Allies and Adversaries create Workplace Politics which Shape Organizational Culture

 Authors: Monette B. Dagupion and Laizel D. Sahagun

Divine Word College of Laoag

Abstract

Organizational Politics, also known as workplace or office politics, can be defined as competition for ideas and strategies that assist decision-making within any organizational structure. It identifies the effort one makes in the organization about one's self-interest and goal accomplishment. Organizational politics shape the organization's culture. This research seeks to establish the allies and the adversaries as the players in the politics of the organization and their effects on the organizational culture. Allies are supportive people who encourage others to have confidence in them and work towards developing a healthy organizational culture. Contrary to allies, adversaries are most likely to build competition or animosity, which may create tension between team members.

Keywords: Allies, Adversaries, Workplace Politics, Office Politics, Organizational Culture, Political Skill

Introduction

Politics is often described as dirty and downplayed by money, but its true essence is all about power, influence, and relationships. It is a radical composition everyone wants to have in life. We set our goals and pursue them; sometimes, we do not get what we wish; that is the life cycle. The bad thing about politics is how the greed of personal interests comes on the way. We often hear that politics does not have allies; they only have common interests.

Organizational or workplace politics is an inescapable aspect of anyone's professional life, which can profoundly impact the internal processes and the company's culture. In this complex system of politics at the workplace, the concepts of allies and adversaries are inevitable influential dynamics that define the organization's culture. Randolph (1985) argued that politics is not always bad; it is simply a tool that people can use for the good of the organization or for personal gain. Darrel Cabarrubias, a Certified Human Resource Professional (CHRP), expressed in an interview with Cosmopolitan Philippines that the discourse of Organizational Behavior affirms that politics in the workplace is a reality.   The research of Olorunleke (2015) suggests several factors that lead to workplace politics: high hierarchy, uncertain environment, ambiguity of goals, and others (Olorunleke, 2015).

Far from being a modern phenomenon, workplace politics is as old as work, a natural development of human interaction in structured environments. Abun (2022) states that political behaviour is part of human nature as a political animal. Djuric (1979) pointed out that our human behaviour is motivated by self-interest provides us with the capability of selfishness to reach our personal goals.

Associating politics within the workplace has its own good and bad side. If we allow only power and influence to secure a seat, chaos will be unleashed. Office politics may seem arrogant and unsatisfying, but it has its dynamics, whether upright or corrupt. The main concerns with workplace politics are how this scheme affects the organization and its employees and its benefits and drawbacks.

Learning more about organizational politics is essential as business environments become more competitive and dynamic. Business structures are not only a system of formal management positions and defined lines of authority but also feature subtle political dynamics that can considerably influence decisions and staff promotions. The research aims to explore such dynamics where allies at the workplace build trust and cooperation and help achieve organizational objectives. In contrast, due to conflicting self-interests, adversaries lead to division, rivalry, and toxic organizational culture.

The Concept of Workplace Politics

To support the author's claims, the Management Study Guide states, "Office politics arises when employees tend to misuse their power to gain undue attention and popularity at the workplace." Office politics increases conflicts and tensions and reduces individuals' productivity since they will play nasty to gain attention.

 

Politics in the workplace is an unavoidable part of workplace reality and, therefore, cannot be eliminated. Though it often leads to frustration and conflict, it can be an incredible tool for good when used correctly and with good intentions. Workplace politics cannot be viewed just as self-advancing or self-promoting, that is, enhancing the self at the expense of the rest; instead, it is about improving the appropriate functioning of the workplace. This paper has also found that these currents of influence will continue to grow as organizations and businesses change; therefore, mastering the art of flowing through these currents will be central to the effectiveness of professionals and organizations.

Today, questions arise as to what law is needed to mitigate such schemes in the private sector since the Philippine law mandated the Republic Act No. 6713, which states,  "an act establishing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees, to uphold the time-honoured principle of public office being a public trust, granting incentives and rewards for exemplary service, enumerating prohibited acts and transactions and providing penalties for violations thereof and for other purposes."  Although it does not directly point to workplace politics, Section 4, Norms of Conduct, includes justness and sincerity, which are the main issues.

Allies in Workplace Politics

According to Merriam-Webster, an ally is associated with another as a helper, person, or group that helps and supports an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle with a political ally.

Haglund (2023) said, "Alliances arise from states' attempts to maintain a balance of power with each other." This concept concludes that to rise to the top, allies would be the first thing to find in the workplace. The shared common goals would be the stepping stone to success.

Analyzing organizational charts in the workplace can help one understand the informal network. This can be done by discreetly observing employees' interactions and relationships. Finally, one can interpret how influence flows between the parties and whether there are any interpersonal conflicts. One can try to establish one's social network by understanding how existing relationships are built. 

Characteristics of Alliee

Although Workplace Politics connotes adverse reactions, it is a critical skill for success in the work environment and does not have to involve power manipulations, trust issues, or hidden agendas. Mintzberg (1983) advocated political perspectives on organizations and suggested that individuals must possess political skills to be effective in political environments. 

Gerald R. Ferris's Political Skill Theory examines an individual's interpersonal skills. The theory impacts many areas of organizational behaviour, such as leadership, work productivity, career advancement, and coping with pressure. In particular, higher political skill is associated with an increased likelihood of implementing change, finding solutions to conflicts, and encouraging subordinates. 

Based on research, Yeung (2023) defines political skill as "the ability to understand stakeholders effectively and to use such knowledge to influence them and secure resources to achieve organizational and personal goals." We can notice in his article that he did not mention unfairness in politics, as political behaviour can be mutually beneficial. For example, political skills can be used in power networking since spending time at work and developing stronger professional connections with others can significantly attract investors.

How Alliances Are Formed and Maintained

Alliances serve as vital lifelines for professional success and organizational effectiveness. One of the essential facts about these strategic partnerships is that they do not just happen. They are planned and developed over time. Building workplace alliances starts by identifying common ground or finding that one employee has similar abilities. People recognize those who provide backup to their suggestions, have comparable approaches toward work, or have strengths that cover the weaknesses of the former. 

To build one’s social network, one should be friendly with everyone and avoid unnecessary conflicts, but one should not align oneself too closely with one group and another.

After understanding the flow of influence and relationships in the workplace, the next step is to build connections. One can start by looking beyond the immediate team, getting to know influential people, and creating a high-quality connection. 

Positive Impacts of Allies on Organizational Culture

The famous saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is part of Austrian Psychologist Fritz Heider's social balance theory, introduced in the 1940s. It summarizes a realistic approach to alliances and relationships, particularly in challenging or competitive environments.

This approach fosters tolerance and flexibility when communicating with people. It reminds us that loyalty and allegiance may not always be permanent and that circumstances can create opportunities for new and beneficial connections. This becomes especially useful where flexibility is critical to success in any organization, especially in fluctuating environments.

When corporations maintain good relations, the working environment improves and is enhanced. Workplace support makes the employees feel a sense of belonging and, as such, are happier with their jobs. These conditions can spread good morale in the employer's camp, and everyone stands to gain. It focuses on a more positive work environment and decreases burnout, increasing employees' overall health.

Most alliances can be classified as unofficial manager-trainee relationships that play a role in building an organization's leadership inventory. Since allies work together to empower each other in career enhancement, they encourage lifelong learning. This may result in a more effective pool of leadership and a better organizational culture for talent development.

Thus, the role of allies in creating a positive organizational culture is multi-faceted and can be considered quite influential. These alliances can effectively support the change of culture for collaboration, willingness to share best practices and innovations, as well as employees' satisfaction and the organization's adaptability. However, there is a need to ensure that these alliances are built and managed ethically and, more to the point, complement the organizational culture and objectives. Thus, a well-developed culture of positive alliances can become an essential competitive advantage that will allow for the effective management of an organization's success in the context of the growing complexity of modern business environments.

Characteristics of Adversaries in Workplace Politics

Adversaries are people or organizations that have an opposing relationship with others as much as they have different self-interests and objectives. Such persons can be given to acts of rivalry, deceitfulness, or undermining nature at certain times. Hence, it is widely understood that adversaries can exert a substantial negative impact on the organizational culture; however, their impacts can equally be a catalyst of positive change or improvement. Adversaries in workplace politics can hinder teamwork and cooperation, ultimately affecting the overall productivity and effectiveness of the organization (Mintzberg, 2019).

Adversaries are typically not open to change or collaboration because they are focused on their colleagues as competitors. This adversarial mindset can create a toxic culture where conflict is common and mutual respect is diminished (Mintzberg, 2019). Studies show that adversaries are often found in highly competitive environments where resources are limited, and success is seen as a zero-sum game, leading to a culture of distrust and fear (Buchanan & Badham, 2008).

The Formation of Adversarial Relationships

Adversarial relationships in the workplace form primarily due to conflicting interests, power struggles, or personal grievances. According to Buchanan and Badham (2008), such relationships often emerge in environments where roles are ambiguous, competition for scarce resources, and a lack of transparent communication. This is the case when people feel threatened in a particular environment, and there are people out there who may threaten their leadership or authoritative positions.

As Chisanga (2024) stated in his research, another fundamental cause of organizational politics is ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the organization’s goals, roles, or decision-making processes. Adversarial relationships can be further influenced by ineffective leadership, lack of clear organizational objectives, and organizational culture that encourages competition rather than cooperation. When adversaries have negative attitudes towards others, they think of such people as competitors in their quest for a promotion, thus exhibiting negative behaviours like gossiping, undermining, or sabotaging the targeted individual. In addition, it is crucial to note that adversarial processes may manifest even more during organizational changes or when the conditions are unclear.

Negative Impacts of Adversaries on Organizational Culture

Adversaries can have significant negative impacts on organizational culture. Their actions may result in conflict within the company because of poor communication and distrust among employees, which can reduce collaboration because, according to Khan (2023), collaboration and communication go hand in hand. If employees communicate effectively, collaboration is likely to improve as well.  Likewise, cultures distinguished by a lack of trust will probably not encourage knowledge transfer from the individual to the group or the organization (Bishop et al., 2006), affecting the overall organizational culture.

Adversarial behaviours can cultivate an unhealthy working environment where employees can be uncomfortable expressing themselves or working together. An unhealthy or toxic work environment can lead to stress, conflict, and decreased morale (Chisanga, 2024). Research by Mintzberg (2019) emphasizes that adversarial politics can slow decision-making processes as individuals focus more on personal power struggles than collective goals. Under such conditions, organizational learning and innovation are eroded because employees become reluctant to step out of their comfort zones to share crucial information for fear of receiving an attack from their adversaries.

People involved in organizational politics are associated with negative traits such as deceitfulness, suspicion, rivalry, and self-interest. That can damage the organization's culture and erode trust, cooperation, and effectiveness of strategies and processes. However, understanding adversaries' behaviour enables an organization to implement measures that may nullify such influences. By encouraging openness, welcoming both verbal and non-verbal communication, and promoting teamwork, leaders can effectively manage the actions of adversaries and create a better work environment for everyone involved.

Conclusion

Workplace politics refers to the behaviours exhibited in organizations and affect the relationships between employees as well as the culture of the organization. Politics is usually seen in a negative light as it is linked to power battles and selfish gains. Still, it can equally act as a form of positive transformation, cooperation, and development when practiced with integrity and accountability. This paper analyzed the roles of both allies and adversaries in the context of workplace politics and underscored the essential significance of these roles within an organizational culture.

Allies, as defined by trust, cooperation, and mutual support, assist in creating a positive work culture that emphasizes collaboration, teamwork, and innovation to meet organizational objectives. This way, employees promote a healthy and positive workplace environment where problem-solving is based on good communication and achievements are celebrated.

However, adversaries have opposing self-interests, a sense of competition, and power battles that lead to a toxic workplace. These behaviours lead to manipulation, dishonesty, and rivalry, which leads to a lack of trust, hatred, and collaboration. These adversarial relationships can even harm work in organizations, as they slow decision-making and limit the creativity of new concepts.

It is crucial to know how allies and adversaries affect the workplace environment. Leaders should encourage clear communication and ethical practices to counterproductive behaviours of politically motivated employees by prioritizing the organization’s welfare. Recognizing workplace politics and its positive and negative effects can help create an environment conducive to employee growth and organizational success.

I.             References

Adams, G. L., Ammeter, A. P., Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Additional thoughts, reactions, and multi-level issues. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 1) (pp. 287-294). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01037-8

Block, P. (1988). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. Jossey-Bass.

Boswell, C. (2020). What is politics? The British Academy. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/what-is-politics/

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2008). Power, politics, and organizational change: Winning the turf game. SAGE Publications.

Cacciattolo, K. (2015). Organizational politics: The positive and negative sides. European Scientific Journal, 11(1).

Chisanga, A. (2024). Organizational politics. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378858410_Organizational_politics

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4(1), 1-34.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D., Perrewé, P., Brouer, R., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300813

Haglund, D. G. (2023). Alliance. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/alliance-politics

Khan, H. (2023). Lack of communication in the workplace: Cause and effects. Simpplr. https://www.simpplr.com/blog/2021/causes-effects-poor-communication-workplace/

Management Study Guide. (n.d.). Workplace politics - Meaning and reasons for office politics. Management Study Guide. https://www.managementstudyguide.com/workplace-politics.htm

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (2019). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. Simon and Schuster.

Olorunleke, G. (2015). Effect of organizational politics on organizational goals and objectives. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v4-i3/1877

Postma, N. (2021). You can’t sit it out office politics. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/07/you-cant-sit-out-office-politics

Yap, A. (2020). To navigate office politics, map out your friends and foes. INSEAD Knowledge. https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/navigate-office-politics-map-out-your-friends-and-foes

Yeung, R. (2023). The benefits of office politics. AB Magazine. https://abmagazine.accaglobal.com/global/articles/2023/jan/careers/the-benefits-of-office-politics.html

 

 

 

 

Ethical Implications of Close-Knit Relationships in the Workplace

 Nathaniel W. Gapatan and Christian Mark S. Doronio

Divine Word College of Laoag, Graduate School of Business

September 2024

Abstract

This paper explores the dual impact of workplace friendships on organizational ethics and effectiveness. On one hand, positive interpersonal relationships can enhance job satisfaction, teamwork, and communication, fostering a supportive and collaborative work environment. On the other hand, these friendships can blur professional boundaries, leading to favouritism, biased decision-making, and compromised integrity. The Social Identity Theory is used to explain how close-knit relationships can both support team cohesion and introduce risks of bias. The paper also highlights the challenges of nepotism and favouritism in hiring and promotion practices, particularly in government settings. Effective mitigation strategies include implementing clear codes of conduct, ensuring consistent enforcement, and fostering a culture of accountability. In the context of government institutions in the Philippines, adherence to ethical standards and the role of opposition in maintaining transparency are emphasized. The article concludes that while workplace friendships have significant benefits, they must be managed carefully to prevent ethical lapses and maintain organizational fairness.

Keywords: Ethics, Human Resources, Social Identity Theory, Workplace Relationships

Introduction

In any organization, how employees interact with each other has a big impact on its overall ethical environment. These interactions are the foundation upon which the organization’s culture is built, influencing everything from decision-making processes to the daily conduct of its members. When employees form friendships at work, it can create a positive atmosphere where collaboration and teamwork thrive. These bonds often lead to increased job satisfaction, better communication, and a sense of belonging that motivates employees to perform at their best. However, while workplace friendships can be beneficial, they also carry inherent risks if they become too dominant or influential within the organization. When friendships begin to take precedence over professional responsibilities, the lines between personal and professional boundaries can blur.

It is not uncommon for employees within an organization to develop close-knit relationships. In a 2012 study conducted by Jobsite, an online job search website, 70% of a thousand respondents said that having friends at work is the most crucial element to a happy working life. In the same study, it was found that two-thirds of the respondents would turn down a job offer with a higher salary to stay working with the people they liked and respected. This means that more than the salary or a pay rise, the greatest driving factor for workplace happiness is whether employees have a good working relationship among themselves or not.

In the Philippines, the dynamics among colleagues are deeply influenced by cultural traditions. When seeking advice from our elders about proper behaviour in the workplace, they often emphasize the importance of "pakikisama." This concept, which is deeply ingrained in Filipino culture, highlights the value of harmonious relationships and cooperation with others.

Social identity theory and the impact of close-knit workplace relationships

According to organizational behaviour theory, particularly the Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), people naturally form groups with those they share similarities with, which can lead to close-knit friendships within the workplace. Such relationships lead to a dynamic team of employees with stronger teamwork, high morale and a solid support system.

While these bonds can foster a supportive environment, they also carry the potential to result in biased decision-making. When managers form close personal relationships with their colleagues, loyalty to friends may overshadow the need for impartiality, leading to decisions that prioritize personal connections over merit. This bias can make it difficult for managers to provide honest feedback, as they might hesitate to criticize or address performance issues for fear of damaging the relationship. Additionally, enforcing necessary disciplinary actions can become even more challenging, as managers may avoid holding friends accountable, thereby compromising the integrity of their leadership. Over time, this favouritism can erode trust within the team, as employees may begin to perceive unfair treatment or unequal opportunities. Ultimately, this undermines the fairness and transparency that are essential to cultivating a healthy organizational culture, where decisions are made based on performance, and accountability is upheld without personal biases influencing outcomes.

In the workplace, much like nepotism, close friendships can lead to favouritism, where promotions or desirable work assignments are awarded based on personal relationships rather than merit (Perry, 2023). This dynamic often leaves high-performing employees feeling overlooked and unsupported, especially when they see those with family ties or strong connections to management being unfairly favoured. When a work environment becomes unsupportive in this way, it sets a precedent where hard work is not rewarded, undermining motivation. As a result, employee morale can decline, particularly among top performers, who may develop feelings of resentment and mistrust towards management due to perceived inequities in how opportunities are distributed. This, in turn, can significantly impact overall productivity and workplace harmony, as the unfair treatment erodes both team cohesion and the desire to excel.

When strong friendships dominate the workplace and there is little to no opposition to challenging ideas or behaviours, it creates an environment where personal and professional boundaries become blurred. This blurring of lines can severely weaken accountability, as individuals may prioritize their personal loyalties over the organization’s best interests. For instance, friends might be more inclined to cover for each other's mistakes or turn a blind eye to unethical behavior, fearing that addressing such issues could harm their relationships. In doing so, they inadvertently compromise the integrity and ethical standards of the organization. This fosters an atmosphere ripe for "groupthink," a phenomenon in which the desire for harmony and consensus overrides critical thinking and independent judgment (Kenton, 2024). As a result, important concerns may go unvoiced, and decisions may be made without thoroughly considering potential risks or alternative viewpoints. Over time, this can lead to a pattern of poor decision-making, inefficiencies, and even larger organizational failures, as the lack of accountability stifles innovation and critical reflection.

In worst-case scenarios, these unethical practices by management drive top-performing employees to seek employment elsewhere, leading to their departure from the organization (Perry, 2023). When someone leaves, their workload is distributed among the remaining staff, without the benefit of additional hires. This is because applicants are selected based on their connections with management rather than their qualifications. This issue is especially apparent in some government agencies, where employees are overworked and underpaid, often performing tasks meant for multiple people. The problem of staff turnover is worsened by selective hiring practices and background checks that focus on an applicant's political affiliations, aimed at expanding a politician’s influence. This delays the addition of new personnel. As a result of this toxic environment, overburdened government workers are often unfairly stereotyped by the public as slow, irritable, and unhelpful. Unfortunately, the blame is placed on the employees, who need support, rather than on the management, who failed to provide it.

 Ethical Implications of Close-knit Workplace Relationships

While workplace friendships have the potential to boost job satisfaction and enhance collaboration among employees, they can also introduce ethical challenges, such as favoritism, conflicts of interest, or bias in decision-making. To mitigate these risks, organizations must recognize the potential pitfalls and implement well-defined policies that promote fairness, transparency, and professional conduct. By doing so, they can foster a positive work environment while maintaining accountability and equity across the team.

In most cases, organizations create their own Professional Code of Conduct to clearly define the expected behaviours and ethical standards for their employees. This document typically serves as a foundation for maintaining professionalism within the company and helps guide employees on how to act in various situations. It usually includes important elements such as the company’s mission and values, ethical standards, acceptable workplace behaviour, and the disciplinary procedures that will be followed if these rules are violated. Additionally, it outlines the specific roles and responsibilities employees have in maintaining a respectful, lawful, and productive work environment.

However, merely having a written code of conduct does not guarantee that employees will always behave as expected. While it provides a framework, the document itself cannot enforce the rules. Effective enforcement requires active involvement from management, continuous training, and a positive organizational culture that emphasizes integrity and accountability. Without proper leadership, follow-through, and mechanisms for addressing misconduct, a code of conduct can easily become a formality that employees may overlook or ignore. This shows that simply having rules on paper is not enough; fostering an environment that actively upholds those standards is key to ensuring proper behaviour in the workplace.

In the context of government agencies in the Philippines, workplace concerns involving government employees are governed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Under Executive Order No. 292, the CSC is tasked with formulating policies, standards, and guidelines to ensure the effective management of personnel in the civil service. It also implements programs aimed at promoting cost-efficient and productive workforce administration within government institutions.

Moreover, government employees must adhere to the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees." This law reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust. It sets ethical guidelines and standards for government workers, specifies prohibited activities and transactions, and offers incentives for exemplary service. Violations of this law can result in penalties, underscoring the importance of integrity and accountability in the public sector.

Despite the existence of laws and regulations, we continue to hear about the misconduct of government employees. This may be due to the government's leniency in enforcing these rules. Additionally, it seems that individuals who engage in unethical behavior are often the ones who receive benefits or rewards, while those who adhere to the regulations are marginalized or, in some cases, excluded from certain circles. This creates an environment where misconduct is overlooked or even incentivized, while integrity is punished. In such an environment, the value of opposition becomes even more critical.

When misconduct and corruption are normalized or rewarded, it is often the voices of opposition that call attention to these injustices. Opposition serves as a vital check on the system, challenging unethical practices and pushing for accountability. It ensures that those in power do not operate without scrutiny and that the integrity of institutions is maintained (World Bank Institute, 2005). Without opposition, the culture of rewarding wrongdoing and punishing integrity could become entrenched, leading to a deeper erosion of public trust in government institutions. The role of dissenters, whistleblowers, and critics is crucial in holding those in power accountable and advocating for the proper enforcement of laws and regulations.

The importance of having an opposition is clearly illustrated by the current composition of the Philippine Senate. Ana Theresia “Risa” Hontiveros, a prominent advocate for women's rights, gender equality, and anti-corruption, stands out as a key opposition figure. Serving her second term since 2022, she was the only opposition candidate to win a Senate seat in the 19th Congress, securing 11th place among the 12 elected senators (Rappler, n.d.).

In contrast to many of her colleagues who often remain silent to maintain their political alliances, Hontiveros frequently takes progressive positions that clash with the more conservative, law-and-order approach of Vice President Sara Duterte, who also leads the Department of Education. A notable instance of this conflict arose when Hontiveros questioned the budget allocations for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education, raising issues about transparency and the controversial confidential funds granted to the OVP.

Hontiveros' actions have highlighted potential issues regarding the misuse or overreach of public resources, drawing attention to these concerns that might otherwise be overlooked if all senators aligned themselves with the administration. Her role as an opposition figure is crucial in ensuring that government spending and resource management remain accountable and transparent.

The political system in the Philippines relies on a robust process of open debate, where various ideas are presented, challenged, and either embraced or dismissed by the majority. This dynamic exchange helps surface the most effective solutions and policies. However, when there is no competition for power, it creates a detrimental situation for all parties involved. In the absence of political competition, citizens may feel that their perspectives are ignored, leading to disengagement from the political process. This disengagement can be extremely harmful to the health of a democracy, as it undermines the essential principle of active citizen participation.

Conclusion

The interplay between workplace friendships and organizational ethics presents a complex landscape. On one hand, strong interpersonal bonds among employees can enhance job satisfaction, foster collaboration, and build a supportive work environment. However, these relationships also carry significant risks, such as favouritism, biased decision-making, and blurred professional boundaries, which can undermine organizational fairness and integrity.

The Social Identity Theory illustrates how natural group formations can enhance team cohesion but also lead to potential conflicts of interest. When personal relationships overshadow professional responsibilities, issues like favouritism and unethical behaviour can arise, impacting employee morale and overall productivity. This is particularly evident in settings where nepotism and connections influence hiring and promotion decisions, leading to dissatisfaction among top performers and a decline in organizational effectiveness. 

In response to these challenges, organizations must establish clear codes of conduct and enforce ethical standards rigorously. While such frameworks provide necessary guidance, their effectiveness hinges on consistent management involvement and a culture that prioritizes accountability. In the context of government agencies, adherence to regulations and the presence of strong opposition voices are vital for maintaining transparency and preventing corruption.

Ultimately, balancing the benefits of workplace friendships with the need for ethical conduct requires ongoing vigilance and proactive measures. By fostering an environment where fairness and integrity are upheld, organizations can harness the positive aspects of interpersonal relationships while mitigating potential drawbacks, thus ensuring a healthy and productive work culture.

References:

Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987. Instituting the “Administrative Code of 1987”. Retrieved from: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-s-1987/

 

Fairchild, C. (2012, October 17). Workplace happiness survey finds friends are more important than salary. Huffpost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/workplace-happiness-friends-over-salary_n_1971110

Kenton, W. (2024, June 12). What is groupthink? Definition, characteristics, and causes. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/groupthink.asp#:~:text=Groupthink%20is%20a%20phenomenon%20that,of%20a%20group%20of%20people.

 

McLeod, S. (2023). Social identity theory in psychology. SimplyPSychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

 

Perry, E. (2023, March 14). 10 ways to detect favouritism in the workplace. BetterUp. https://www.betterup.com/blog/favoritism-in-workplace

 

Rappler. (n.d.). Risa Hontiveros. Rappler.com. https://www.rappler.com/people/n76471186-risa-hontiveros/

 

Republic Act No. 6713. An act establishing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees, to uphold the time-honoured principle of public office being a public trust, granting incentives and rewards for exemplary service, enumerating prohibited acts and transactions and providing penalties for violations thereof and for other purposes. Retrieved from: https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/republicacts/Republic_Act_No_6713.pdf

 

World Bank Institute. (2005). Parliamentary staff training for commonwealth countries. Agora. https://www.agora-parl.org/sites/default/files/agora-documents/WBI%20-%20The%20Role%20of%20the%20Opposition%20-%20EN%20-%20PI.pdf

 

 

Whistleblowing: Ethical Dilemmas, Legal Protections, and Organizational Challenges

 By: Juan, Princess Sañata & Sonico, Maricel N.

Divine Word College of Laoag

Abstract:  

            Whistleblowing serves a vital function in promoting more transparent and accountable organizations by unveiling illegal and unethical practices. This paper explores the complex concept of whistleblowing, navigating not just the protection laws on a national and international level but also the personal and professional challenges that potential whistleblowers may face or the dilemmas that come with speaking up. It assesses the current whistleblower protection laws, such as the US Whistleblower Protection Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the European Union’s Whistleblower Protection Directive, while presenting also that these protections are not always effective since whistleblowers still face ethical dilemmas and challenges such as retaliation and emotional distress.

            In today’s modern era, social media and technology shaped the changes in the way whistleblowing can be exposed to the public, however, it imposed a risk to privacy and security. The paper also emphasizes the terrible reality that whistleblowers may face including being isolated from the rest of the group or subjected to reprisals, which shows that these practices can affect organizational ethics and public trust. To build a supportive environment and a culture where whistleblowers feel safe, the paper provides actionable recommendations in response to these challenges, including strengthening compliance programs and ethics training. Finally, it advocates for continuous legal reform, better implementation of existing protection laws, and cultural changes to guarantee that whistleblowing continues to be an effective weapon against corruption and promotes ethical behaviour in society.

Keywords: whistleblowing, legal protection, egoism, deontology, utilitarianism, organizational culture, retaliation, compliance, and ethics programs

Introduction

Our actions lead to consequences greater than ourselves that affect our health, safety, economic, and human rights. When it comes to corruption, its greatest prevention is revealing the truth. Unfortunately, not all the time employees are left to do the right thing due to a significant risk.

In 2015, Sustainable Development Goal 16, “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” introduced by the United Nations played a significant function in streamlining whistleblowing as an instrument in promoting transparency (Høedt-Rasmussen and Voorhoof 2018). In line with the mission of SDG 16, it recognizes whistleblowing in curbing corruption (Sørensen et al. 2020) through elevated reporting of illegal, dangerous, or unethical actions within both government and private sectors. Whistleblowing has contributed to bettering organizational culture by preventing or uncovering errors and accidents (Banisar, 2011), and strategy for boosting the effectiveness and sustainability of organizations (Önder et al. 2019). However, despite the initiatives and protection, when it all comes down to a real situation, the company is more in an advantageous position than the whistleblower. In addition, instead of feeling empowered, mishandled cases of whistleblowing further diminish the conviction of blowing the whistle.

Definition and Concepts of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing encompasses a variety of aspects. According to Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1985), whistle-blowing refers to the act of an existing or former member of an organization discovering an illegal, unethical, or irregular behaviour in an organization and whistle-blowing to an individual or organization that may affect the behaviour. On the other hand, US consumer activist Ralph Nader (1971) described it as “An act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity.” Similarly, Duska et al. (2011) defines whistleblowing as “the practice in which employees who know that their company or colleague is engaged in activities that: cause unnecessary harm; violate human rights; are illegal; run counter to the defined purpose of the instructions or the professions; are otherwise immoral informs superiors, professional organizations, the public, or some government agency of these activities”. Other academics like author Peter Jubb have focused on whistleblowing as mostly an element of free speech and the right of individuals to express dissent. According to him, it is a necessary public action that involves deliberate and voluntary disclosure. He also added that it is an act by someone with current or former privileged access to an organization’s data or information, addressing significant illegal activities or other misconduct—whether real, suspected, or anticipated—that the organization controls. This disclosure is made to an external entity capable of addressing the issue. In that sense, whistleblowing involves negative or sensitive information regarding potential misconduct in an organization (Lazar, 2022; Skivenes & Trygstad, 2010) which is why individuals who have a potential role in uncovering organizational fraud (Dyck et al., 2010) are hesitant due to the high risk it comes within the responsibility (Lee & Fargher, 2018; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).

Upon presenting themselves, whistleblowers are confronted with unfair treatment and termination from companies. Regulators intervene by enforcing laws to minimize these risks and protect whistleblowers. In the Philippine setting, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019 acknowledges whistleblowers play a vital role in reporting improper conduct within public offices, thereby aiding in the fight against corruption and ensuring high standards of integrity. The proposed measure aims to enhance the protection, security, and benefits for whistleblowers who are admitted into a designated whistleblower protection program managed by the Whistleblower Benefits and Protection Council. Even though the legal framework of the policy continuously evolves and strengthens to protect whistleblowers, there are gaps and the effectiveness of these protections can vary greatly. Such protection must be meaningful and incorporated into organizational structures and policies (Fotaki, 2016). Some scholars believe that whistleblower protection law cannot be truly effective. For example, Martin (2003) argued that whistleblower legislation is often ineffective and can even create an illusion of protection that is dangerous for whistleblowers. He proposed that whistleblowers should focus on acquiring practical skills such as grasping organizational dynamics, gathering data, writing clear reports, forming alliances, and engaging with the media, rather than depending solely on official procedures, legal frameworks, or ombudspersons. He contended that these skills are central to the effectiveness of official procedures. Encouraging the development of these skills could be a more effective approach to empowering and safeguarding whistleblowers (Martin, 2003). This statement further emphasizes the heavy responsibility of the whistleblowers- this requirement adds to the individual’s burden, making the process of whistleblowing more daunting and intimidating that leading to discouragement in coming forward. 

The landscape for whistleblowers has evolved significantly over recent decades, influenced by various societal changes. Today, various web-based platforms are developed as way to deal with the challenges of whistleblowing. This technology is intended to improve the accessibility of the channels, confidentiality and anonymity protection, as well as report management. The existence of social media also contributed to whistleblowing practices, which some scholars refer to as virtual whistleblowing (Lam & Harcourt, 2019; Latan et al., 2021; Lazar, 2022). With internet technology and social media, any stakeholders (including employees) can share negative or sensitive information about companies online—and even anonymously—through employee review websites. Still, it is a double-edged sword, while it offers anonymity and reach, it can also potentially compromise security and privacy.

In the past, whistleblowing was associated with the concept of gaining information on revolutionary movements or political activities. Consequently, in some countries, the concept of reporting misconduct has become associated with negative connotations such as in the Czech Republic, Ireland, Romania, and Slovakia, “whistleblower” is associated with being an informant. In Bulgaria and Italy, it’s associated with being a traitor or spy while in Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, it’s associated with being a snitch.

Therefore, the mistrust of whistleblowers is a learned behaviour passed down from families and communities which leads to the stigma of speaking up is life-threatening, and it’s safer to stay quiet.  Ultimately, the historic feeling that making a report even if it’s to report wrongdoing is “wrong” could contribute to fewer people blowing the whistle in these countries. Without widespread support for the idea that blowing the whistle is the correct course of action, many potential whistleblowers feel pressured to stay quiet. Therefore, corruption goes unchecked for longer, often putting people at risk.  

Theoretical Frameworks

Whistleblowing involves exposing unethical or illegal activities within an organization. According to Duska et al. (2011), when it comes to Egoism, individuals always act in their self-interest. This suggests that the decision to blow the whistle depends on what they can gain-- such as career advancement, recognition, incentives, etc. Conversely, if the action does not offer personal gain, there is no motivation to blow the whistle. For this reason, Egoism is generally rejected often because it promotes selfishness and disregard for others' welfare. On the other hand, Duska et al. (2011), also argued that recent mindset research has shown that self-interest and concern for the self are not entirely bad but it is worse when certain individuals start pushing their goals at the grief of another. However, egoists contend that if one does not look out for the self, who will? Therefore, the very nature of egoism undermines the moral and professional values typically associated with whistleblowing when it should be done in honour of the profession in the first place and not for self-advancement. Duska et al. (2011) state that even though professionals may not concur, there are times when they will be obliged to expose unethical secrets.

 Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that advocates the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). He advocated that an action that brings about more good consequences is viable while an action that brings about bad consequences is harmful. (Duska et al., 2011). Therefore, if exposing wrongdoing prevents harm, protects public interest, or promotes justice, then the act of whistleblowing can be seen as morally right. This makes whistleblowing fits into the utilitarian framework of ethics because it is grounded on the consideration of the larger society and the greater good over the potential harm or discomfort experienced by a few individuals or organization

Deontology is based on the belief that if one acts to fulfil his desires then they are not acting out of a moral motive. There are two formulas Immanuel Kant articulated based on the principle of this theory. The first formula is that one should “act so that you can will the maxim of your action to become a universal law”. Therefore, whistleblowing is valid under the ethics of deontology if one wants it to be universally accepted as a moral act. The second formula is to “act to never be to treat another rational being merely as a means”. In the context of whistleblowing, by bringing to light the practices that harm individuals or the public, the whistleblower respects the dignity and rights of those affected by the unethical behaviour—unlike in egoism wherein the main concern is themselves or utilitarianism which centres on outcomes.

Legal Protections for Whistleblowers

            Whistleblower protection legislation aims to shield people from retaliation when they reveal illegal, unethical, or improper activity within corporations. These laws encourage the reporting of misconduct by providing legal protection to whistleblowers. Such protections' scope, effectiveness, and enforcement vary significantly across countries and regions. Here is an overview of some of the National and International laws in place to protect whistleblowers.

National Whistleblower Protection Laws

            The most advanced procedures for protecting whistleblowers are found in the United States. This includes the "Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989," which shields federal workers who provide information that demonstrates legal infractions, flagrant financial mismanagement, hazards to public health and safety, or other miscellaneous misconduct. Retaliation in the form of termination, demotion, or other unfavourable job measures is prohibited. Another is the "Dodd-Frank Act" which protects people from retribution and offers incentives to expose financial wrongdoing, including violations of securities laws. Anonymous reporting of infractions is permitted, and whistleblowers may be compensated with up to 30% of the fines obtained through legal action.

            The "Whistleblower Protection Directive" of the European Union ensures that whistleblowers have access to efficient mechanisms for reporting violations of regulations confidentially, both internally and externally. And these reports are appropriately looked into and handled by the concerned authorities and organizations. Whistleblowers are also protected against all forms of retaliation.

            The United Kingdom’s "Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998" protects workers from detrimental treatment or victimization from their employer if, in the public interest, they blow the whistle on wrongdoing such as breach of legal obligation, danger to the health and safety of any individual, and damage to the environment. The Act protects most workers in the public, private, and voluntary sectors. 

International Whistleblower Protection Laws

            In Article 33 Protection of Reporting Persons of the “United Nations Convention Against Corruption,” each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established following this Convention.

            The “Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7” has developed a legal instrument for protecting individuals who report or disclose information on acts and omissions in the workplace that represent a serious threat or harm to the public interest. The report analyses whistleblower protection frameworks in Council of Europe member states since the adoption of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 and identifies good practices and positive developments.

            The “G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group” established the High-Level Principles for the Effective Protection of Whistleblowers. These principles intend to establish, modify, or strengthen protection frameworks, legislation, and policies for whistleblowers and are intended to complement existing anti-corruption commitments and not weaken or replace them. The High-Level Principles offer flexibility to enable countries to apply them by their respective legal traditions effectively. The principles can also guide those responsible for setting up and operating protection frameworks for whistleblowers in the public and private sectors.

            These laws were designed to make whistleblowers feel safe and protect them from reprisals. However, its effectiveness may vary from different locations. The Whistleblower Protection Act and Dodd-Frank Act have been effective in the United States to expose wrongdoing, especially in the federal government. With the financial incentives offered by the Dodd-Frank Act, numerous whistleblowers have disclosed financial fraud. In Europe, the Whistleblower Protection Directive united the member states in protecting the whistleblowers. By creating a way for people to report issues internally, it has helped make things safer for whistleblowers. The Public Interest Disclosure Act in the UK has led to more whistleblowers stepping forward, particularly in both the public and private sectors.        

            Certainly, whistleblower protection laws have come a long way in promoting transparency and accountability but there is still much room for improvement. The extent of their effectiveness lies mostly on the strength with which these laws are enforced and their acceptance culturally as well as in how much legal protections different sectors get. Continued uniformity in the adoption of international practice and limitations around resources for protecting whistleblowers are ongoing challenges. Further legal reform, enhanced enforcement, and a shift away from the stigmatization of whistleblowing are necessary to make these laws more effective worldwide.

Challenges faced by the Whistleblowers

            As an employee of any organization or company, you are expected to become loyal to the company at all times, that is why whistleblowing has been a pressing issue inside and outside the organization when one commits this act specifically to your employer. And as a result of that action, whistleblowers often face different challenges.

            One common challenge is Retaliation, your employer might take revenge and fire you, harass you, or demote you from your current position in the company. However, since retaliation is illegal with all the whistleblower protection laws on hand, you can ask for legal advice from lawyers and fight for your rights. Another is that you may go through Emotional Distress. As a result of revealing your employer’s misdeeds, you may face criticism and discrimination from your employer and colleagues and this could result in panic attacks and depression on your part. Next, since the whistleblowing process is often too lengthy to be proven in court, this may become tough for you as you pay for expenses such as hiring a lawyer and attending court hearings and this might become harder on your part if your employer chooses to fire or terminate you. Whistleblowing also compromises trust since the company prefers if issues and concerns are addressed internally thus creating harmony and good relationships among employers, employees, and the staff. Another is the possibility of getting an unfavorable judgment on the wrongdoing you have filed against your employer. If you can keep up with the legal technicalities that the court may require you and if you could provide strong evidence to prove your claim. It might also become challenging for you to get employed in other organizations once they happen to know your background as a whistleblower in your previous company. Lastly, you may also experience gender-based discrimination especially if you’re a female whistleblower. This will cause you greater criticism for your actions. So, it would be best to contact first a whistleblower lawyer before coming out.

Organizational and Societal Impacts

Despite the encouragement and transparent communication regarding whistleblowing in organizations, once the deed of disclosing information on wrongdoings is executed, whistleblowers are isolated as being the “troublemakers” as their colleagues and superiors become progressively less friendly (Rothschild, 2008). In such a way, whistleblowing is perceived as a form of betrayal that leads to retaliation by the organization (Uys, 2008). Organizations maltreat whistleblowers through work-related retaliations such as blacklisting, constructive dismissal, transfers to another section, personal harassment, character assassination, and the implementation of disciplinary proceedings discrediting the employee (Glazer & Glazer 1989; Gummer 1985; Hunt 1995; Mesmer‐Magnus & Viswesvaran 2005; Rothschild & Miethe 1994). These companies are the same organizations that advertise themselves with good values and ethics but dispute their principles. What makes it worse is that retaliation frequently takes place faster than protection, which places the employer at a strategic advantage (De Maria (2006). Miceli et al (2008) developed a model to understand the reason why organizations would retaliate against a whistleblower and provided insights on the constructive ways of facilitating whistleblowing by creating an organizational culture that discourages retaliation. He emphasized that it has something to do with compliance that strongly discourages wrongdoings which reduces the need for whistleblowing. This creates a perception of a receptive attitude toward dealing with complaints, thereby minimizing the likelihood of reprisals. If important values are not being shared by employees, it implies the organizational culture is weak and ethics are easily compromised (Dorasamy & Pillay, 2011). On the other hand, it could also be argued that “emphasis on compliance creates so much bureaucracy or over‐controls employees that it undermines the development of ethical values, good decision making and trust in management” (Miceli et al, 2008) but this approach can streamline in setting dominate organizational culture leading to consistent practice of values. This is further supported by Tsahuridu and Vanderckhove (2008) who argued that by institutionalizing employees into the ethical culture of the organization, the ethical autonomy of employees in the organizational context is enhanced. Hence, the environment for potential whistleblowing is more conducive. When values are enacted in an organization, it can be suggested that employees are less likely to fear retaliation.

            Whistleblowing plays an important role in promoting public trust and transparency. Brown et al. (2014) stated that the relationship between whistleblowing, transparency, and public trust is complex and nuanced. Whistleblowing exposes any misdeeds in an organization and is regarded as a critical instrument for transparency. A result of the study by the authors from Australia, the UK, and International surveys show that the public supports whistleblowing as part of transparency reforms. However, the public’s support of whistleblowing doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t trust organizations, rather they see it as a corrective action to any wrongdoings. This highlights how whistleblowing as a transparency mechanism contributes to trust rather than as a substitute for it.

            Moreover, public whistleblowing such as to media is often seen as a last resort when internal mechanisms fail. This serves as a warning against any wrongdoing by organizations and helps build trust by ensuring that organizations are held liable.

Promoting ethical behaviour in the organization

            Whistleblowing might seem ethical since you as an employee have the moral duty to report any wrongdoing of your company. However, many employees hesitate to come out once they discover illegal activities in their organization, partly because they might find themselves struggling with ethical dilemmas and challenges they may face as a whistleblowers. That is why in creating a culture of ethics and transparency in an organization, ethics should be the top priority of a company from the very first day, so employees know and feel at ease to come forward if they discover something.

            To prioritize ethics, an organization can set up a compliance hotline where employees can report misconduct anonymously. Signage where employees can see when, where, and how to report. Another is the onboarding process of new employees, making ethics part of their training. These could help the organization create a culture of ethical behaviour and foster an environment where employees feel safe coming out. If you make ethics an integral part of your corporate culture, then there would be nothing wrong for whistleblowers to report.

Conclusion

            Whistleblowing even though when done with good intentions, is still frowned upon due to the consequences it leads to both employee and employer but most damage is directed to the whistleblowers extending outside the workplace. Over the years of significant progress and advancements in legal protection, conflicts continue to arise despite the ethical theories such as egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology providing insight and justifications making it difficult to apply due to complex actual circumstances.

            Legal frameworks have made notable strides in safeguarding whistleblowers. However, not every whistleblowing case is handled effectively since it varies widely; gaps in enforcement are also a hindrance and cultural acceptance persists. The challenge of retaliation and the stigma associated with whistleblowing implies the need for stronger and universally applied protection measures.

            To truly foster an environment where whistleblowing can thrive as a tool for ethical oversight, organizations must go beyond mere compliance. Organizations must live up to their core values of embedding a culture of ethics in their workplace, providing clear and confidential reporting mechanisms, and supporting whistleblowers through effective legal and organizational frameworks. In addition, corporate practices should incorporate education and training on ethical behaviour, ensuring that employees are both empowered and protected when reporting wrongdoing, without the fear of retaliation.

                Ultimately, to achieve an organizational culture that promotes transparency and accountability, effort must come from all the stakeholders including policymakers, corporate leaders, and the public. By addressing the underlying issues that undermine whistleblower protections and embracing a proactive approach to ethics, organizations can protect the integrity of their operations and contribute to the broader fight against corruption.

References

Banisar, D. (2011). Whistleblowing: International standards and developments.

Brown, A. J., Dreyfus, S., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2014). The relationship between transparency, whistleblowing, and public trust. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298103056_The_relationship_between_transparency_whistleblowing_and_public_trust

Charity Commission for England and Wales. (2020). The Public Interest Disclosure Act. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-auditors-and-independent-examiners-of-charities/the-public-interest-disclosure-act--2

De Maria, W. (2006). Common law—Common mistakes? Practising whistleblowing in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7), 2–10.

Dorasamy, N., & Pillay, S. (2011). Institutionalising a value-enacted dominant organisational culture: An impetus for whistleblowing. Corporate Ownership and Control, 8, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv8i3c2p6

Duska, R., Duska, B. S., & Ragatz, J. A. (2011). Accounting ethics. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2010). Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? Journal of Finance, 65(6), 2213–2253.

European Committee on Legal Co-operation. (n.d.). Protection of whistleblowers. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/cdcj/activities/protecting-whistleblowers

European Commission. (n.d.). Protection for whistleblowers. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/protection-whistleblowers_en

Ethico. (2021). Is whistleblowing an ethical practice? Retrieved from https://ethico.com/is-whistleblowing-an-ethical-practice/

Glazer, M. P., & Glazer, P. M. (1989). The whistleblowers: Exposing corruption in government and industry. New York: Basic Books.

Hayes, A. (2024). Dodd-Frank Act: What it does, major components, and criticisms. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dodd-frank-financial-regulatory-reform-bill.asp

HRfuture. (n.d.). 8 challenges whistleblowers face in and out of the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.hrfuture.net/future-of-work/trending/8-challenges-whistleblowers-face-in-and-out-the-workplace/

Høedt-Rasmussen, I., & Voorhoof, D. (2018). Whistleblowing for sustainable democracy. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights.

Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005922701763

Lam, H., & Harcourt, M. (2019). Whistle-blowing in the digital era: Motives, issues, and recommendations. New Technology, Work and Employment, 34(2), 174–190.

Lazar, T. (2022). Organizational scandal on social media: Workers whistleblowing on YouTube and Facebook. Information and Organization, 32(1).

Martin, B. (2003). Illusions of whistleblower protection. UTS Law Review, 5, 119–130.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). A word to the wise: How managers and policymakers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 379–396.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. Retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/11015966/

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (n.d.). G20 High-Level for the Effective Protection of Whistleblowers. Retrieved from https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/g20_summit/osaka19/pdf/documents/en/annex_07.pdf

National Whistleblower Center. (n.d.). Whistleblower protection laws for federal employee whistleblowers. Retrieved from https://www.whistleblowers.org/whistleblower-protection-laws-for-federal-whistleblowers/

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics.

Oscar. (2024, March 18). Cultural attitudes towards whistleblowing: Why do they differ and how can we change them? NorthWhistle. Retrieved from https://www.northwhistle.com/cultural-attitudes-towards-whistleblowing/

Önder, M. E., Akçıl, U., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2019). The relationship between teachers’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and whistleblowing. Sustainability, 11, 5995.

Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Whistle-blowing as resistance in modern work organizations. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 252–273). London: Routledge.

Sørensen, J. L., Nilsen Gaup, A. M., & Magnussen, L. I. (2020). Whistleblowing in Norwegian municipalities—Can offers of reward influence employees’ willingness and motivation to report wrongdoings?

Tsahuridu, E. E., & Vanderckhove, E. (2008). Organizational whistleblowing policies: Making employees responsible or liable? Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 107–118.

Uys, T. (2008). Rational loyalty and whistleblowing: The South African context. Current Sociology, 56(5), 904–921.

United Nations. (2015). UNGA resolution on transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (Adopted 21 October 2015). UN-Doc A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations.

Vandekerckhove, W., Fotaki, M., Kenny, K., Humantito, I. J., & Kaya, D. D. O. (2016). Effective speak-up arrangements for whistle-blowers. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form