Whistle_Blowing_in_Public_Sector_Organiz.pdf

Business Ethics case study.

1. http://arp.sagepub.com/
 
Administration
The American Review of Public
http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/26/0275074010376818
The online version of this article can be found at:
 
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010376818
published online 18 August 2010The American Review of Public Administration
Sajid Bashir, Hamid Rafiq Khattak, Ayesha Hanif and Sara Naseer Chohan
Whistle-Blowing in Public Sector Organizations: Evidence From Pakistan
 
 
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
 
 
American Society for Public Administration
can be found at:The American Review of Public AdministrationAdditional services and information for
 
 
 
 
http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
 
http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
 
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
 
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
 
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2. The American Review of Public Administration
XX(X) 1 –12
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010376818
http://arp.sagepub.com
Whistle-Blowing
in Public Sector
Organizations: Evidence
From Pakistan
Sajid Bashir
1
, Hamid Rafiq Khattak
1
,
Ayesha Hanif
1
, and Sara Naseer Chohan
1
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the contributory factors that affect the whistle-blowing
process in public sector organizations of Pakistan. Previous studies 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 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 prac-
tice of whistle-blowing in their organizations. Results are explained in light of Hofstede’s cultural
indices, which indicate that whistle-blowing is culture bound.
Keywords
Asia, Pakistan, culture, retaliation
Introduction
A broad definition of whistle-blowing would encompass disclosure by employees of any wrong-
doings or illegal acts by the management or employees of an organization (Lewis, 1995). Miceli,
Near, and Schwenk (1991) describe whistle-blowers as committed members of the organization
who feel compelled to report wrongdoings by their own sense of moral behavior. However, this
act is not always seen positively by organizations. Parmerlee, Near, and Jensen (1982) suggest
that an organization can react in diverse ways toward whistle-blowing. Employees avoid whistle-
blowing owing to fear of retaliation (Dworkin & Near, 1997). Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) are
of the view that employees hesitate to raise voice as this might lead to retaliation, whereas Jos,
Tompkins, and Hays (1989) expect most threatening forms of organizational retaliation for
Initial Submission: January 7, 2010
Acceptance: June 3, 2010
1
Army Public College of Management & Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Corresponding Author:
Sajid Bashir, Faculty of Management Sciences, Army Public College of Management & Sciences,
Ordnance Road, Rawalpindi 46000, Pakistan
Email: [email protected]
The American Review of Public Administration OnlineFirst, published on August 18, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0275074010376818
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

3. 2 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
whistle-blowing. The whistle-blowers are vulnerable not only to organizational reprisal but also
to the chastisement at the hands of other organizational members as pointed out by Dworkin and
Baucus (1998). They point out that organizational members react and most likely show retaliation
against whistle-blowers. Thus, whistle-blowing is not a risk-free decision or initiative for any
individual as it can entail direct and undesired consequences for the person raising voice against
some wrongdoings.
Bardhan (1997) argues that public opinions in many developing countries rate corruption as
the biggest problem, whereas Escaleras, Anbarci, and Register (2006) consider that corruption in
public sector organizations in these countries is most alarming and that it cannot be easily rooted
out. This can be a cause of low confidence in public sector organizations (Brewer & Selden, 1998).
The awareness about the absence of a system that ensures whistle-blowing so as to curb corrup-
tion in its different manifestations may necessitate certain interventions and initiatives in the public
sector organizations. Zipparo (1999) delineates that there should be legislation to encourage public
sector employees to report wrongdoing, whereas Near and Miceli (1995) argue that organizational
effectiveness enhances when whistle-blowing is encouraged and wrongdoing is discouraged.
Despite interest of researchers on the issue of whistle-blowing, the findings of the majority of
studies in North America and Western countries have not been tested particularly in regions such
as Pakistan. There is massive corruption in many Asian countries; the silence of theorists on this
issue is surprising (Luo, 2002). Every year a big chunk of public exchequer is looted by corrupt
public servants in Pakistan (Transparency International, 2009a). In such situations whistle-blowing
can be a useful deterrent, yet no study has attempted to find out the specific causes of having
almost no case of whistle-blowing in public sector organizations of Pakistan. The existing literature
also does not provide answers as to why employees in these organizations prefer to remain silent
when they observe corrupt practices? Another deficiency in literature, which this study attempts
to address, is that the private sector has remained a dominant context for studying whistle-blowing
while the phenomenon generally remains unexplored in public sector organizations, especially in
developing countries.
The authors are of the view that studies in developed countries cannot be generalized and may
not necessarily have any applicable lessons for organizations in developing countries such as
Pakistan because of the absence of a robust legal system and the cultural dimensions of being a
closely knit society where everyone is related to someone significant through common sect, cast,
or creed. The authors of the present study were encouraged by the statement of Dozier and Miceli
(1985), who were of the view that continued study of whistle-blowing helps in the development
of organizational policies that enable legitimate whistle-blowers to come forward. Thus, an attempt
is being made to find out the factors that affect whistle-blowing in the public sector organizations
of Pakistan, referred to as an underresearched country by Aycan et al. (2000).
Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Whistle-Blowing
Jubb (1999) argues that “whistle blowing is characterized as a dissenting act of public accusation
against an organization which necessitates being disloyal to that organization, p. 77.” Whistle-
blowing can include highlighting social problems within the organization and dissent from dominant
views or practices (Martin, 1999). Therefore whistle-blowing includes identifying malpractices
and illegal acts at the workplace (Lewis & Uys, 2007). Gobert and Punch (2000) describe a whistle-
blower as a person who reports institutional deficiencies with the intention of initiating corrective
processes that will address the identified fault or malpractice. Essentially, this refers to a person
who exposes falsehood and corruption although he or she is aware of potential negative outcomes
of this act, which can include loss of job (Bucka & Kleiner, 2001). The act of whistle-blowing can
include going public or going to the boss’s boss (Alford, 2001). An organization lacking in terms
of fair practices can experience whistle-blowing because whistle-blowing can be an outcome of
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4. Bashir et al. 3
organizational injustice (Hannigan, 2006). It can therefore be a tactic used by a victimized employee
against the employer (Grant, 2002). Whistle-blowing has been subdivided into two broad categories:
internal and external. Internal whistle-blowers tend to report wrongdoing within the organization,
whereas externals prefer to report it outside the organization. Internal whistle-blowers have greater
awareness about unethical acts (Read & Rama, 2003) and thus tend to have a stronger belief in the
desirability of whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1984). Carson, Verdu, and Wokutch (2008) favor
successful internal whistle-blowing over external whistle-blowing, whereas Gobert and Punch
(2000) consider embarrassing publicity as an inevitable outcome of external whistle-blowing.
A considerable work on whistle-blowing highlights the importance of whistle-blowers for
organizational betterment. Brewer and Selden (1998) consider whistle-blowing as an important
deciding factor in organizational behavior. Dozier and Miceli (1985) describe whistle-blowing as
an act of highly moral individuals; it is therefore understandable that committed employees are
more likely to report wrongdoing in organizations (Vinten, 1999). Lewis (1995) considers whistle-
blowers important as organizations can benefit from having an early warning signal that something
is wrong within the organization, thereby crediting whistle-blowers with the possibility that their
actions can lead to early correction of the offending practice or behavior. Huang, Vliert, and Vegt
(2005) suggest that employees should be encouraged to raise voice in the organizations.
The potential negative outcomes of whistle-blowing have also been extensively researched. Any
attempt to highlight wrongdoing is considered synonymous to defamation; therefore, “Whistle
blowing is often regarded as akin to betrayal, a decision to bring the organization into disrepute”
(Gobert & Punch, 2000, p. 27). The above perception holds ground as whistle-blowers are mostly
frustrated by the response they receive from managers and the organization (Bucka & Kleiner,
2001). Managers tend to view whistle-blowing as dissent, and “dissent in organizations is not
always tolerated and is rarely encouraged” (Stanley, 1981, p. 13). Employees who take pride in
blowing the whistle can expect little support from the organization (Pershing, 2003). Various nega-
tive organizational outcomes are associated with whistle-blowing; among them retaliation has
received most attention by researchers (e.g., Burkin & Kleiner, 1998; Dworkin & Near, 1997; Jos
et al., 1989; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Parmerlee et al., 1982; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Qusqas
& Kleiner, 2001), whereas some relate retaliation with the type of whistle-blowing (e.g., Dworkin
& Baucus, 1998; Vinten, 2000). In extreme cases, Soeken and Soeken (1987) cited the incidents
of considered suicides among some of the whistle-blowers they studied.
Negative outcome may not only come from the managers, as Dozier and Miceli (1985) argue
that coworkers also consider a whistle-blower as a troublemaker rather than a helper. Retaliation
by peers, therefore, is a reason for not blowing the whistle (Rennie & Crosby, 2002). If organiza-
tions discourage whistle-blowing, coworkers are less likely to offer help for protection of the
whistle-blower (Mesmer & Viswesvaran, 2005), including the fact that peer reporting is consider-
ably a difficult and risky behavior (Trevino & Victor, 1992). Hence, the intention to blow the
whistle might depend on the group norms to which the individual belongs, because group members
can oppose whistle-blowing (Near & Miceli, 1985). In cultures having a collectivist orientation,
one can expect low rates of whistle-blowing because of strong intergroup relationships.
Given the adverse affects that may be in store for the whistle-blowers, it is expected that they
would most likely be mindful of all the forces operating against them within the organization.
These findings indicate that whistle-blowing is an act that is not tolerated in the organizations,
and as Gobert and Punch (2000) identified, it can have bitter resonance. People are afraid of
whistle-blowing because of the high costs associated with it (Elias, 2008). In societies where no
protection is provided, the whistle-blowing should be discouraged for general benefit of the society
(Lewis, 1995). This is indicative of the disruptive potential whistle-blowing can have because of
the absence of a system that ensures checks and balances. In such circumstances what should
employees working in underdeveloped or developing countries such as Pakistan do? Should they
remain silent rather than resorting to whistle-blowing to protect themselves from organizational
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

5. 4 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
and peer retaliation? Poverty and unemployment are rampant in these countries, and whistle-blowing
can result in job loss (Lewis, 1995; Vinten, 2000) or careers (Near & Miceli, 1995); one can expect
that despite having authentic information about wrongdoings or corruption within the organizations
employees may not blow the whistle. Morrison and Milliken (2000) rightly pointed out that employ-
ees are aware of different issues within the organizations yet dare not speak the truth to their
superiors. Murphy (1981) suggests that whistle-blowing should be the last alternative.
Public Sector Organizations in Pakistan
The public sector organizations in Pakistan follow a bureaucratic structure that was introduced
during the British colonial rule. Since winning independence in 1947 till this date, the same system
is still in place. The public sector employees are called “civil servants,” holding different job titles
(Cyan, 2006). Regardless of their job titles civil servants in the bureaucratic structure of Pakistan
are recognized on the basis of their basic pay scale (BPS), which ranges from BPS-1 to BPS-22:
BPS-1 being the lowest and BPS-22 being the highest. There are two main cadres of employees,
namely, officers and nonofficers. Those in the officer cadre are also referred to as bureaucrats
(BPS-17 to BPS-22). These officers are selected through a competitive examination conducted
centrally by the Federal Public Service Commission. The other cadre of nonofficers (BPS-1 to
BPS-16) is selected by different public sector organizations through a noncentralized organization-
based selection system. A centralized authority structure is followed in all the public sector
organizations with authority and privileges vested in the top bureaucracy. Bureaucracy, therefore,
enjoys an elite social status but has failed to perform its basic responsibilities (Shafqat, 1999),
which include policy formulation, service delivery, and accountability (Hussain, 1999).
The public sector organizations in Pakistan have been criticized for having high rates of cor-
ruption, which has almost become a norm. Matters such as reporting a theft to the police, issuance
of a driving license, getting your pension, getting a gas connection, issuance of passport, or get-
ting a contract to build a highway may not be entertained without bribing the bureaucracy. Failing
to do so can mean that your case can remain pending for years. One such delay resulted in the
suicide of a retired headmaster of a school who was reluctant to bribe the concerned bureaucrats
for his pension release. The matter was delayed to such an extent that he ultimately committed
suicide out of extreme frustration for nonpayment of pension (Dawn, 2003). However, in contrast,
one can expect very prompt service when there is bribery (Lee & Oh, 2007). Most of the regimes
in Pakistan were dismissed on charges of corruption. Every new government vows to eradicate
corruption from civil services, but the institutions that have been established for curbing corrup-
tion have also failed in Pakistan (Quah, 2010). By establishing these institutions the successive
governments have met their political objective of portraying their “commitment” to eradicate
corruption, whereas they actually conceal their unwillingness as well as failure to fight corruption
(Sung, 2002). Whereas Luo (2002) considers Pakistan as one of the most corrupt Asian state,
Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer rates civil service as the most corrupt
institution in Pakistan (Transparency International, 2009a). Despite massive corruption in these
organizations there are no reported cases of whistle-blowing.
Method
Sample
As per Transparency International’s (2009b) National Corruption Survey, the 10 most corrupt
public sector organizations in Pakistan are the following:
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6. Bashir et al. 5
1. Police
2. Power (electricity, gas, etc.)
3. Health (hospitals and their administration, etc.)
4. Land (offices dealing with collection of land revenue, etc.)
5. Education (schools and colleges and their administration)
6. Taxation (Federal Board of Revenue and its offices)
7. Judiciary (different courts)
8. Local government
9. Customs
10. Tendering (organizations dealing with allocation of contracts)
Respondents for the present study were selected from these organizations as the incidents of
wrongdoing are high in them. A sample of 2,703 respondents from these organizations agreed to
fill the questionnaire, and responses from 1,853 were received. Out of these, 1,762 were complete
and have been used for this study, constituting a response rate of 65%. These respondents were
selected based on their potential vulnerability to corruption or wrongdoing, that is, the respondents
were working in those departments that are in direct contact with the general public and have a
higher likelihood of corruption. For example, police personnel directly involved in investigation
of crimes are more vulnerable to bribery or corruption than officials who are sitting in the HR
department of the police and maintaining personnel records. Keeping in view the delicate nature
of the issue, the respondents were not required to mention their names, designations, or organiza-
tions. This is perhaps the first study on whistle-blowing being conducted in public sector organi-
zations of Pakistan and understandably no one was willing to disclose information on wrongdoings
unless they were ensured complete anonymity.
The respondents included 76% male and 24% females. The obvious reason for this representa-
tive gender composition of employees is that culturally in Pakistan men are considered as the prime
earners, and therefore, they outnumber their female counterparts at workplaces. Although this trend
is gradually changing still the number of working women is quite low. Thirty-one percent of the
respondents were employees working at managerial level whereas 69% were employees at lower
level jobs. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents had master’s degree or were higher degree
holders, whereas 71% held a bachelor’s or lower degree. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents
were in the age-group of 20 to 30 years, 33% were in the age-group of 30 to 40 years, and 30%
were 40 years and older. Respondents were selected from major cities, such as Karachi, Lahore,
Peshawar, Quetta, Gilgit, and Islamabad.
The data were collected between July 2009 and September 2009 using self-administered ques-
tionnaires. This was an original primary data collection by the authors. The data collection for the
study was restricted to public sector organizations only with the objective to get information only
from the organizations where rate of wrongdoing is quite high. Although we feel that the results in
private organizations are likely to remain similar, the data from these organizations can be useful in
explaining the whistle-blowing phenomenon and for the better understanding of its application.
Instrument
The respondents were asked six questions that were adopted from Near, Van Scotter, Rehg, and
Miceli (2004), who used the instrument to relate type of wrongdoing with the whistle-blowing
process. The respondents were required to fill the questionnaires anonymously. They were asked
to answer whether they observed or experienced wrongdoing at their workplace in the past
12 months. The time frame of 12 months is given to highlight the most recent cases of wrongdoing.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7. 6 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
The respondents who replied “No” were not required to answer further questions and they were
excluded from the study. The respondents who replied “Yes” were further required to identify the
type of wrongdoing out of many options, such as stealing, accepting bribe, and so on. After
observing the wrongdoing the next important issue was about its reporting, that is, whistle-blowing.
The respondents who replied “Yes” to this question were required to identify the type of retalia-
tion they faced after blowing the whistle, whereas the respondents who did not blow the whistle
despite observing wrongdoing were required to identify reason(s) for not pointing out the
wrongdoing.
Results
The respondent’s responses to various questions are summarized in this section. In some questions
the respondents could choose more than one opinion.
Table 1 indicates the intensity of the problem in the public sector organizations as 82% respon-
dents either observed or experienced wrongdoing. The organizations selected for the present study
were rated among the most corrupt organizations by Transparency International.
Table 2 gives an overview of employees’ opinion about the type of wrongdoing. Stealing and
bribe received the same percentage, 11%. Contrary to expectation, accepting bribe received a
relatively low percentage as there is a general perception that bribe is the main cause of corruption
within public sector organizations of Pakistan. The highest percentage, 41%, is for use of official
position for personal gain. Generally, decision makers in public sector organizations enjoy full
liberty to use official position for personal gain, which results in a tendency that merit within the
organizations is mostly ignored. Recruitment and selection, reward management, career develop-
ment, and performance evaluation, vital human resource management practices, are based more
on personal favoritism rather than on merit. Wastage of organizational resources received a sig-
nificant percentage. Senior management in most of the public sector organizations is entitled to
a number of benefits for which expenses are borne by the state.
Table 1. Response to Question 1
Response Percentage
Yes 82
No 18
Note. Question Number 1: “Whether you experienced or observed a wrongdoing at your workplace in the past
12 months?” N = 1,762.
Table 2. Response to Question 2
Response Percentage
Use of official position for personal gain 41
Wastage of organizational asset 40
Employee abuse of office 30
Management making false projection of performance 30
All of the above 17
Stealing 11
Accepting bribe 11
Note. Question 2: If answer to Question 1 is Yes “Among following options please indicate type of wrongdoing which
was experienced or observed by you (more than one option can be selected).” N = 1,446.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8. Bashir et al. 7
The findings in Table 3 hold a specific significance toward explanation of the whistle-blowing
phenomenon in the public sector organizations of Pakistan. However, it must be clarified that the
article does not focus on internal or external whistle-blowing but that whistle-blowing events are
discussed in entirety. Respondents were not subdivided into categories whether they reported the
wrongdoing within or outside the organization.
The response of 8% of the respondents saying “Yes” indicates the tendency of employees and
managers toward reporting the wrongdoing. These figures are quite alarming. When 92% of the
people who experience or observe wrongdoing do not report it how can we expect transparency?
Owing to various reasons organizational members decide to remain silent even after observing
wrongdoing.
It would be noteworthy to describe the characteristics of whistle-blowers. Seventy-seven percent
of the whistle-blowers were 30 and younger, and 73% of the whistle-blowers had a postgraduate
degree. Significant numbers of respondents happened to be male employees, constituting 84%. These
characteristics point toward an interesting and encouraging trend; that is, young and educated employ-
ees working in public sector organizations of Pakistan have the courage to take the risk of disclosing
wrongdoings. However, the silence of female respondents is indicative of a culture where few women
dare to demand their legal rights, let alone reporting any wrongdoings through whistle-blowing.
Perhaps Table 4 gives the most interesting findings of the study. It explains the causes that
restrict the inactive observers to remain silent even after observing wrongdoing. The decision by
an individual to remain silent at this stage is probably the key reason for having a high rate of
corruption in Pakistan. Reasons for not blowing the whistle can be subdivided into two categories:
organizational and personal/social. At the organizational level, a significant number of respondents
(33%) were fearful of organizational retaliation, which restricted them from blowing the whistle.
Surprisingly, 43% of the respondents after observing the wrongdoing did not report it, saying “It
was not part of my job.” This finding seems interesting in the context of relating whistle-blowing
with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The concept of OCB motivates the employees
to go beyond the requirements of the job and act in the best interest of the organization. Organ
(1988) identified five dimensions of OCB, among them the concept of civic virtue is described
as speaking out for organization including identifying problems. Because there is a close theoreti-
cal relationship between civic virtue and whistle-blowing, our findings substantiate the fact that
there will be few cases of whistle-blowing in organizations where employees lack OCB.
Table 3. Response to Question 3
Response Percentage
Yes 8
No 92
Note. Question 3: “Did you report the wrongdoing within or outside the organization?” N = 1,446.
Table 4. Response to Question 4
Response Percentage
I did not want to get the coworker in trouble 63
It was not part of my job 43
I was fearful of organizational retaliation 33
It was not serious enough 18
Note. Question 4: If answer to Question 3 is No “Among the following options describe the reason for not reporting
the wrongdoing within or outside the organization (more than one option can be selected).” N = 1,324.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

9. 8 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
A majority of the respondents (63%) did not want to get their coworker into trouble by reporting
the wrongdoing. Why? The answer to this question needs a thorough investigation with specific
reference to organizations operating in developing countries of Asia. The reason for protecting a
coworker in a particular cultural setting can be described better by the findings of Hofstede (1980,
1986, 1991), who identified cultural clusters or indices of variables through which he described
national cultures. In his study of many countries, including Pakistan, an important cultural cluster
was individualism and collectivism. Hofstede (1980) identified the societies having high individual-
ism as the societies where every one is expected to look after himself or herself and immediate
family, whereas in societies having collectivism more emphasis is placed on intergroup relations
and protection of group members. The group membership is important in collectivist societies to
the extent that it becomes a permanent part of their lives (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). On
cultural index for individualism and collectivism, the United States received the highest score,
whereas Pakistan was scored as one of the lowest in the world. This score indicates the presence of
high collectivism in Pakistan, which results in strong intergroup relationships, and as an obligation
defined in culture, respondents in the present study did not want their coworkers to get into any form
of trouble. The reporting of wrongdoing would be taken negatively by other group members and
this action is against norms of society where protecting a fellow group member is preferred rather
than bringing him into a potential trouble situation. Because people in Pakistan have a much higher
orientation toward tight social network and a strict following of group decisions (Davis & Ruhe,
2003), the reason why a majority of inactive observers preferred not to blow the whistle is possibly
a strong social network. Whistle-blowing against the wrongdoing of a coworker weakens the strength
of this social network, which will never be appreciated in this cultural context, and an individual
would risk isolation after losing the trust of fellow group members. We also feel that this might be
a key factor that can explain the low reporting of wrongdoings in countries high in collectivism.
Table 5 indicates that 84% of the respondents suffered retaliation for blowing the whistle. The
proposition that whistle-blowing is followed by retaliation seems correct in a Pakistani context. This
percentage is quite high as compared with that in Near et al. (2004), who found that 37% of the
whistle-blowers suffered some form of retaliation. Organizations in Pakistan, especially the public
sector organizations, rarely tolerate any reporting of wrongdoing by employees. High retaliation rate
by organizations can also be considered a key factor in restricting employees to blow the whistle.
In Table 6 retaliation includes retaliation by the fellow coworkers and the organizations as well.
Verbal harassment received the highest percentage. During our discussion with the employees we
found that a very hostile environment exists in most of the public sector organizations. According
to them, bosses consider subordinates as personal servants and they are supposed to obey the orders,
legal or illegal, right or wrong. Dissent by lower level employees is negligible, and those who dare
to speak face circumstances that make it very difficult to work in a very unfriendly and hostile
environment. Verbal aggression and mental torture are frequent outcomes of whistle-blowing. The
coworker’s retaliation also received a relatively high percentage (60%); thus, a whistle-blower faces
retaliation not only by the management but also by coworkers who consider him a troublemaker.
The steps that were taken by the management against the whistle-blowers include poor
performance appraisal (54%), denial of promotion (25%), charging employees with committing
Table 5. Response to Question 5
Response Percentage
Yes 84
No 16
Note. Question 5: If answer to Question 3 is Yes “After reporting the wrongdoing did you suffer any form of retaliation
from organization or your coworkers?” N = 122.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10. Bashir et al. 9
unrelated offense (66%), and being fired from the job (4%). These figures indicate that at the
organizational level the whistle-blowers are never appreciated; rather, the management tries to
penalize the whistle-blowers in any possible manner. Whistle-blower must be ready to face
worst form of organizational retaliation, as Feliu (1983) rightly argues that “life will never be
the same once you do whistle blowing.” The retaliation can include loss of job as well. In
underdeveloped or developing countries having high unemployment rates, no person can afford
to put his or her job at stake by blowing the whistle. Even if the organization did not fire the
individual, his or her life is made miserable by reduced chances of career development and
denial of other benefits. Near and Miceli (1995) rightly suggest that “whistle blowing can be
costly for careers.”
Conclusion and Future Research Directions
Cross-cultural research on ethical issues is gaining importance in management literature, but many
of the studies are restricted to multinational organizations and developed countries. Although there
is a dearth of knowledge on ethical issues in public sector organizations operating in developing
countries such as Pakistan, this study carries some significant theoretical and managerial implica-
tions. Its biggest strength is the unique and relatively big public sector sample from a country where
whistle-blowing was never analyzed by any researcher.
Results do not lead toward theory development, yet they signify the role of culture in explain-
ing whistle-blowing. Culture and its dimensions must be taken into account to understand whistle-
blowing, because otherwise results might lead to incorrect inferences. In collectivist societies
loyalty toward group is considered more important than efficiency (Davis & Ruhe, 2003). Find-
ings by Brody, Coulter, and Lin (1999) lend support to the cultural explanation of whistle-blowing
in Pakistan’s context as envisaged in this study. They found that Taiwanese (a collectivist society
on Hofstede’s index) responses reflected a more collectivist orientation with respect to blowing
the whistle than with those of their U.S. counterparts (an individualistic society on Hofstede’s
index). Similarly, a comparison of whistle-blowing by Tavakoli, Keenan, and Karanovic (2003)
among Croatian (collectivist) and U.S. samples (individualistic) indicate that collectivist cultures
will tend to be more inclined toward the group’s interest to which a person belongs to, and there-
fore, the decision to blow the whistle or not will be driven by a group’s interest rather than orga-
nizational welfare.
At the managerial level, findings of the study would help the managers to better understand
why employees prefer to remain silent rather than to report the wrongdoing. The public sector
organizations in developing counties must encourage whistle-blowers to come forward and help
the organizations and governments in reduction of wrongdoings. Because the majority of the
Table 6. Response to Question 6
Response Percentage
Verbal harassment 90
Charged with committing an unrelated offence 66
Coworkers not associating with you 60
Poor performance appraisal 54
Professional reputation was harmed 45
Denial of promotion 25
Suspension from job 22
Fired from job 4
Note. Question 6: If answer to Question 5 is Yes “Among the following options select the type of retaliation you faced
(more than one option can be selected).” N = 102.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

11. 10 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
respondents opted not to report a wrongdoing, organizations should arrange counseling sessions
and training on specific cultural ethical issues with an objective to have more awareness about
importance of reporting a wrongdoing even if it is committed by a fellow coworker.
As highlighted by one of the anonymous reviewers, we feel that this study has a few limitations
that must be addressed in future research. Studies should also try to measure the difference in reac-
tions to wrongdoing based on their relative severity. Similarly, the events that prompted whistle-
blowing and events that were ignored should also be analyzed. Researchers should also try to
investigate the reasons why some people were brave enough to speak out publicly despite the fear
of retaliation. The role of any law protecting whistle-blowers was not tested in the present study,
which should also be addressed by future researchers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistle blowers and the narrative of ethics. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32, 402-418.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stalh, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of
culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 49, 192-221.
Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and development: A review of issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35,
1320-1346.
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the
public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 413-439.
Brody, R. G., Coulter, J. M., & Lin, S. (1999). The effect of national culture on whistle-blowing perceptions.
Teaching Business Ethics, 3, 383-398.
Bucka, D., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). Whistleblowing in the aerospace and defence industries. Managerial
Law, 43, 50-56.
Burkin, K., & Kleiner, B. H. (1998). Protecting the whistleblower: Preventing retaliation following a report
of patient abuse in health-care institutions. Health Manpower Management, 24, 119-124.
Carson, T. L., Verdu, M. E., & Wokutch, R. E. (2008). Whistle-blowing for profit: An ethical analysis of the
Federal False Claims Act. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 361-376.
Cyan, M. R. (2006). Main issues for setting civil services reform agenda in Pakistan. Pakistan Development
Review, 45, 1241-1254.
Davis, H. D., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal
of Business Ethics, 43, 275-288.
Dawn. (2003, April 24). Pension delays. Retrieved from http://www.dawn.com /2003/04 /24/ed.htm
Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 823-836.
Dworkin, T. M., & Baucus, M. S. (1998). Internal vs. external whistleblowers: A comparison of whistle-
blowering processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1281-1298.
Dworkin, T. M., & Near, J. P. (1997). A better statutory approach to whistle-blowing. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 7(1), 1-16.
Elias, R. (2008). Auditing students’ professional commitment and anticipatory socialization and their rela-
tionship to whistleblowing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23, 283-294.
Escaleras, M., Anbarci, N., & Register, C. A. (2006). Public sector corruption and natural disasters. A
potentially deadly interaction (Working Paper No. 06005). Retrieved from Florida Atlantic University,
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12. Bashir et al. 11
College of Business, Department of Economics website: http://home.fau.edu/mescaler/web/working%20
papers/quakecor8.30.06.pdf
Feliu, A.G. (1983). Thinking of blowing the whistle. American Journal of Nursing, 83(11), 1541-1547.
Gobert, J., & Punch, M. (2000). Whistleblowers, the public interest, and the Public Interest Disclosure
Act 1998. Modern Law Review, 63, 25-54.
Grant, C. (2002). Whistle blowers: Saints of secular culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 391-399.
Hannigan, N. S. (2006). Blowing the whistle on healthcare fraud: Should I? Journal of the American Academy
of Nurse Practitioners, 18, 512-517.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 10, 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Huang, X., Vliert, E., & Vegt, G. S. (2005). Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of participation and
employee opinion withholding cross-nationally? Management and Organization Review, 1, 459-483.
Hussain, I. (1999). Institutions of restraint: The missing element in Pakistan’s governance. Pakistan Devel-
opment Review, 38, 511-536.
Jos, P. H., Tompkins, M. E., & Hays, S. W. (1989). In praise of difficult people: A portrait of the committed
whistleblower. Public Administration Review, 49, 552-561.
Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistle blowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics,
21, 77-94.
Lee, S. H., & Oh, K. K. (2007). Corruption in Asia: Pervasiveness and arbitrariness. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 24, 97-114.
Lewis, D. (1995). Whistleblowers and job security. Modern Law Review, 58, 208-221.
Lewis, D., & Uys, T. (2007). Protecting whistleblowers at work: A comparison of the impact of British and
South African legislation. Managerial Law, 49(3), 76-92.
Luo, Y. (2002). Corruption and organization in Asian management system. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
19, 405-422.
Martin, B. (1999). Whistle blowing and nonviolence. Peace & Change, 24, 15-28.
Mesmer, J. R., & Viswesvaran, M. C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates
of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 277-297.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-
blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 687-705.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the whistle and why? Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 45, 113-130.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in
a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.
Murphy, P. (1981). Dilemmas in practice: Deciding to blow the whistle. American Journal of Nursing, 81,
1691-1692.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle blowing. Journal of Business
Ethics, 4, 1-16.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20, 679-708.
Near, J. P., Van Scotter, J. R., Rehg, M. T., & Miceli, M. P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the
whistle-blowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 219-242.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome (1st ed.). Lexington,
MA: D. C. Heath.
Parmerlee, M. A., Near, J. P., & Jensen, T. C. (1982). Correlates of whistleblowers’ perceptions of organi-
zational retaliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 17-34.
Pershing, J. L. (2003). To snitch or not to snitch? Applying the concept of neutralization techniques to the
enforcement of occupational misconduct. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 149-178.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

13. 12 The American Review of Public Administration XX(X)
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring
in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1537-1562.
Quah, J. S. T. (2010). Defying institutional failure: Learning from the experiences of anti-corruption agencies
in four Asian countries. Crime, Law and Social Change, 53, 23-54.
Qusqas, F., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). The difficulties of whistleblowers finding employment. Management
Research News, 24(3/4), 97-100.
Read, W. J., & Rama, D. V. (2003). Whistleblowing to internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18,
354-362.
Rennie, S. C., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of whistleblowing: Implications for self-regulation.
A questionnaire and focus group survey. Medical Education, 36, 173-179.
Shafqat, S. (1999). Pakistani bureaucracy: Crisis of governance and prospects of reforms. Pakistan Devel-
opment Review, 38, 995-1017.
Soeken, K., & Soeken, D. (1987). A survey of whistleblowers: Their stressors and coping strategies. Laurel,
MD: Association of Mental Health Specialties.
Stanley, J. D. (1981). Dissent in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6, 13-19.
Sung, H. E. (2002). A convergence approach to the analysis of political corruption: A cross-national study.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 38, 137-160.
Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J. P., & Karanovic, B. C. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing: An empirical study of
Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics,
43, 49-64.
Transparency International. (2009a). Global Corruption Barometer 2009. Retrieved from http://www
.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2009/gcb2009
Transparency International. (2009b). Pakistan National Corruption Perception Survey 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.transparency.org
Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 38-64.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
Vinten, G. (1999). A whistleblowing code for educational institutions. International Journal of Educational
Management, 13, 150-157.
Vinten, G. (2000). Whistleblowing towards disaster prevention and management. Disaster Prevention and
Management, 9, 18-28.
Zipparo, L. (1999). Encouraging public sector employees to report workplace corruption. Australian Journal
of Public Administration, 58(2), 83-93.
Bios
Sajid Bashir is the head of research at Army Public College of Management & Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
His research interests include organizational commitment, organizational cynicism, deviant workplace behav-
iors, and whistle-blowing.
Hamid Rafiq Khattak is the dean of management sciences, Army Public College of Management & Sciences,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan. His research interests include organizational development, training and development,
and organizational ethics.
Ayesha Hanif is pursuing her honors degree in business administration at Army Public College of Manage-
ment & Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Sara Naseer Chohan is pursuing her honors degree in business administration at Army Public College of
Management & Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
by Sajid Bashir on September 1, 2010arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from