Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct

• Published date: 01 October 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12238
• Author: Megan F. Hess,Rob Cross,Linda K. Treviño,Anjier Chen
• Date: 01 October 2019

546  

|

  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:546–562.

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

1 | INTRODUCTION

The 2018 Global Bus iness Ethics Sur vey report s that nearly h alf

of all employees obs erved misconduct in the wor kplace in the pre‐

vious year (Ethic s & Compliance Init iative, 2018). Consid ering the

frequency of these transgressions and their consequences, under‐

standing how e mployees respond to workp lace misconduct remains

an importa nt topic for resea rch. In parti cular, a deeper analy sis of

the factors t hat encourage or discourage e mployees from reportin g

observed mis conduct is needed, sin ce peer reports remai n the most

common way of detec ting such behaviour (Associ ation of Certif ied

Fraud Examine rs, 2018). Among th e many factors t hat inhibit peer

reporting , perhaps the m ost underst udied is the role of wo rkplace

friendships . Research shows that employee s are far less likely to re‐

port their fr iends than acquaintance s for misconduct (Curphy et al.,

1998; King, 1997; Taylor & Curtis, 2010), but ou r understa nding of

how and why friendship inhibits reporting remains critically under‐

developed. We know t hat employees may hesitate to r aise concerns

about their friends to protect their relationships (Brass, Butterfield,

& Skaggs, 1998; Jone s, 1991; Milliken, Morri son, & Hewlin, 20 03),

to demonstrat e loyalty (Pers hing, 2003; Taylor & Cu rtis, 2010), to

avoid upsettin g group harmony (Bird & Waters, 1989) or due to un‐

conscious bias (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011; Blader, Wiesenfeld,

Fortin, & Whe eler‐Smith, 2013; Gino, Ayal, & A riely, 2009; Gin o &

Bazerman, 20 09; Umphress & Bi ngham, 2011). Despite t hese ad‐

vances in our und erstandin g, import ant questions r emain. If em‐

ployees choose n ot to report the ir friends, wh at other action s do

they consider to re solve this ethic al dilemma? Moreove r, why do

employees choo se one path over anot her? By unpacking th e eth‐

ical decision‐m aking process a s it relates to repor ting a friend f or

misconduct , this study aim s to advance theo ry about how em ploy‐

ees cope with thi s importan t, but relativel y understu died, ethica l

dilemma.

Our study use s data collecte d from two field studies of heal th‐

care workers to bu ild and test a new fr amework for understandi ng

friend‐reporting intentions. Following other vignette‐based studies

of reporting (e. g., Chen & Lai, 2 014; Mayer, Nurmohamed, Treviño,

Shapiro, & Schmi nke, 2013), we asked workers at an American h os‐

pital to descri be what, if anything, they wou ld do if they witnessed

a close friend ver bally abuse an elderly pat ient. We used qualitative

Received: 9 July 2 018 

|

  Revised: 20 Apri l 2019 

|

  Accepted: 2 July 2019

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12238

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a

friend for misconduct

Megan F. Hess1 | Linda K. Treviño2 | Anjier Chen2 | Rob Cross3

1Williams Scho ol of Commerce, Econom ics,

and Politics , Washington and Le e University,

Lexington, Virginia

2Smeal Colleg e of Business, The

Pennsylvania State University, University

Park, Pennsylvania

3Babson College, Babson Park,

Massachusetts

Correspondence

Megan F. Hess, Will iams School of

Commerce, Economics, and Politics,

Washington an d Lee University, Lex ington,

VA 2445 0.

Email: hessm@wlu.edu

Abstract

Why do employees fail to re port a friend's misconduc t, and if they do not report , how

else do they cope with t his ethical dilemma? Thro ugh two field stu dies, we offer a

more nuanced under standing of the range of alternative resp onses between the ex‐

tremes of silence (igno ring misconduct) and complia nce (reporting), and we illuminate

the underlying re asons for these choices. Our resu lts reveal that most employees are

inclined to attempt to re solve a friend‐repo rting situation t hemselves, and fu rther,

that many employees hesi tate to report a fr iend's misconduct fo r ethical reasons .

Specifically, we show how an et hic of care expressed through emp athy for the trans‐

gressor may play an impor tant and previo usly unexamined rol e in friend‐repor ting

decisions, drawing at tention to the consider ation of empathy as a key emotion t hat

can reduce complian ce with reportin g programmes. In a ddition to these imp ortant

contributions to the li terature, prac titioners shoul d also find this stu dy useful, as it

suggests new ap proaches to help employees bette r align their choices with the com‐

pliance goals of the orga nisation without sacrificing th eir valued friendships.

    

|

 547

HESS Et al.

methods to expl ore the richne ss and variety i n these open‐e nded

responses and developed a preliminary framework for understand‐

ing the decision p rocesses unde rlying a frien d‐reportin g dilemma.

We then validated an d extended thi s framework thr ough a sec‐

ond survey of hea lthcare profe ssionals workin g across a variet y of

organisations.

This research m akes significant contri butions to both theor y and

practice. In ke eping with calls to deepen our un derstanding of eth‐

ical decision making in organisations (Procópio, 2019), particularly

from an induct ive perspec tive (Chiu & Hacket t, 2017), we advance

a new framework fo r understa nding respons es to a friend‐rep ort‐

ing dilemma that p rovides a more nua nced picture of t he range of

alternative responses employees may choose between the either/

or extremes of si lence and compli ance. Our findi ngs challenge t he

prior literatu re's focus on self‐protection (e. g., Detert & Edmondso n,

2011), loyalty (e.g., Mill iken et al., 2003) and t he emotion of fear (e.g.,

Kish‐Gepha rt, Detert, Treviño, & Edmo ndson, 2009), as the primar y

motivations for n ot reporting. Rather, this r esearch suggests th at an

ethic of care exp ressed through empathy for th e transgressor plays

an important and previously unexamined role in whistleblowing. In

addition to the se importa nt contributio ns to the literatur e, practi‐

tioners shou ld also find this stud y useful. Not only does o ur research

point out new fac tors that inhibit re porting, but i t also suggests nove l

approaches t hat may increase employe es' willingness to compl y with

reporting protocols while still maintaining their valued friendships.

2 | LITERATURE RE VIEW & THEORETICAL

MOTIVATIONS

Peer report ing (whistlebl owing) is a form of empl oyee voice defined

as sharing inform ation about unethic al behaviour with a par ty who

is capable of sto pping that behaviour (Treviñ o & Victor, 1992). The

peer repor ting literature has ide ntified many factor s that influence

employee reporting intentions. At the individual level, many em‐

ployees choose n ot to speak up due to a lack of power and st atus

(Mesmer‐Magnus & Vis wesvaran, 2005; Miceli, Nea r, & Dworkin,

2008), fear of re taliation (Kis h‐Gephar t et al., 2009), pe rsonality

characteri stics (Bjørke lo, Einarsen, & M atthiesen , 2010), a lack

of moral develop ment (Barnet t, Bass, & Brown , 1996; Brabeck,

1984; Miceli, Dozier, & Near, 1991; Ruiz‐Palomin o, Bañón‐Gomis,

& Linuesa‐L angreo, 2019; Vadera, A guilera, & Ca za, 2009) or

weaknesses in t he motivationa l side of the moral s elf (Hannah &

Avolio, 2010; Hannah, Avol io, & May, 2011; Jennings, Mitche ll,

& Hannah, 2015). Empl oyees do not repor t for social rea sons,

as well. Research s uggests th at reporter s frequently ex perience

ostracism (e.g ., Westin, Kurt z, & Robbins, 1981) and a decl ine in

likeability (G reenberger, Miceli , & Cohen, 1987; Treviño & Victor,

1992). Situational fa ctors are also impor tant, as the percei ved seri‐

ousness of the wro ngdoing or available eviden ce may increase the

propensity to r eport (Chen & L ai, 2014; Miceli et al., 2008; Near,

Rehg, Van Scotter, & Miceli , 2004). Organisati onal factors, such as

perceptions of or ganisational climate (Mice li & Near, 1984; Sims &

Keenan, 1998), voice climate (D etert & Edmondson, 2011; Dut ton,

Ashford, O’ neil l, Hayes, & Wierb a, 1997; Morrison, Whee ler‐

Smith, & Kamda r, 2011), organisational jus tice (Vic tor, Treviño,

& Shapiro, 1993) and the p erceived effec tiveness of rep orting

(Miceli et al., 20 08) also affect employe e‐reporting intention s.

Reporting becomes even more challenging for employees

when the perp etrator is not mere ly a co‐worker, but also a fri end

(O'Sullivan & Ngau, 2014). Closeness between the observer and

transgresso r adds moral complexity to t he decision, forcing the ob‐

server to cope wi th not only the moral iss ues raised by the obser ved

wrongdoing, bu t also with the moral demands of f riendship (Jones,

1991). In considering these moral demands, employees may perceive

that protecti ng a friend from th e consequence s of reporting h as a

moral value eq ual to or exceeding that of org anisational complia nce.

As Pershing (20 03, p. 150) states, “Decidi ng how to react to occu‐

pational miscon duct may be conce ptualized as choos ing between

two conflicti ng loyalties: to th e institutio n of which one is a mem‐

ber and to organizational peers.” Past studies support this idea that

loyalty to one's fr iends may be the un derlying mec hanism behind

at least some emp loyee silence in a fr iend‐repor ting dilemma. Fo r

example, Taylor and Curtis (2010) show that loyalty to colleagues

is negatively correlated with perseverance in reporting intentions.

In a qualitative s tudy, Milliken and colleagues (20 03) also found

that employees we re worried abou t hurting the ir friends' feel ings

and the weakening of i nterpersonal ties that mi ght result from even

routine voice beh aviours. Brass an d colleagues (1998) theorise d that,

as the levels of trus t increase in a relations hip, the costs of losing th e

relationship also increase, providing further incentive to stay quiet

about a friend 's misconduct . Employees may also s tay silent abou t

a friend's miscon duct to prese rve group cohe sion. Several st udies

show that manager s choose not to voice ethical concer ns in the in‐

terest of mainta ining work group h armony (Bird & Waters , 1989;

Bluhm, Burch , & Avolio, 2012; Milliken et al ., 2003). Oth er studies

also suggest t hat groups prefer to handle less s evere transgressions

internally (Cur phy et al., 1998; Greenberger et al ., 1987).

Behavioural et hics resear ch provides yet anot her theor y that

may explain the negative relationship between friendship and re‐

porting inte ntions. Relatio nal or psycholog ical closenes s not only

increases the m oral intensity of an issue, b ut it fosters similarities i n

ethical perce ptions, as well (Gi no & Galinsky, 2012; Kam dar & Van

Dyne, 2007; Schmi nke & Wells, 1999; Umphress, G iuseppe, Br ass,

Kass, & Scholte n, 2003). Thu s, employees are m ore likely to adopt

the moral per spective of a friend than a non‐fri end peer who is in‐

volved in a workpla ce transgression, esp ecially if the employee h as a

Machiavellian or ientation (Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2 019). For example,

employees may jud ge unfair treatm ent or unethica l behaviour less

harshly when there is perceived similarity between the observer and

the wrongdoer (B lader et al., 2013; Schmidtke, 20 07). Although not

yet studied in th e context of friend‐rep orting dilemmas , unconscious

bias may also play a role i n shaping friend‐report ing choices by cre‐

ating “moral bli nd spots” when it comes to re cognizing a friend's fail‐

ings (Bazerman & Tenbr unsel, 2011; Gino & Bazer man, 2009; Gi no

et al., 2009; G reenberger et al., 1987; Umphress & Bin gham, 2011).