Ethical Codes of Conduct and Organizational Context: A Study of the Relationship Between Codes of Conduct, Employee Behavior and Organizational Values

Codes of ethics are being increasingly adopted in organizations worldwide, yet their effects on employee perceptions and behavior have not been thoroughly addressed. This study used a sample of 613 management accountants drawn from the United States to study the relationship between corporate and professional codes of ethics and employee attitudes and behaviors. The presence of corporate codes of ethics was associated with less perceived wrongdoing in organizations, but not with an increased propensity to report observed unethical behavior. Further, organizations that adopted formal codes of ethics exhibited value orientations that went beyond financial performance to include responsibility to the commonweal. In contrast to corporate codes of ethics, professional codes of ethical conduct had no influence on perceived wrongdoing in organization nor these codes affect the propensity to report observed unethical activities.     

After the wrongdoing: What managers should know about whistleblowing

Most of us are likely at some point to observe wrongdoing in our organizations, and some of us will blow the whistle to someone with the authority to put a stop to the wrongdoing. Or we may be managers, inspectors, or auditors who serve as the official ‘complaint recipient’ when one of our colleagues wants to report wrongdoing in the organization. Whether we blow the whistle or are tasked with cleaning up after someone else does so, we are better off knowing in advance how the whistleblowing process usually plays out. In this article we discuss the pragmatic implications of 30 years of systematic research about whistleblowing: who does it and when, and why they choose to report the wrongdoing internally (within the organization) or externally (to outsiders). To avoid external whistleblowing, which entails all sorts of costs for the organization, we recommend that managers take clear steps: investigate the allegations, make the results of the investigation known to those affected, correct the problem if one is found, and avoid reprisal against whistleblowers. These actions can increase the chance that information about organizational wrongdoing stays inside the organization, where it may be remedied, instead of being made public.     

Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing: Results of a study using randomized response technique

Student cheating and reporting of that cheating represents one form of organizational wrong-doing and subsequent whistle-blowing, in the context of an academic organization. Previous research has been hampered by a lack of information concerning the validity of survey responses estimating the incidence of organizational wrongdoing and whistle-blowing. An innovative method, the Randomized Response Technique (RRT), was used here to assess the validity of reported incidences of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing. Surprisingly, our findings show that estimates of these incidences did not vary significantly when RRT questionnaire results were compared to those obtained from standard surveys. In fact, a large number of business undergraduates admitted cheating while only a small percentage reported peers' cheating when they observed it. These results should be sobering for managers and their implications are considered in some detail.Brian K. Burton is a doctoral student in strategic management as well as managing editor ofBusiness Horizons, the interdisciplinary business journal published by Indiana University. His research interests include business ethics, stakeholder analysis, corporate political activity, and nontraditional approaches to management.Janet P. Near is Professor and Chairperson, Management Dept., and Adjunct Professor, Sociology Dept., Indiana University. Her research interests include: (a) whistle-blowing in organizations and (b) the relationship between work and non-work domains of life, focusing especially on the correlation between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. She has published several articles on these topics and, with Marcia Miceli, a book on whistle-blowing.     

Predictors of External Whistleblowing: Organizational and Intrapersonal Variables

Research on whistleblowing has not yet provided a finite set of variables which have been shown to influence an employee's decision to report wrongdoing. Prior research on business ethics suggests that ethical business decisions are influenced by both organizational as well as intrapersonal variables. As such, this paper attempts to predict the decision to whistleblow using organizational and intrapersonal variables. External whistleblowing was found to be significantly related to supervisor support, informal policies, gender, and ideal values. External whistleblowing was not found to be significantly predicted by formal policies, organizational tenure, age, education, satisfaction, or commitment.     

Internal vs. External Whistleblowers: A Comparison of Whistleblowering Processes

We conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis of 33 cases of internal and external whistleblowers wrongfully fired for reporting wrongdoing. Our results show external whistleblowers have less tenure with the organization, greater evidence of wrongdoing, and they tend to be more effective in changing organizational practices. External whistleblowers also experience more extensive retaliation than internal whistleblowers, and patterns of retaliation by management against the whistleblower vary depending on whether the whistleblower reports internally or externally. We discuss implications for organizations and whistleblowers, and we conclude that researchers need to develop different theoretical explanations of internal and external whistleblowing processes.     

The Implications of an Organization's Structure on Whistleblowing

Previous studies investigating reports of corporate or individual wrongdoing have failed to examine the effects of an organization's structure upon the decision to blow the whistle. This paper suggests that an organization's structure may perform a significant role in the decision to report versus not report an observed wrongdoing. Five organizational structures (that is, centralized, matrix, horizontal, hybrid, and divisional) were examined in regards to their effectiveness in encouraging or discouraging observers of unethical conduct channels for reporting such behavior. Discussion and implications are provided.     

A preliminary investigation of the relationship between selected organizational characteristics and external whistleblowing by employees

Whistleblowing by employees to regulatory agencies and other parties external to the organization can have serious consequences both for the whistleblower and the company involved. Research has largely focused on individual and group variables that affect individuals' decision to blow the whistle on perceived wrongdoing.This study examined the relationship between selected organizational characteristics and the perceived level of external whistleblowing by employees in 240 organizations. Data collected in a nationwide survey of human resource executives were analyzed using analysis of variance.Results indicated that executives of larger organizations perceived a higher level of employee-voiced concerns to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as a higher overall level of external whistleblowing. Executives of organizations with union employees perceived a higher level of employee-voiced concerns to the EEOC, the media, and a higher overall level of external whistleblowing. Executives of organizations in the manufacturing industry group perceived a higher level of employee-voiced concerns to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.The implications of these findings are discussed, and limitations of the research are addressed. The paper concludes with several suggestions for continued research.Tim Barnett is an Assistant Professor of Management at Louisiana Tech University. His current research interests include ethical issues in human resources management and ethical decision making. His work has appeared in various journals, including theJournal of Business Research, theJournal of Business Communication, and theJournal of Business Ethics.     

The Effects of Contextual and Wrongdoing Attributes on Organizational Employees’ Whistleblowing Intentions Following Fraud

Recent financial fraud legislation such as the Dodd–Frank Act and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (U.S. House of Representatives, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, [H.R. 4173], 2010; U.S. House of Representatives, The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204 [H.R. 3763], 2002) relies heavily on whistleblowers for enforcement, and offers protection and incentives for whistleblowers. However, little is known about many aspects of the whistleblowing decision, especially the effects of contextual and wrongdoing attributes on organizational members’ willingness to report fraud. We extend the ethics literature by experimentally investigating how the nature of the wrongdoing and the awareness of those surrounding the whistleblower can influence whistleblowing. As predicted, we find that employees are less likely to report: (1) financial statement fraud than theft; (2) immaterial than material financial statement fraud; (3) when the wrongdoer is aware that the potential whistleblower has knowledge of the fraud; and (4) when others in addition to the wrongdoer are not aware of the fraud. Our findings extend whistleblowing research in several ways. For instance, prior research provides little evidence concerning the effects of fraud type, wrongdoer awareness, and others’ awareness on whistleblowing intentions. We also provide evidence that whistleblowing settings represent an exception to the well-accepted theory of diffusion of responsibility. Our participants are professionals who represent the likely pool of potential whistleblowers in organizations.     

Network centrality,organizational innovation,and performance: A meta‐analysis

Based on samples from 40 studies encompassing 15,860 organizations, we use meta‐analysis methods to examine the relationships between network centrality, organizational innovation, and performance, and to predict the influence of organization size, institutional environment, and industry on these relationships. Results show that network centrality positively influences both organizational innovation and performance. In addition, findings indicate that the impact of network centrality on organizational innovation is stronger for small organizations while that on organizational performance is stronger for large organizations. The influence of network centrality on overall organizational innovation/performance is stronger for organizations in developed institutional environments as well as in knowledge‐intensive industries. Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

From Inaction to External Whistleblowing: The Influence of the Ethical Culture of Organizations on Employee Responses to Observed Wrongdoing

Putting measures in place to prevent wrongdoing in organizations is important, but detecting and correcting wrongdoing are also vital. Employees who detect wrongdoing should, therefore, be encouraged to respond in a manner that supports corrective action. This article examines the influence of the ethical culture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. Different dimensions of ethical culture are related to different types of intended responses. The findings show that several dimensions of ethical culture were negatively related to intended inaction and external whistleblowing and positively related to intended confrontation, reporting to management, and calling an ethics hotline.     

A Word to the Wise: How Managers and Policy-Makers can Encourage Employees to Report Wrongdoing

When successful and ethical managers are alerted to possible organizational wrongdoing, they take corrective action before the problems become crises. However, recent research [e.g., Rynes et al. (2007, Academy of Management Journal 50(5), 987–1008)] indicates that many organizations fail to implement evidence-based practices (i.e., practices that are consistent with research findings), in many aspects of human resource management. In this paper, we draw from years of research on whistle-blowing by social scientists and legal scholars and offer concrete suggestions to managers who are interested in encouraging internal reporting of problems requiring attention, and to observers of questionable activity who are considering reporting it. We also identify ways that research suggests policy-makers can have a more positive influence. We hope that these suggestions will help foster evidence-based practice regarding whistle-blowing.     

Ethical Distance in Corrupt Firms: How Do Innocent Bystanders Become Guilty Perpetrators?

This paper develops the concept of the ‘continuum of destructiveness’ in relation to organizational corruption. This notion captures the slippery slope of wrongdoing as actors engage in increasingly dubious practices. We identify four kinds of individuals along this continuum in corrupt organizations, who range from complete innocence to total guilt. They are innocent bystanders, innocent participants, active rationalizers and guilty perpetrators. Traditional explanations of how individuals move from bystander status to guilty perpetrators usually focus on socialization and institutional factors. In addition to these factors, we propose that the very distance between an act and its ethical consequences (ethical distance) may also play a determining role – if not always in the same way – in the transition process. Having developed this conceptual argument, we conclude with a discussion of managerial and research implications. An Earlier version of this paper was presented at the The Twelfth Annual International Conference Promoting Business Ethics, New York, October 2005     

‘If I Should Fall From Grace…’: Stories of Change and Organizational Ethics

Although studies in organizational storytelling have dealt extensively with the relationship between narrative, power and organizational change, little attention has been paid to the implications of this for ethics within organizations. This article addresses this by presenting an analysis of narrative and ethics as it relates to the practice of organizational downsizing. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur’s theories of narrative and ethics, we analyze stories of organizational change reported by employees and managers in an organization that had undergone persistent downsizing. Our analysis maintains that the presence of a dominant story that seeks to legitimate organizational change also serves to normalize it, and that this, in turn, diminishes the capacity for organizations to scrutinize the ethics of their actions. We argue that when organizational change narratives become singularized through dominant forms of emplotment, ethical deliberation and responsibility in organizations are diminished. More generally, we contend that the narrative closure achieved by the presence of a dominant narrative amongst employees undergoing organizational change is antithetical to the openness required for ethical questioning.     

Whistleblowing in Organizations: An Examination of Correlates of Whistleblowing Intentions,Actions, and Retaliation

Whistleblowing on organizational wrongdoing is becoming increasingly prevalent. What aspects of the person, the context, and the transgression relate to whistleblowing intentions and to actual whistleblowing on corporate wrongdoing? Which aspects relate to retaliation against whistleblowers? Can we draw conclusions about the whistleblowing process by assessing whistleblowing intentions? Meta-analytic examination of 193 correlations obtained from 26 samples (N = 18,781) reveals differences in the correlates of whistleblowing intentions and actions. Stronger relationships were found between personal, contextual, and wrongdoing characteristics and whistleblowing intent than with actual whistleblowing. Retaliation might best be predicted using contextual variables. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Wrongdoing by Consultants: An Examination of Employees’ Reporting Intentions

Organizations are increasingly embedded with consultants and other non-employees who have the opportunity to engage in wrongdoing. However, research exploring the reporting intentions of employees regarding the discovery of wrongdoing by consultants is scant. It is important to examine reporting intentions in this setting given the enhanced presence of consultants in organizations and the fact that wrongdoing by consultants changes a key characteristic of the wrongdoing. Using an experimental approach, the current paper reports the results of a study examining employees reporting intentions subsequent to their discovery of wrongdoing by a consultant. The results of the study indicate that perceptions about the seriousness of a wrongdoing, personal costs and personal responsibility related to reporting a wrongdoing, and moral-equity judgments are significantly associated with reporting intentions for a normal (non-anonymous) reporting channel. Only perceptions of seriousness and personal costs are significantly associated for an anonymous reporting channel. Lastly, while personal costs for the anonymous reporting channel were lower than the normal reporting channel, reporting intentions were similar across the two channels.Susan Ayers is an Associate Professor of Accounting at the University of San Diego, where she has been a faculty member since 2000. Previously, she served on the faculty at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State University. She has published in journals such as Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, Accounting Horizons, Information Systems Audit and Control Journal, and ABACUS. She teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in Accounting Information Systems. Her primary research interests involve the investigation of judgment and decision making in information systems environments. Steve Kaplan is a Professor of Accounting at Arizona State University, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1981. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. He has published widely in journals such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Business Ethics Quarterly, and Journal of Business Ethics. He is the previous editor of Behavioral Research in Accounting, a section journal of the American Accounting Association. His primary research interests are behavioral issues, judgement and decision making, and ethics.     

The linking pin role in organizational buying centers

The buying center concept has been widely accepted in the organizational buying behavior literature. Nevertheless, the application of the concept in empirical investigations has been limited in scope. Most research has examined either the composition of the buying center or the influence processes operating within it. The intraorganizational dynamics (among members of the buying center) and the interorganizational dynamics (between buying center members and outside organizations) have been ignored in buying center research. Common to these two sets of relationships is the presence of a “linking pin” or “boundary role” person.The purposes of this paper are twofold. The first is to suggest the concept of the “linking pin” role in a buying center and to highlight the conceptual importance of this role in furthering the understanding and prediction of organizational buying processes and outcomes. Explication of this role should also lead to an enriched conceptualization of the relationships between the buying and selling organizations. The second objective is to report on the results of some initial empirical investigations into the role of a designated linking pin in hospital buying centers. These results offer preliminary evidence of the value of the linking pin concept.     

Ethical Marginality: The Icarus Syndrome and Banality of Wrongdoing

This study proposes a conceptual model to explain persistent, accepted-as-normal corporate wrongdoing (hereafter banality of wrongdoing), particularly for high performance organizations. The model describes five explanatory variables: the culture of competition, ends-biased leadership, missionary zeal, legitimizing myth, and the corporate cocoon. Our thesis is that the nature of competition drives both legitimate and illegitimate goal-seeking to adopt an iconoclastic (rule-breaking) orientation. High performance organizations are favorable hosts for wrongdoing because high performance requires aggressive behavior at the ethical margins of what is acceptable. The way leadership reacts to competition sets the stage for ethical or unethical cultures to develop. Ends-biased leadership will project strong vision, using ideology and legitimizing myth as tools to inspire and motivate. The resulting missionary zeal justifies using questionable means because of the perceived value of the end. One critical method for building strong culture is creating a sense of being separate and apart from the ordinary. This cocoon effect may create a self-referential value system that is significantly at odds with mainstream culture and in which wrongdoing is banal. We intend an empirical study of the variables described in this model.     

Oppositionists and group norms: The reciprocal influence of whistle-blowers and co-workers

Who blows the whistle — a “loner” or a well-liked “team player”? Which of them is more likely to lead a successful opposition to perceived organizational wrongdoing? The potential influence of co-worker pressures to conform on whistle-blowing activity or the likely effects of whistle-blowing on the group have not been addressed. This paper presents a preliminary model of whistle-blowing as an act of nonconformity. One implication is that the success of an opposition will depend on the characteristics of the whistle-blower and how the complaint is pursued. Specific hypotheses and general suggestions for future research and practice are offered.     

Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing

Research on whistle-blowing has been hampered by a lack of a sound theoretical base. In this paper, we draw upon existing theories of motivation and power relationships to propose a model of the whistle-blowing process. This model focuses on decisions made by organization members who believe they have evidence of organizational wrongdoing, and the reactions of organization authorities. Based on a review of the sparse empirical literature, we suggest variables that may affect both the members' decisions and the organization's responses.