Variables that Inspire a Person to Blow the Whistle

¶ … Cho, Y., Song, H. (2015). Determinants of whistleblowing within government

agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(4): 450-472.

Cho and Song (2015) examine the determinants of whistleblowing behaviors in public administrative positions in their study by basing their approach on the work of Miceli and Near, who "argued that proactive personality, less co-worker invalidation, and leverage in the specific situation lead to whistleblowing" (p. 450). However, in their research, Cho and Song (2015) find that the determining variables behind whistleblowing in public are complex and many relevant variables remain unexplored. The purpose of their study is to examine some of these variables more closely and open the door for further investigation into what causes public administration whistleblowers to go public with their information. The thesis of the researchers is that the factors leading to this activity are dynamic, interacting, complex and personal.

The methodology of the study is to test for several different variables by using the 2010 Merit Principles Survey data for structural equation model analysis. The variables tested include perceived personal costs, public service motivation, education, organizational support levels, and organizational protection. The researches focus in particularly on the variable of perceived personal costs as a mediating determinant. The findings show that personal costs were a significant variable in whether a person blows the whistle in public -- the higher the personal costs, the less likely the person intended to blow the whistle. Conversely, the study found that if public service motivation and education were high then the intention to blow the whistle increased. The study also found that if there were strong organizational supports and protection, the individual felt his or her perceived personal costs to diminish. Thus, the study concluded that public administration organizations supported whistleblowing by offering protection and support to employees in this capacity.

I agree with the author because what the researchers conclude makes logical sense: an individual who fears reprisal from the administration is not going to want to offend that organization by blowing the whistle on it or on whatever unethical or illegal activity he or she perceives to be taking place at that organization. However, if the individual is motivated more by a sense of well-being for the public than by a sense of well-being for him or herself, then there is going to be a higher incentive to perform the whistleblowing services.

Likewise, if the organization itself makes support and policy protection a part of its mission to help maintain an ethical organizational culture and community, it is more likely that the individual will feel less insecure about blowing the whistle and reporting on unethical or illegal activity. By offering support and protection, the organization shows that it is concerned with corporate social responsibility and welcomes reporting on all unethical/illegal activity, as its main goal is to be above board in all its dealings and interactions with the public.