Self-Efficacy as an Intrapersonal Predictor for Internal Whistleblowing: A US and Canada Examination

Abstract

Examining intrapersonal factors theorized to influence ethics reporting decisions, the relation of self-efficacy as a predictor of propensity for internal whistleblowing is investigated within a US and Canadian multi-regional context. Over 900 professionals from a total of nine regions in Canada and the US participated. Self-efficacy was found to influence participant reported propensity for internal whistleblowing consistently in both the US and Canada. Seasoned participants with greater management and work experience demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy while gender was also found to be influential to self-efficacy. These individual traits, although related to self-efficacy, did not directly relate to propensities for internal whistleblowing. The findings demonstrate that self-efficacy could represent an important individual trait for examining whistleblowing issues. Internal whistleblowing is becoming an important organizational consideration in many areas of North America, yet there is relatively little research on the topic.Organizations seeking effective internal reporting systems should consider the influence of self-efficacy along with its potential reporting influence. By empirically testing an under-examined component of theory related to internal whistleblowing, this effort contributes to management literature, extending the knowledge beyond a US context, and provides recommendation for managing individual bias with internal reporting systems.

Culture and organisational context: how it influences voice behaviour

“…Studies with samples from large multinational organisations and samples from North America showed the negative relationship between power distance and voice (MacNab & Worthley, 2008). Results from this study, obtained from 139 observations in a wide variety of industries, also give support to the hypothesised negative relation between power distance and voice behaviour.…”

“…This negative relationship implies that indeed a larger (smaller) power distance results in less (more) voice behaviour. Results found in previous research have hereby been reconfirmed (MacNab & Worthley, 2008). However, whereas previous research primarily focussed on American employees and multinational corporations (Landau, 2009), this study used mainly European (Dutch and German) data and respondents from small, large, public and private organisations, thereby extending the evidence for the negative connection between power distance and voice.…”

The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda

“…In line with this definition, most studies have examined whistleblowers who are members of organizations, i.e., employees. In these studies, their job positions differed considerably in terms of hierarchy, i.e., upper-level managers (Keenan 1990(Keenan , 2000(Keenan , 2002, managers and professionals (Chiu 2003), managers from different hierarchical levels (Nayir and Herzig 2012;Tavakoli et al 2003), professionals (MacNab andWorthley 2008), personnel executives (Barnett 1992); internal auditors (Robinson et al 2012), internal auditors and management accountants (Seifert et al 2010), employees (Bjørkelo et al 2010;Callahan and Collins 1992;Miceli and Near 1984;Singer et al 1998;Stansbury and Victor 2009), lower-level employees (Gao et al 2015), working population (Kaptein 2011), bank employees ), public sector employees (Cassematis and Wortley 2013), government officials (Park et al 2005), police officers (Park and Blenkinsopp 2009), and military employees . In a number of whistleblowing studies, student samples were used as a proxy for employees (e.g., Bhal and Dadhich 2011;Dalton and Radtke 2013;Kaplan and Schultz 2007;Kaplan et al 2009;Liyanarachchi and Newdick 2009;Lowe et al 2015;Park et al 2008Park et al , 2014Trongmateerut and Sweeney 2013).…”

“…Analysis of actual whistleblowers' trajectory based on real case studies (see, for example, Dworkin and Baucus 1998;Hollings 2013;Lee et al 2004) is rare. Finally, it needs to be noted that in some studies respondents are not given categories or specific examples of wrongdoings, but instead the general expression wrongdoing or company violation is used (e.g., Kaptein 2011;MacNab and Worthley 2008).…”

“…Based on the means of reporting (i.e., the channel), the literature distinguishes external and internal whistleblowing (e.g., Dworkin and Baucus 1998;Kaptein 2011;MacNab and Worthley 2008;Miceli et al 2008;Zhang et al 2009). Internal whistleblowing refers to disclosing an observed wrongdoing to an entity within the organization through a confidential hotline or an individual in the organization The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda (MacNab and Worthley 2008;Miceli et al 2008). Internal authorities are people within the organization to whom the whistleblower reports a wrongdoing, such as a designated superior, an ethics officer, a powerful colleague, a manager or senior personnel in some other part of the organization (Jubb 1999).…”