Whistleblowing is a crucial mechanism in the fight against corruption. It is specially critical for public corruption because whistleblowing disarms corruption (Perez 2018) through the revelation of secret wrongdoings and operations that affect a whole nation (Guerrero 2018).
Whistleblowing is the disclosure of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices by employee(s), former or current, of public or private organizations to persons or organizations that may be able to take or initiate some action (Near and Miceli 1985; Figg 2000).
Whistleblowers are source of valuable information that neither the government nor the public can get from oversight systems. Moreover, they are knowledgeable people who know precisely what their organizations are doing. Thus, whistleblowing is an important means of improving government transparency and accountability (Apaza and Chang 2011; Rosenbloom 2003; Jos 1991; Rosen 1998).
However, whistleblowing is not always welcomed by organizational members and puts the person in very dangerous situations depending on legal protection or organizational culture. But, in spite of the fact that there is still negative belief in whistleblowing, whistleblowing is socially desirable and positively influence employees, organizations, and society (Culiberg and Mihelic 2017). This can be reflected by both the increasing whistleblowing actions and whistleblowing research in the world.
Indeed, after the first edition of this book, whistleblowing actions and whistleblowing research increased significantly. This happened not only because more and more whistleblowers from the public and private sectors decided to blow the whistle but also because an increasing number of researchers analyzed the process. For example, whistleblowing and social action against corruption in Latin America (Salas 2017), serious public wrongdoings in Australia (Cassematis and Wortley 2013), whistleblowing process in Norwegian labor market (Skivenes and Trygstad 2017), whistleblowing intentions of public accountants in Indonesia (Latan et al. 2018), whistleblowing intentions in South Africa and Mauritius (Pillay et al. 2018), propensity of whistleblowing in China, Taiwan, and the USA (Hwang et al. 2013), moral reasoning and retaliation on whistleblowing in New Zealand (Liyanarachchi and Newdick 2009).
In most of those cases there was a positive action against the wrongdoing. Hence, they were somehow effective. But what is exactly effective whistleblowing?
1 Effective Whistleblowing
In the first edition of this book we identified five factors that define effective whistleblowing: type of whistleblowing, role of mass media , documentation of evidence, retaliation, and legal protection (Apaza and Chang 2017). These factors were determined by a careful study of the theory existed then.
In this regard, we found that Near and Miceli (1995) defined effectiveness in whistleblowing as âthe extent to which the questionable or wrongful practice (or omission) is terminated at least partly because of whistle-blowing and within a reasonable time frameâ (p. 681). Likewise, Dworkin and Baucus (1998) suggested that effectiveness is attained âif the organization launched an investigation into the whistleblowerâs allegationsâon their own initiative or required by a government agency, or if the organization took steps to change policies, procedures, or eliminate wrongdoingâ (p. 1289). In the same sense, Ellison, Keenan, Lockhart, and Van Schaik (1985) suggested that successful whistleblowing should have two components: the activeness of the purpose and the influence in others.
Based on those previous findings, and critically analyzing whistleblowing cases in Peru, South Korea, Thailand, and the USA, we found that an effective whistleblowing is a disclosure of a wrongdoing mainly done through mass media coverage such as TV and internet), that led to: (i) government or non-governmental investigation, (ii) to take steps to change policies or procedures, and (iii) to terminate the wrongdoing within a reasonable time frame (Apaza and Chang 2017). Accordingly, we suggested 5 factors of effective whistleblowing:
- 1.Type of whistleblowing (Internal and External Whistleblowing)An internal whistleblowing is the person who discloses the information following the procedures of his/her organization. In contrast an external whistleblower is a person who reports an organizationâs illegal, immoral, or illegitimate workings to someone outside the organization (Dworkin and Baucus 1998). Unfortunately, in both cases whistleblowers usually suffer retaliation in different levels.But by looking at the results of the whistleblowing (i.e. investigations done, organizational positive changes implemented as a consequence of the disclosure), external whistleblowing is more effective than the internal one (Rothschild and Mietheâs 1999; Dworkin and Baucus 1998). For example, corruption cases in Peru and South Korean got attentions after blowing the whistle through mass media (Apaza and Chang 2017).
- 2.Role of mass mediaThe use of mass media to disclose corruption highly depends on social and cultural aspects, which may affect whistleblowersâ decision on whether to blow the whistle. For instance, in societies where a high percent of the population watches popular national TV news programs, such as in Peru, whistleblowers would prefer to blow the whistle through this channel (Apaza 2017). However, in a culture where people highly value group loyalty and safe face, like in Japan, people would use other channels (Davis and Konish 200...