As summarised in Figure 2.1, the aim of Chapter 2 is to propose the integrated frameworks of ethical decision-making and prosocial organisational behaviour perspectives of whistle-blowing decisions and moderation models of ethical judgement and whistle-blowing intention.
Figure 2.1: Connecting research questions and development of whistle- blowing decision model
Figure 2.1 demonstrates the linkages between the research questions developed in Chapter 1 and the literature review in Chapter 2. The role of these linkages is to ensure that the conceptual framework and hypotheses developed from the literature review are able to guide the researcher in answering the research questions.
A theoretical framework was developed to organise the research by connecting the research purposes, research questions and existing literature to develop a conceptual model and set of hypotheses. To ensure that the study is sufficiently meaningful and fills a knowledge gap(s), the theoretical framework was developed based on the context that Indonesia is now in the process of carrying out anti-corruption reform and in agreement with the recommendations of prominent researchers in their most recent studies. The chapter structure follows this logic.
Among various definitions, the most widely used definition of whistle-blowing in empirical research according to King (1997), Tavakoli et al. (2003), Brennan (2007) and Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) (2011) is the one given by Near and Miceli (1985, p. 4), that whistle-blowing is:
... the disclosure by organisation members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organisations that may be able to effect action.
To capture the characteristics of whistle-blowing in greater detail, representative definitions of whistle-blowing containing various point of views and various emphasises were analysed. A definition of whistle-blowing according to Western literature is then compared with the concept of whistle-blowing in Indonesia in order to gain a better perspective of the various moral dimensions of whistle- blowing.
Whistle-blowing behaviour was studied using various approaches. They include 1) whistle-blowing as a speaking truth to power behaviour and an act of resistance or an act of collective opposition to authority (O’Toole, 2008; Perrucci, et al., 1980; Contu, 2014), 2) praxiological theory of struggle that the whistle-blower is seen as a person who is acting against the misbehaviour but not against the organisation itself (Gasparski, 2011), 3) social information processing perspective of whistle-blowing (Gundlach, et al., 2003; Keil, et al., 2010 ), 4) whistleblowing as planned behaviour (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009; Winardi, 2013), 5) Behavioural reasoning theory perspective of whistle-blowing which consists of reasons for and reasons against the whistle-blowing behaviour (Oh & Teo, 2010), and 6) whistle-
blowing as trust relationship between multiple actors (Vandekerckhove, et al., 2016).
Whistle-blowing can be seen also as an action to correct wrongdoing by persons lacking any direct authority to blow the whistle (Miceli & Near, 1992) and as social actors who use the resources available to them to actively disseminate anti- corruption practices (Misangyi, et al., 2008), overcome scepticism and persuade other employees to believe in the benefits of their act of reporting (Miceli, et al., 2008). The views lead to the use of two perspectives of whistle-blowing: prosocial organisational behaviour (POB) and ethical decision-making perspectives of whistle-blowing. These two perspectives and various definitions of whistle- blowing were used to inform the researcher of existing knowledge, the themes to be explored and those factors involved in a whistle-blowing decision to be further measured, tested and examined.
Miceli et al. (2008) believed that future research using the POB perspective would be very valuable. It is also believed that the theory of normalisation of corruption (Ashforth & Anand, 2003) may be able to offer potential insight and guide future research on whistle-blowing. The theory of normalisation of corruption was utilised in reflection of the notion that in trying to illuminate why people would reveal the truth (whistle-blowing), we must also uncover the reasons as to why people commit to wrongdoing in the first place (Arszulowicz, 2011). The theory was utilised also to illuminate the phenomenon of the institutional corruption. According to Lessig (2013), institutional corruption is manifest when there is a systemic and strategic influence which is legal, or even currently ethical, that undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose. However, the theoretical frameworks focus on the process of a whistle-blowing decision. For reasons of space, this study does not cover events that take place after the decision, such as experiences of retaliation in the workplace, response from other employees and the efficacy of the act of whistle-blowing.
Chapter 2 is organised as follows: first, there is an introduction containing a brief description of theory used in the research. The concept of whistle-blowing is
presented in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, which includes the previous model of whistle- blowing decision and discussion about whistle-blowing behaviour. The ethical decision making and POB perspectives of whistle-blowing are given in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Previous studies regarding internal auditors’ whistle-blowing decisions are discussed in Section 2.6, whilst Section 2.7 contains a description of the variables used to develop the research hypotheses. The research context is presented in Section 2.8 include the Indonesian culture and the description of government internal audit units in Indonesia. The conceptual model developed from the literature review are presented in Section 2.9.