminological understandings of how corporations challenge the law and how they routinize crime. To address these questions, I rely on media reports produced by investigative journalists and published in Latin American newspapers, where nearly half of the world's stories surrounding this scandal were published. The results show that most corporations involved in tax avoidance situations deny any criminal involvement and/or injury to society. The results also suggest that CEOs challenge the law by adopting legal pragmatism, using innovative corporate tax practices, and creating (secret) business structures in selected locations (tax paradises). Corporate tax avoiders routinize their crime by responding to international legislation that promotes economic incentives to international investors. As a whole, they ignore any social responsibility in the countries from which their capital originates, as wealth accumulation, at a minimum cost, is their main interest.

show abstract

Public Perceptions of Whistleblowing

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions of Likeability, Credibility, and Legitimacy

Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions of Likeability, Credibility, and Legitimacy

Whistleblowing Policies in American States: A Nationwide Analysis

Corporate Tax Avoidance and Neutralization Techniques: A Case Study on the Panama Papers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About