The implications of differences in cultural attitudes and styles of communication on peer reporting behaviour

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPeer reporting of co-worker wrongdoing is attracting research attention. This article extends the current research on peer reporting by suggesting that differences in cultural attitudes and styles of communication may affect reports of unethical behaviour by employees. Organisational and methodological concerns are provided.

The Influence of Confucian Ethics and Collectivism on Whistleblowing Intentions: A Study of South Korean Public Employees

“…Thus, the two forms of non-reporting mentioned by Gorta and Forell (1995) in their study, and the ''choosing to remain silent'' that Rothschild and Miethe (1999) employed in their study are grouped here into a ''non-action'' response concerning the wrongdoing. Other reactions are possible, but given past research (Dworkin and Callahan, 1991;King, 2000;Miceli and Near, 1992), the current study considered these reactions to be the most representative of the behaviors that employees took after witnessing wrongdoing. External whistleblowing refers to an act whereby an employee discloses wrongdoing committed in the organization to someone outside of that organization, either anonymously or by identifying, whereas internal whistleblowing refers to an act of reporting wrongdoing to someone at an upper level within the organization (Dworkin and Callahan, 1991).…”

“…Past research has found individual differences in thinking and feeling about the individualism-collectivism dimension (e.g., Bochner, 1994;Kibum and Uichol, 1997;King, 2000). However, the effects of individualistic or collectivistic behavior on the intention to 388…”

“…Compared with western cultures, however little has been reported about the actions taken by employees in non-western cultures when they observe wrongdoing in their organizations. Although the effect of national culture on an employee's willingness to report wrongdoing is starting to appear in the business literature (e.g., Keenan, 2002;King, 2000;Sims and Keenan, 1999;Tavakoli et al, 2003), previous whistleblowing studies have been critically deficient in taking cultural factors into consideration. Applying an intercultural view to the study of whistleblowing would be especially valuable in today's global economy, as more and more firms set up operations in cultures outside of their home country.…”

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

“…Some have specifically differentiated between external and internal types of whistleblowing (Kaptein, 2002;King, 2000) while others have not made this differentiation (Hearn, 1999;Kaplan and 408 Brent R. MacNab and Reginald Worthley Kleiner, 2000). King (2000) clearly distinguishes internal from external whistleblowing and defines the internal type as a form of lateral control used by co-workers within an organization.…”

“…King (2000) clearly distinguishes internal from external whistleblowing and defines the internal type as a form of lateral control used by co-workers within an organization. Whistleblowing is often viewed as organizationally risky in terms of legal cost, legal sentencing, decreased sales, negative publicity, and goodwill fallout (Keenan and Krueger, 1992;Vinten, 1992).…”