CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background of Study Nowadays, integrity issues become frequently discuss and report among reporters and society. As we know, integrity is a part of ethical values that shows the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. It is importance to be integrity person to ensure the task or jobs are more honest and there is no abuse of power among the public or private employees. The situation can be seen in several countries, there are a lot of unethical behaviors from employer or employees. There must be a reason unethical behavior happened. So, whistle-blowing protection was introduced in order to prevent any unethically behaviors in organization such as fraud, corruption, abuse of power and so on. 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of Study
Nowadays, integrity issues become frequently discuss and report among
reporters and society. As we know, integrity is a part of ethical values that shows
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. It is importance to
be integrity person to ensure the task or jobs are more honest and there is no
abuse of power among the public or private employees. The situation can be
seen in several countries, there are a lot of unethical behaviors from employer or
employees. There must be a reason unethical behavior happened. So, whistle-
blowing protection was introduced in order to prevent any unethically behaviors
in organization such as fraud, corruption, abuse of power and so on.
Whistle-blowing has been defined as ‘disclosure by a current of former
organization member of illegal, inefficient, or unethical practices in a organization
to a person or parties who have the power or resources to take action (Near and
Meceli, 1985). It continues to receive media intention (Vinten, 1997).
Whistleblowing is a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto
public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data
or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing
whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the
1
control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify the
wrong doing. Whistleblowing is presented as dissent, in response to an ethical
dilemma, in the form of a public accusation against an organization. It contains
six elements. These are: the act of disclosing damaging news; the whistleblower
agent; a disclosure subject – some (potential) wrongdoing; a target organization
held responsible; a disclosure recipient; and an outcome –the disclosure enters
the public domain (Peter B. Jubb, 1999).
In early research, the researcher came out with idealism and relativism as
determinants of the whistle-blowing mode choice. Forsyth and Nye (1990) argue
that personal moral philosophy is a framework which is used by an individual to
decide on ethical dilemma. It helps guidelines for moral judgments, solution to
ethical dilemmas. Idealism, describes the individual concern for the welfare of
others. In contrast, relativism describes the degree to which individuals apply
universal moral principles as the basis for ethical decisions (Forsyth, 1992).
Idealistic individuals, with higher level of ethical reasoning are more likely to blow
the whistle than are more relativistic individuals. While idealistic individuals may
act out of a sense of duty (Vinten 1995); relativists may be less concerned when
they observed a wrongdoing in their organization.
In Malaysia, The Malaysian Parliament passed the Whistleblower Protection Act
2010 in May 2010 and the Act came into force on Dec 15 the same year, in a
major initiative under the Corruption National Key Results Area (NKRA) of the
2
Government Transformation Plan (GTP). It is aimed at providing protection to
whistleblowers who gave information of corrupt practices in the public and private
sectors (The Star, 2012). The Malaysian Government's commitment in the recent
budget to formulate a 'Whistle Blower Act' to encourage informers to disclose
corruption and other misconduct supports the contention that whistleblowing is
an important measure in the fight against fraud and corruption (David Lehman,
2010).
1.1 Problem Statement
It has been stated that up to 75% of organization members have attempted to
theft, computer fraud, vandalism, sabotage, or absenteeism while three quarters
of employees steal at least once from their employer, and that 95% of all
organizations experience employee theft. Since prevalence of organizational
wrongdoings has become widespread throughout the world, workplace deviance
has been an important issue for researchers and organizations for years. From
this point, whistle-blowers may suggest solutions to organizational problems
(Asiye, 2013).
Whistleblower is an act of noticing wrongful practices in an organization; being
motivated by the desire to prevent unnecessary harm to others; raising concerns
about wrongdoing; giving information generally to the authorities about the
wrongdoing; and exposing it to the press or suppressing it in a government office.
3
(Asiye, 2013). Information can be sensitive, leading to potential harm to the
whistleblower. Hence, the whistleblower protection has been established by
many governments to encourage informants to come out and help combat the
scourge of corruption. However, there is hardly any information given out by
companies on how or what their employees should do when they want to report
fraud (Ramlee, 2011). According to Kanason, he said the awareness among
Malaysian citizen still low regarding Whistleblower Protection Act. This
phenomenon might be because of lack of company’s effort to disseminate
information on the existence of this act to the employees in the form of circulars
and the like.
Therefore, employees are not aware how should they act on a fraud case despite
the existence of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 which was enforced last
December (Ramlee,2011). In addition, the causes also might lead employee to
do or not report on fraud or corruption of their employer. Furthermore, according
to David Lehmann (2013), he belief the reasons is because of ‘culture’, that is the
Malaysian culture of the preferring to ‘keep things to ourselves’ or it ‘not being in
our nature to do that’. Another reason often cited is that such a service would
only receive ‘poison pen letter’ complaints. If this situation prolonged, corruption
will further increase in the upcoming year. Even Global Corruption Barometer
Report announced that the 46% of people in Malaysia feel that from the year
2007 until 2010 the level of corruption in the country has increased and only 9%
individuals have reported paying a bribe while many of the victims of bribery do
4
not lodge formal complaints in 2010 (Transparency International, 2013). From
this point, this research will propose to study the factor that contribute to the
intention of whistle blowing among public sector agency in Selangor; hopefully its
might leading to increase the level of an awareness and decrease level of a
corruption at the same time.
1.2 Research Questions
These are the following questions to support the objectives:
1. What is the level of whistle-blowing intention among public sector agencies
in Selangor?
2. What is the association between organizational culture factor and the
whistle-blowing intention in the public sector agencies?
3. What is the association between motivation factor and the whistle-blowing
intention in the public sector agencies?
4. What is the association between ethical reasoning factor and the whistle-
blowing intention in the public sector agencies?
5
5. What is the association between organizational commitment factor and the
whistle blow intention in the public sector agencies?
1.3 Research Objectives
The main objective of this study is to investigate the association between whistle-
blowing intention and its potential predictors.
Thus, the specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To identify the level of whistle-blowing intention among public sector
agencies in Selangor.
2. To evaluate the association between organizational culture factor and the
whistle-blowing intention in the public sector agencies.
3. To evaluate the association between motivation factor and the whistle-
blowing intention in the public sector agencies.
4. To evaluate the association between ethical reasoning factor and the
whistle-blowing intention in the public sector agencies.
6
5. To evaluate the association between organizational commitment factor and
the whistle-blowing intentions in the public sector agencies.
1.4 Scope of study
The study will focus on level of whistle-blowing intention among public sector
agencies in Selangor. As Selangor is very modernize capital and most of public
sector agencies located in these area. The number of respondents for survey
purposes will be of 300 randomly who work as public servants in district area of
Selangor. The research will be conducted within 2 semesters from March 2013 to
Jan 2014.
The study will not cover level of whistle-blowing intention among public
sector agencies other than Selangor areas.
1.5 Significance of the study
This research will study on the potential predictors of the whistleblower intention
among public sector in Selangor, Malaysia. There are several significances on
this research which is on nation, organization, individual and also researcher.
Whistle-blowing implemented in Malaysia to prevent any unethical or illegal
behavior in the organization or the country.
7
1.5.1 Nation
Firstly, it is important to nation because this study will lead the nation to produce
a good public servant that alert the unethical behavior among the public servant.
In addition, according to research done by Global Corruption Barometer; he said
there is 91% of the victim of bribery in Malaysia does not lodge formal complaints
in 2010.It is important to organization because this research will help the
organization to identify any public servant that will act on the whistle-blowing if
there is any illegal behavior of the employee or employer of the organization.
1.5.2 Organization
In addition, whistle-blowing are implemented in all organization in Malaysia due
to reduce misconduct activities which is involved internal subordinate of
employees.
1.5.3 Individual
Then, it is important to individual because this research will enhance the
awareness towards individual. The individual will understand the concept of
whistleblower. The individual can determine what the predictors will influence in
order to handle the issues. Lastly, it is important to researcher because this
research will help in the plan, problem solution and strategies to achieve free
8
corruption environment in workplace. Furthermore, researchers are able to
influence the administration in order to set rule and regulation on procedure in
handling the Whistleblower issues.
1.6 Definition of Terms / Concepts
The terms used in this study are defined for ease of understanding as follows:
1.6.1 Whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowing is a process of giving information about the organizational
wrongdoings in which harm a third parties, and is an effective corporate
governance mechanism against organizational wrongdoings. (Association of
Certified Fraud Examiners, 2010)
1.6.2 Motivation
Public service motivation defined as ‘an individual’s predisposition to respond to
motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions ‘and also may
describe as ‘the motivational force that includes individuals to perform meaningful
public service. Besides considering it to be a multidimensional concept, Perry
(1990) found that it has four dimensions: ’politics’, ’public interest’, ‘compassion’,
and ‘self-sacrifice’.(Vandenabeele & Kjeldsen, 2011)
9
1.6.2 Organizational Culture
Culture as a property or process of any group can now be defined as: A pattern
of shared basic assumptions that the group has learned as it solved its problems
of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 1992)
1.6.3 Ethical reasoning
Ethical reasoning and judgement refers to ability of an individual to apply values
and standards to socio-moral issues and at the same time to determine a course
of action (Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002).
1.6.4 Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday et al, 1979).
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the literature on potential predictors and its
association towards whistle-blowing intention. Section 2.1 explains on the
whistle-blowing intention. Section 2.2 is determining of potential predictors.
Section 2.2.1 discuss motivation factor and Section 2.2.2 discuss culture
orientation. On the hand, Section 2.2.3 discusses ethical reasoning, whereas
Section 2.2.4 explains about organizational commitment. Finally, Section 2.3
provides the conceptual framework and identifies the hypothesis of the study.
2.1 Whistle-blowing Intention
Whistle-blowing is an important organizational behavior that can cause quantum
change in modern organizations (Brewer & Seldon, 1998). As a process of
giving information about the organizational wrongdoings in which harm a third
parties, and is an effective corporate governance mechanism against
organizational wrongdoings (Jubb, 1999; Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners, ACFE, 2010) Whistle-blowing can be perceived as an effective
response to the failure of the state to develop adequate public accountability
mechanisms for corporations. More important, organization members,
11
stockholders, and society in general can benefit from the cessation of
organizational wrongdoing such as fraud, unfair discrimination, or safety
violations (Miceli et al., 1991). However, in enhancing its public interest role, the
whistle-blowing mechanism can still be argued to be particularly important in the
profession of public sector agencies (Alleyne et al., 2012). Brief and Motowidlo
(1986) define whistle blowing within the organizational setting as:
“Behavior which is (a) performed by a member of an organization, (b)
directed toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she
interacts while carrying out his or her organizational role, and (c)
performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the individual,
group, or organization toward which it is directed (p.711).” (Hazzi &
Maldaon, 2012)
Dozier and Miceli (1985) added that whistle blowing is a form of prosocial
behavior as the act involves both selfish (egoistic) and unselfish (altruistic)
motives on the part of whistle blowers. With regards to whistle blowing, whistle
blowers take action to stop the wrongdoing within the organization with the
intention of benefiting persons within and outside the organization, as well as, the
whistle blowers themselves. The consequences of whistle-blowing, as they are
reflected in the objectives of whistleblower protection statutes (Callahan &
Dworkin, 2000), had been various, including prevention of harm to an
organization, control of corruption, enhancement of public interest, an
12
employee’s doing his or her duty, and an employee’s moral satisfaction, etc (H
Park & J Blenkinsopp, 2009)
As whistle blowing considered to being a type of prosocial behavior; whistle-
blowing intention needs to be understood as the issue of behavioral intention.
(Nadzri, Galbreath & Evans, 2011) According to Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned
behavior, “behavioral intention is good predictor of actual behavior” (Chiu, 2003,
p.66)
A behavioral intention is the subjective probability that an individual assigns to
the likelihood that a given behavioral alternative will be chosen (Ajzen, 1991;
Hunt & Vitell, 1986). According to Demetriadou (2003), an individual’s behavioral
intention is a weighted additive function of three elements: the individual’s
attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Chiu (2003) defines
all the elements: the individual’s attitude is the individual’s judgment of that
behavior, subjective norm is the individual’s perceived acceptability of that
behavior, and finally, perceived behavioral control is the individual’s perception of
the difficulty level of performing that behavior. With all these elements, the
dependent variable of this study, whistle-blowing intention, is referred to as “the
individual’s probability of actually engaging in whistle-blowing behavior” (Chiu,
2002, p. 582). The interest to study whistle-blowing intention rather than actual
whistle-blowing action stems from the impossibility and difficulty of carrying out
investigations of unethical conduct in the workplace by first hand observation
13
(Victor, Trevino, & Shapiro, 1993).Yet, a study on restaurant employees in the
fast food industry provides evidence that behavioral intention correlates with
actual peer reporting of unethical behavior (Victor, Trevino, & Shapiro, 1991).
Therefore, whistle-blowing intention is deemed appropriate in the context of this
study.
Whistle-blowing has thus been variously described as an example of civil
disobedience, ethical resistance, and/or principled organizational dissent, as if
ethical reasoning is always involved.
2.2 Potential predictors
2.2.1 Whistle-blowing Intention and Organizational Culture
Whistle-blowing is particularly affected by cultural contexts, as perceptions of
right versus wrong. Pioneering cross-cultural research has found that culture
impacts whistle-blowing (Brody et al, 2002). In certain situation, whistle-blowing
may affected by culture differences, as perceptions of tension between an
employee and the organization.
Previous studies made by Sajid Bashir et al reveal that a perception of apathy
and likely retaliation by the management, peers, and employees at large creates
a culture within organizations that negatively affects whistle-blowing. Data were
14
collected from 1,762 employees working in various public sector organizations of
Pakistan through a questionnaire. Frequency tables were used to analyze the
data. Results suggest that in Pakistan a number of factors, such as culture and
organizational retaliation, affect the whistle-blowing process. It also highlights
that some unique culturally induced factors contribute toward the employees’
perception and practice of whistle-blowing in their organizations. Results are
explained in light of Hofstede’s cultural indices, which indicate that whistle-
blowing is culture bound.
In worker environment, whistle-blowing has enormous potential as a mechanism
for exposing and controlling organizational misconduct; there are always costs
and benefits associated with the decision to blow the whistle (Brody et al, 1999).
Previous scholars were in agreement with the positive relationship between
whistle-blowing and cultural factors. Among the arguments are the culture
assimilated in organization that believing fraud or wrongdoing may eventually
harm the organization, employees, society and perhaps national security will
drive them to whistle-blow (Miethe and Rothschild, 1994). And a person may
become whistle-blower when his organization culture will give attention, fame,
promotion and monetary reward for their whistle-blowing (Miceli and Neard,
1992). In similar cases, negative cultures that discourage intention to whistle-
blow. A situation when a person feels threatened with being fired or other forms
of retaliation (Brody el at, 1999) or feel that the whistle-blowing has betrayed trust
with the perceptive and feeling about co-workers, and potential or existing
15
relationships among employees in a workplace (Loeb and Cory, 1989) and failure
to blow the whistle likely violates personally held ethical percepts (Loeb and
Cory, 1989)
On the other hand, other scholars like Laura P. Harman and el posits that there is
a negative relationship between whistle-blowing intention and culture. This is
because insufficient of reporting policies and procedure. It must be tenable or
inform to worker for them to useful and used. This is means that they must be
translated locally. On a country by country basis, policies and procedures are
effective when they take into local legal environment, history, social norm and
experience. In other words, the negative relationship between whistle-blowing
intention and culture happen when there is low concern by the organization on
the whistle-blowing act in the organization.
Hypothesis 1:
There is positive relationship between whistle blowing intention and
organizational culture.
2.2.2 Whistle blowing Intention and Motivation
According to Brewer and Selden (1998) ,motivation to blow the whistle is an drive
of action by someone in the organization that can cause major changes in the
organization in term of provides input for democratic accountability process which
16
can affect the organization reforms because of wrongdoing by someone. The
relationship between motivation and whistle-blowing intention already done by
previous researcher and it become references for future scholar (Brewer and
Selden, 1998).
In general, motivation is is generally regarded as the drive to achieve targets and
the process to maintain the drive, motivation provides an important foundation to
complete cognitive behavior, such as planning, organization, decision-making,
learning, and assessments (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). According to
Vandenabeele (2011), he said motivation as the motivational force performs by
individual in meaningful objective. In addition, Vandenabeele (2011) also came
out with proper concept which is motivation is belief, values and attitudes that
beyond self-interest and organizational interest that concern of a larger political
entity and motivate individual to perform accordingly whatever appropriate.
In pointing out that whistle-blowing depends on individual motivation rather than
on structural measures, Dworking Near (1997) strikes an important issue.
Following this, one can connect to public servant motivation with issue of whistle
blowing and the interplay between structural measures, individual motivation and
whistle-blowing. As Brewer and Selden (1998) already stated, pro-social and in
particular whistle-blowing behavior will be associated with the personal
characteristic of higher levels of public service motivation.
17
According to Vandenabeele (2011), there is positive relationship between whistle
blowing intention and motivation. This was explained by look on the public sector
environment. Public servant motivation is an important determinant of what
drives the employee to blow the whistle. Positive relationship can be seen if the
individual respond and become whistle blower after obtaining influence from
organization in term intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Vandenabeele, 2011). It can
be strengthen by Curtis C (2010); he said new statutory and regulatory changes
provide greater rewards to individuals who blow the whistle on fraudulent
activities and to organizations that actively encourage an effective ethical culture.
It is important steps at a time when the rate of misconduct in financial activity is
rapidly increase. Through extrinsic motivation, the organization will give
promotion and cost reward to individual motivated in becoming whistle blower.
For example, bonus, salary increment, promotion to higher position. As quoted
Brewer and Selden (1998) already stated, pro-social and particular whistle-
blowing behavior will be associated with personal characteristic of higher level of
motivation. In addition, according to Curtis C (2010), a person would be
whistleblower predominantly motivated by notions of public interest, which has
perceived the wrongdoings in a particular role and initiates the disclosure of her
or his own free will.
According to Dworkin and Near (1997), structural management such as
economic incentives and protection systems have limited impact on ‘traditional’
whistle-blower. For example, employees with high levels of motivation and
18
relatively lower levels of extrinsic motivation, as they will continue whistle-blowing
regardless of the costs. On the other hand, individual with lower levels of public
service motivation who experience some form of organizational wrongdoing will
likely be encouraged to report it if their costs by doing are minimized or
compensated.
Hypothesis 2:
There is positive relationship between whistle blowing intention and motivation.
2.2.3 Whistle-blowing Intention and Ethical Reasoning
Ethical reasoning and judgement refers to ability of an individual to apply values
and standards to socio-moral issues and at the same time to determine a course
of action (Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002). Meanwhile, as quoted by Coleman
(2006); Piaget (1985) defined ethical reasoning as cognitive operations, with
higher quality reasoning being the ability to consider more things at once and in
more complex ways. Theoretically, each individuals are capable of understanding
when they are doing the one and when the other. The reason is because of an
individual’s capacity to put themselves imaginatively in the place of others and
able to recognize the effects might occur to them if someone were to act toward
them as they are acting towards others. (Paul & Elder, 2009) Therefore, ethical
reasoning is considered to be essential for moral decision making and behavior
in other words the individuals will take an action or a stance about an ethical
19
issue is morally right. (Pettifor et al, 2000) Thus, it happens only when ethical
principles manifested in behavior then it will mean something. (Paul & Elder,
2009) On the other hand, Trevino (2013) stated that research on ethical
reasoning has been concerned with discovering people’s ethical judgment
strategies by presenting them with hypothetical moral dilemmas and asking them
to judge what is right or wrong, and to explain their judgments. Their explanations
and justifications are then used to define their reasoning about ethical issues.
Also in 1998, Davis, Johnson & Ohmer point out that “individuals regularly make
ethical reasoning based on incidents they have heard or read about’’. (Henik,
2005) Ethical issues may be problematic because they are non-traditional: they
have not been encountered in the past and do not easily fit into well-used
categorization schemes (Clegg et al., 2006).
Many whistle-blowing studies that look at what type of person ‘blows the whistle’
agree that one of the most important factors that affect an individual’s decision on
whistle blowing is his or her moral behavior (Near and Miceli, 2005). When one
decides to blow the whistle, according to Near and Miceli (1996), the decision is
affected by (i) the personality traits of the individual, (ii) the environment which
surrounds the individual, and (iii) the fear of retaliation. (Liyanarachchi &
Newdick, 2008) Thus, they suggested that organizations need to be serious
enhancing individual’s ethical reasoning ability among their employees via ethics
education and training programs as to help encourage ethical behavior, ethical
development and increase ethical awareness (Ab Gani et al., 2011). Richmond
20
(2001) mentioned that employee’s level of ethical development influences his or
her sensitivity to ethical issues present in work related ethical dilemmas.
However, Chiu (2003) suggested that through utilising a summed total of
Reidenbach and Robin’s ethical judgment scale (Multidimensional Ethics Scale
(MES)), the results of those studies indicate a strong positive relationship
between reasoning of the ethicality and whistle blowing intentions. It is due the
ability of would-be whistleblower to assess wrongdoing, and decide what to do if
of unconditional loyalty to the employer has been replaced by a loyalty to society
and issues that never addressed before such as health, fraud, safety and abuse
of office (Rohca & Kleiner, 2005). Near and colleagues (2004) found that
employees who observed perceived wrongdoing involving mismanagement,
sexual harassment or unspecified legal violations were significantly more likely to
report the wrongdoing than were employees who observed stealing, waste,
safety problem, or discrimination. Thus, the types of wrongdoing affect the level
stage of ethical reasoning. As the result, in general, the individuals with higher
levels of moral reasoning are more likely to blow the whistle than are individuals
with lower levels of moral reasoning.1 (Liyanaracchi & Newdick, 2009)
In agreement, Thorne (2000) states that several assumptions have been made
by many researchers, based on the theory, which propose that individuals
1 The terms ethical reasoning and moral reasoning are used interchangeably as commonly found in prior behavioural ethics research (Trevino, Weaver & Reynolds 2006).
21
sequentially progress through stages in the development of ethical reasoning.
The would-be whistle-blower with lower levels of ethical reasoning will calculate
the costs and benefits of the reporting if they do. (Gökçe, 2013) Xu and
Ziegenfuss (2003) also mentioned that individuals with relatively low levels of
ethical reasoning will be more sensitive to incentives of cash rewards and
employment contracts; and more willing to blow the whistle as a means for
disclosing wrongdoing when monetary incentives are provided. As for the would-
be whistle-blower with higher level of ethical reasoning; they still emphasize laws
and rules but they consider the possibility of changing these for social purposes
and guided by self-chosen ethical principles of justice and the rights of human
beings (Jordan et al., 2013)
On the other hand, negative significance between these two variables can be
occurred due to the impacts by issue and situation-related variables (such as fear
of being labelled as a troublemaker, appearing disloyal, and the possibility of
victimization by managers and colleagues may work as powerful disincentives
against speaking up openly about organizational wrongdoing) (DL Seifert, 2006;
Gökçe, 2013).
As quoted by Richmond (2001), Ponemon (1992) indicated that ethical reasoning
not significantly correlated with whistle-blowing intention when the participant
view himself as the person faced with ethical dilemma or when the participant
evaluated the third party’s ethical choice. McNab and colleagues (2007)
22
suggested the further research to examine in comparing typically profound
individualistic nations (like the US and Canada) with typically profound collectivist
nations (like China or Japan). Base on the above argument related, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3:
There is a positive relationship between whistle-blowing intention and ethical
reasoning.
2.2.4 Whistle-blowing Intention and Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification and involvement in a particular organization (Devos et al, 2012). It
also is a sense of belonging and a sense of loyalty to an organization (Sims and
Keenan, 1998). Accordingly, organizational commitment can be characterized by
three factors: “(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals
and values, (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization, and (3) a definite desire to maintain organizational membership”
(Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001). In order to measure levels of organizational
commitment among individuals in an organization, Suman and Srivastava (2012)
concluded that organizational characteristics (job characteristics and
organizational structure) are the predominant factors in determining
organizational commitment of higher level employees, whereas personal
23
characteristics (age, length of service and locus of control) are the effective
predictors of organizational commitment of lower level employees.
Theoretical and conceptual works on organizational commitment basically
resemble prosocial behavior directed to organization (Devos et al, 2012).
Mowday et al (1982) justified that organizationally committed individuals ‘are
willing to give something of them in order to contribute to organizational well-
being”. Public service agencies, like other organizations, seek to develop robust
organizational culture, based on organizational commitment, in which members
are indoctrinated in a number of ways (Jenkins, Bedard et al, 2007) Individual
employees may exhibit varying levels of organizational commitment, depending
on many factors, including their length of employment and job satisfaction.
Street (1995) has attempted to directly link the concept of organizational
commitment to the likelihood of whistle-blowing. He contended that theoretical
models of whistle-blowing studies have acknowledged the potential influence of
such variable. There was a little empirical research commitment in whistle-
blowing studies (Street, 1995). Street (1995) argued that if individuals have a
high organizational commitment, they are more likely to display prosocial
behavior of whistle-blowing than those having a lower organizational
commitment. However, the argument cannot be proven due to little research
done to examine the application of organizational commitment and its impact on
the behavior of would-be whistleblower (Kwok & Bank, 2004).
24
Individuals with strong organizational commitment likely will act to preserve the
firm; these acts include identifying and remedying situations that may harm the
firm’s reputation (Taylor & Curtis, 2007). As Carvalho Wilks (2011) quoted from
Wiener (1982) asserts, organizational commitment is about behaving according
to organizational interests. This being the case, the lower acceptance of
unethical behaviours might simply be a corollary of adaptation. This is an
interesting point at a juncture when job tenure is being eroded due to the phasing
out of jobs for life.
Theoretically, individuals who have a high organizational commitment level will
be more likely to display whistle-blowing as prosocial behavior than those who
have a low organizational commitment (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). According to
Taylor and Curtis (2007), the reason is the individuals with strong organizational
commitment is more favourable to become as whistleblower in order to preserve
the firm’s reputation from any harm. Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005)
also mentioned that senior employees are said to be more likely to blow the
whistle as they are closer to retirement, possess high levels of power and
organizational commitment. Those with organizational commitment may
persevere in their reporting to purge their organization of unethical individuals –
both for their own good and for the good of the organization (Taylor and Curtis,
2009).
25
On the other hand, new employees preserve low organizational commitment as
they may not know how their corporate culture operates, less familiar with
appropriate channels for whistle-blowing and are less concerned with stopping
the wrongdoing (SA Ahmad et al. 2011). These such commitment also applied
when employees feel that their work is meaningless and have no power over
their work (Tummers and Dendulk, 2012).
Somers and Casal (1994) has empirically examined the direct relationship
between organizational commitment and the willingness of employees to whistle-
blow. Using Mowday et al (1997) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire to
measure organizational commitment, they found that their subjects’
organizational commitment affect the probability that an observed wrongdoing is
reported to internal targets (persons to whom organizational wrongdoing is
reported), unfortunately such commitment does not related to reporting to
external targets. More specifically, the relationship between commitment and the
propensity to whistle-blow takes the form of an inverted U, suggested that
moderate levels of organizational commitment are most likely to result in whistle
blowing (Somers & Casal, 1994). They suggested that organizational
commitment increases the likelihood of whistle-blowing as the whistleblowers
that are characterized as committed employees wish to put their organizations
back on course. Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) also tested that
theory. They suggested that whistle-blowing intent might best be predicted from
whistleblower age and the level of the job held by the intended whistleblower.
26
Their study failed to find significant results due to possibility that this construct is
relevant only in certain circumstances not previously explored. For example, Ray
(2006) illustrated that in the event of an organization might experience negative
effects if standards’ violations go unreported, a co-worker will likely suffer
negative effects if firm management learns of his or her standard’s violation.
Such circumstances may prompt would-be whistle-blower to act on behalf of their
colleague, mindless of the welfare of the firm as a whole (Osburn, Moran et al.
1990). It seems possible that organizational commitment cannot fully explain
whistleblower intentions without complementary consideration of colleague
commitment.
Meanwhile, previously research showed that there is no significantly relationship
between organizational commitment and whistle-blowing intention (r = 0.08; p >
0.05); it is due to additional demographic and individual variables (such as: age,
religion, gender, education and level of cognitive moral development) that affect
the likelihood to blow the whistle (Sims and Keenan 1998; McDevitt et al. 2007;
SA Ahmad et al. 2011). And Carvalho Wilks (2011) also stated that no significant
differences were found for organization type and size, and organizational
function. In other words, Cassematis and Wortley (2012) suggested that any
employees could be a whistleblower if they find themselves in the wrong place at
the wrong time.
27
As quoted by Stumpe (2000); he found a negative correlation occurred between
organization commitment and whistle-blowing intention. Consistent with the
theory presented by Allen and Smith (1987); even with higher level of
commitment, that commitment may prevent some potential whistle-blowers from
taking action because it involves inappropriate criticism of the organization, or
they feeling trapped in their position with no alternative job opportunities, or that
leaving the organization would cause personal sacrifices. He also mentioned that
individuals with low organizational commitment are more willing to contribute to
the organization effectiveness, and would therefore be more likely to contribute to
the organization by reporting wrongdoing. Based on the above arguments, we
proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4:
There is a positive relationship between whistle-blowing intention and
organizational commitment.
28
2.3 Conceptual Framework
In order to investigate and understand better potential predictors Whistle-
blowing intention on public servant in Shah Alam, this conceptual framework
provides an understanding ways on whether independent variables potential
predictors has significant association towards Whistle-blowing intention in the
organization. The independent variables are ethical reasoning, organization
commitment, culture and motivation.
H1
H2
H3
H4
Independent Variable
Organizational Culture
Culture can be one of the predictors in order to encourage the whistle blowing
intention. According to Brody et al, 2002, he opined that culture can give impact
29
Organizational Culture
Motivation
Ethical Reasoning
Organization Commitment
Whistle-blowing
Intention
Figure 2.0: The conceptual framework of the Potential Predictors of Whistle blowing intention among public servant.
Dependent Variable
to whistle-blowing. People in the organization will intent to blow the whistle when
the organization given the attention, fame, promotion and monetary reward for
their behavior (Dennis Wang et al, 2008). In other cases, negative culture also
will discourage the individual to become whistle blower. This is because he afraid
and feel threatened, or being fire if he or she blow the whistle (Brody et al, 1998).
In addition, an individual also feel that he will betray trust with perceptive and
feeling about co-workers (Dennis Wang et al, 2008)
Hypothesis
There is positive relationship between whistle blowing intention and
organizational culture.
Motivation
In this variable, the research tries to evaluate the relationship between whistle
blowing intention and motivation. As opined by Brewer and Selder (1998),
motivation to blow the whistle on wrongdoing of employer or individual in
organization is a drive of action that can cause major changes in organization. In
order to be motivated, as quoted by Vandenabelee (2011), he opined that public
servant motivation is an important determinant of what drives the employee to
blow the whistle when wrongdoing or misconduct happen. He also opined, an
individual become motivated because of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from
the organization to encourage them to become whistle blower.
30
Hypothesis
There is positive relationship between whistle blowing intention and motivation.
Ethical Reasoning
As whistle-blowing intention seem to be ethical, the connectivity between whistle-
blowing intentions with ethical reasoning undeniable. Pettifor et al (2000)
asserted that ethical reasoning considers to being important for decision making
whether to blow the whistle or not. According to Chiu (2003), a lot of instrument
involve in determine level of moral reasoning such as Multidimensional Ethics
Scale (MES), Cognitive Moral Development (CMD) and Defining Issue Test
(DIT). Thus, it result will justify the relationship between level of ethical reasoning
with whistle-blowing intention. Meantime, the higher level of ethical reasoning will
make individual more likely to whistle-blowing behavior.
Hypothesis
There is positive relationship between ethical reasoning with whistle-blowing
intention.
31
Organization Commitment
Level of individual involvement and identification in an organization may affect
their intention to blow the whistle when any wrongdoing occurs. Even there is
argument on the relationship between those two variables (independent and
dependent variable); it is due to little research done. Somers & Casal (1994)
suggested that the higher level of organizational commitment will correlate with
whistle-blowing intention, while Mesmer-Magmus and Viswesvavan (2005) failed
to find significant result due to certain circumstances. Both statements will be
applied in hypothesis.
Hypothesis:
There is positive relationship between whistle-blowing and organizational
commitment.
32
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the research methodology explained about how well the study will
be conduct. The main objectives of this chapter are to explain the details on the
method of the research. This chapter is very critical because the procedures can
easily invalidate the study. In simple words, research method is the blueprint of
the study. Section 3.1 discusses on research design, Section 3.2 explains on
example sample size and Section 3.3 discuss a sampling technique. Section 3.4
is discussing on unit discussing on unit of analysis. Besides, Section 3.5
discussing on measurement. Meanwhile, Section 3.6 is about data collection.
Lastly Section 3.7 explains data analysis which relates to this research.
3.1 Research Design
This is a correlation research since this research is to determine the whistle-
blowing intention among public servant in Shah Alam, Selangor. In this research,
the important variables are the organizational culture, motivation, organization
commitment and ethical reasoning. According to Kerlinger the basic purpose of
the research design is to ensure internal and external validity. We will use the
quantitative method as well. Furthermore, the study applies the quantitative
33
research. This kind of design is used in quantifying data and generalizing results
from a sample to the population of interest. The quantitative research basically
used structure technique in order to collect the data. The techniques include
online questionnaire, on street or telephone interview and others. In this study,
we use questionnaire in order to gain primary data from the respondent.
3.2 Unit of Analysis
Unit of analysis refers to the level that is the focus of the study. The unit of
analysis is the major entity that are being analysed in study (Uma Sekaran 2003).
It is the level of aggregation of the data collected during the subsequent data
analysis. In this study, the unit of analysis is based on individuals such public
servant in Shah Alam, Malaysia. We looked at the data obtained from each user
and treated the respondent’s respond as an individual data sources. The target
respondents will be from Department Secretary of Selangor, Police, Uitm Staff,
Jabatan Kerja Raya Shah Alam, General Hospital, Jabatan Pengakutan Jalan
Shah Alam, Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor, Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam. The
reason they are chosen because they are involved in serving the society and
also given a lot of fund in distributive to the society. Therefore, this study will
evaluate and investigate each the sector mentioned in order achieve the
research objective.
34
3.3 Sample Size
The sample in this study is based on the Society that live within Malaysia. Then,
target group is confined to the public servant in government sector in Shah Alam,
Malaysia. After observation had been made, public servants who work in Shah
Alam are chosen as the target group in the research. 300 public servants will be
chosen in all area in Shah Alam with the age 20 and above. This study will be
conducted by distributing the questionnaire to the students in order to study the
whistle-blowing intention among public servant in Shah Alam.
3.4 Sampling Technique
In this research, convenience sampling is being used in conducting this research.
Convenience sampling involves the selection of units that are easily accessible.
This form of selection is done based on the ease of gaining the statistical data
from population which been collect. This sampling technique is chosen since it is
hard to determine the sampling frame of the public servant in Shah Alam. The
study and finding are strongly influenced by people who were contacted.
35
3.5 Measurement
3.5.1 Nominal Scale
Nominal scale which also called categorical scale is a mutual exclusive.
Nominal basically refers to categorically discrete data. Nominal scale
categorizes individuals into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive
group (Uma Sekaran, 2003). This measurement is the most suitable in
determining different genotypes. There is no order or ranking basis will be
used in this type of scale. In this research, the most suitable section to use
the nominal scale is the demographic section as the data in the section is
mutually exclusive. The personal data in the demographic section includes
gender, age, faculty, and education level.
3.5.2 Interval Scale
Interval scale which also known as Likert-scale. It is a response scale to
acquire respondent’s preferences or degree of agreement or
disagreement on related statement. It is a non-comparative scaling and
unidimensional in nature. Likert-type or frequency scales use fixed choice
response formats and are designed to measure attitudes or opinions
(Bowling 1997, Burns & Grove 1997). The example of Likert-scale
36
includes agreement, frequency, and importance and like hood. This
Agreement Likert-scale is used in order to identify the mode of the level of
the sensitivity towards domestic violence against women. The Agreement
Likert–Scale is describe as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree