Sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing: insights from India

Abstract

Purpose – Through state-of-the-art insights on whistleblowing in India, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing. Design/methodology/approach – A review of literature on wrongdoing and whistleblowing in India revealed various aspects of the national context pertinent to different stages of the phenomenon. Thematic analysis of these dimensions, allowing for a nomothetic approach, resulted in identifying six sociocultural themes common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing. Findings – Sociocultural dynamics impacting the emergence, persistence and recognition of wrongdoing, the decision to blow the whistle, engagement in whistleblowing and the outcomes of whistleblowing encompass social relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. These factors coexist with international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation. The presence of wrongdoing and the trajectory of whistleblowing in India are affected by the aforementioned factors. Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on secondary data rather than empirical endeavours. Social implications – By underscoring the relevance of contextual dynamics, in particular sociocultural factors, in the whistleblowing process, the paper indicates an important basis for appropriate interventions to manage wrongdoing and encourage whistleblowing while protecting whistleblowers and ensuring attention to rectifying wrongdoing and sanctioning offenders. Originality/value – Apart from providing a contemporary and comprehensive overview of whistleblowing in India, the paper uncovers the significance of sociocultural factors which have been overlooked so far in the substantive area. Moreover, a contextualised process model of whistleblowing is proposed based on the analysis. In subsuming temporality, context and outcomes for all stakeholders, the model displays complexity and causality, emphasising holism.

To whistle or not to whistle? Determinants and consequences

“…From Table III, it appears that all respondents ( n = 63, 100 per cent) want to be sure of whether they would be suspended, demoted or fired, as well as their ability to get promotion before committed whistle-blowing, supporting prior arguments forwarded by Dellaportas et al (2005), Wood (2004), Kaplan and Kleiner (2000), Perks and Smith (2008) and D’Cruz and Bjørkelo (2016). Respondents are also not taking a risk just to fail in which before reporting, they will make sure that sufficient evidence available to show that the malpractices were committed beyond reasonable doubt.…”

External Whistleblowers’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying by Superiors and Colleagues

“…Bullying by superiors had a profound impact on bullying by colleagues in terms of frequency and distress. In line with Leymann's (1996) model and the work of others regarding the potential impact of retaliation and bullying on work environment and organizations (Berry 2004;D'Cruz and Bjørkelo 2016;Einarsen et al 2017;Senekal and Uys 2013), bullying by superiors may lead to bullying by colleagues through provoking or at least allowing subordinates to retaliate against whistleblowers. Colleagues' understanding of the whistleblower's reasons for acting had a significant effect on reducing bullying frequency by colleagues, but support from government and NGOs did not.…”

Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches: A Systematic Review of the Factors Associated With Whistleblowing Intentions

“…The most ethical organizations had staff with stronger whistleblowing intentions (Aydan and Kaya, 2018;Taylor and Curtis, 2018), as did those with highly ethical working climates for staff (Ahmad et al, 2014). One of the reasons why leadership may be associated with whistleblowing intentions is because it is they who are responsible for monitoring organizational governance and ensuring compliance (D'Cruz and Bjørkelo, 2016) and also creating the environment in which bullying does not take place, so that workers do not fear reprisals (Bjorkelo et al, 2020). Another possible reason is that ethical leaders create a highly ethical culture in which wrongdoing strongly deviates from the norm.…”