The Implications of Organizational Structure, Political Control, and Internal System Responsiveness on Whistleblowing Behavior

Abstract

This study examines how organizational structure, political control, and internal system responsiveness to employee complaints or grievances influence U.S. federal employees’ internal and external whistleblowing. Although prior research has investigated a number of personal, organizational, and social factors that affect whistleblowing, very little research has examined the three factors that are the focus of this study and the roles that they might play in whistleblowing behavior. The results show that (a) wider spans of control of middle-level versus upper-level managers have opposite effects on internal whistleblowing, (b) fixed terms for agency leaders are negatively related to internal whistleblowing, and (c) internal system responsiveness to employee complaints or grievances has mixed effects on internal whistleblowing. This study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings and proposing effective ways to manage whistleblowing within public organizations.

The Impact of Predisposed Traits and Organizational Factors on the U.S. Federal Employee Perception of Whistleblowing

“…On the other hand, whistleblowing can cause negative consequences in the workplace. It may be seen as a challenge to authority and represents a disruption to organizational viability (Cassematis & Wortley, 2013; Miceli & Near, 1992) and may have a negative impact on the organization’s reputation and incur high administrative and legal costs to the organization (Lee, 2020; Vadera et al, 2009). In this vein, whistleblowing can lead to various forms of retaliation, such as bureaucratic isolation, reduction in job responsibilities or salary, harassment, transfer, blacklisting, demotion, or even losing jobs (Cassematis & Wortley, 2013; Chang et al, 2017; Jos et al, 1989; Near & Miceli, 2008).…”

“…Willingness to blow the whistle is inherently dependent on organizational characteristics and environment. Lee (2020) comments that “organizational structure, political environment, and internal system responsiveness play meaningful roles in explaining whistleblowing in U.S. federal agencies” (p. 171). Unlike the predisposition perspective, literature on the nurture argument posits that human perception and behaviors can change through nurturing and learning (Bandura & Walters, 1977).…”

“…One important research question regarding government whistleblowing is why public employees blow the whistle in spite of the known risk of retaliation (Caillier & Sa, 2017; Chang et al, 2017; Cho & Song, 2015; Jos et al, 1989; Lavena, 2016; Lee, 2020; Near & Miceli, 2008; Rothwell & Baldwin, 2006). Whistleblowing is a bottom-up oversight for ensuring accountability in government that gives public employees the opportunity to report wrongdoing in the organization (Klingner et al, 2010; Near & Miceli, 2008).…”

“…Whistleblowing is a bottom-up oversight for ensuring accountability in government that gives public employees the opportunity to report wrongdoing in the organization (Klingner et al, 2010; Near & Miceli, 2008). Yet, according to the Merit Principles Surveys (MPS) and Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys (FEVS), a large number of federal employees are reluctant to disclose wrongdoing in their organization due to possible retaliation, and many whistleblowers experienced retaliation or a threat of reprisal (Caillier & Sa, 2017; Lavena, 2016), such as revealing the whistleblower’s identity, blacklisting, transferring, demoting, or terminating (Bowman, 1980; Lee, 2020; Martin, 1996; Miethe, 1999; Schwellenbach, 2019).…”

“…Given the risk of retaliation, numerous studies have examined what factors affect individual perception and behavior regarding whistleblowing. A critical review of the literature reveals that most studies on whistleblowing have focused on predisposed characteristics (e.g., Cassematis & Wortley, 2013; Jos et al, 1989) or organizational and environmental factors (e.g., Bashir et al, 2011; Caillier & Sa, 2017; Chang et al, 2017; Jeon, 2017; Lavena, 2016; Lee, 2020; Near & Miceli, 2008; Rothwell & Baldwin, 2006).…”