Whistleblowing and power: A network perspective

• Date: 01 October 2020
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12290
• Author: R. Guy Thomas

842  

|

  Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:842–855.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer

1 | INTRODUCTION

Much extant co mmentary on w histleblowin g follows any of four main

approaches (wh ich are not mutually exclusive): e xperiential surveys,

psychological studies, legal studies, and ethical studies. The first ap-

proach reports on the individualized experience of whistleblowing;

it focuses on how in dividuals decide to raise a n issue, how organiza-

tions respond , how individuals suf fer retaliation, and so fort h (e.g.,

Dewing & Russell , 2014; Glazer & Glazer, 1989; Miceli & Near, 1992;

Park, Blenkinsopp, Oktem, & Omurgonulsen, 2008; Park, Bjørkelo, &

Blekinsopp, 2018). T he second approa ch identifies psych ological and

situational var iables which make indi viduals more or less likel y to be-

come whistleblowers (e.g., Anvari, Wenzel, Woodyatt, & Alexander

Haslam, 2019; Bjørkelo , Einarsen, & Mathies en, 2010; Hess, Treviño,

Chen, & Cross, 2019; Mes mer-Magnus & Chockalingam, 20 05; Park

& Lewis 2019; Sims & Keenan, 1998). The t hird approach stu dies

the forms of and jus tifications for laws inten ded to encourage whis-

tleblowers an d protect them from re taliation (e.g., As hton, 2015;

Callahan, Dw orkin, & Lewis, 20 04; Lewis, Bowers, Fo dder, &

Mitchell, 2017; Lewis, 2018; Sav age, 2016; Vaughn, 2012). The

fourth appr oach considers ethi cal arguments fo r and against whis-

tleblowing, ev aluating competin g moral imperati ves such as altru-

ism, honest y, loyalty, confidentialit y, and deference (e.g., Boot , 2019;

Ceva & Bocchiola , 2020; Grant, 20 02; Hoffman & Schwar tz 2015;

Kumar & Santoro, 2017; Larm er, 1992; O’Sullivan & Ngau, 2014;

Vandekerckhove & Com mers, 2004). T he present articl e offers a

fifth appr oach: it seeks to clari fy the power relati ons which whis-

tleblowing involves, while largely abstracting from individual expe-

riences, psychological characteristics, legal constraints, and ethic al

principles.

Specifica lly, this article present s a network perspect ive on whis-

tleblowing and p ower. In the human relations contex t of this article,

power means the ab ility to effect cha nge through the agency of ot h-

ers; that is, the a bility to influence o thers and to get thing s done.1

Power is conceived as de riving from the positio ns of persons (whom

I shall refer to as “acto rs”) within a netwo rk. That is, the power of

each of the releva nt actors—whistlebl ower, victim, wrongdoer, and a

person to whom the whistle is blown—depends on the configuration

of the network s between and around them. T he study of networks

usually focuse s on unstructur ed networks, whe re power is wholly

Received: 20 Ap ril 2019 

|

  Revised: 21 April 2 020 

|

  Accepted: 29 Apri l 2020

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12290

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Whistleblowing and power: A network perspective

R. Guy Thomas

This is an open ac cess article und er the terms of the Crea tive Commons Attr ibution License, w hich permits use , distribution an d reproduction i n any medium,

provided the o riginal work is prop erly cited.

© 2020 The Autho rs. Business Ethi cs: A European Review P ublished by John Wil ey & Sons Ltd

Universit y of Kent, Canterbur y, United

Kingdom

Correspondence

R. Guy Thom as, University of Ke nt, Sibson

Building, C anterbury CT 2 7FS, United

Kingdom.

Email: r.g.thomas@kent.ac.uk

Abstract

This article pre sents a network per spective on whistle blowing. It considers how

whistleblowing af fects, and is aff ected by, the preexisting dist ribution of power in-

side and outside an o rganization, where power i s conceptualized as deriving fr om

the network posit ions of the key actors. The artic le also highlights four charac teristic

features of whistleb lowing: third-part y detriment, local s ubversion, appeal to cen-

tral or externa l power, and reasonable expect ation of concern. The featur e of local

subversion succinct ly explains why whistleblowing is diff icult. The feature of appeal

to central or extern al power highlights that contrar y to the perception of a democra-

tizing phenomenon, whistleblowing tends to redistribute discretion away from local

power toward more central p ower. This suggests a need for ca ution about institu-

tional measures to pro mote whistleblowing in contexts whe re governance is already

highly centralized.