Concern for the Transgressor’s Consequences: An Explanation for Why Wrongdoing Remains Unreported

Abstract

In the aftermath of shocking workplace scandals, people are often baffled when individuals within the organization were aware of clear-cut wrongdoing yet did not inform authorities. The current research suggests that moral concern for the suffering that a transgressor might face if a crime were reported is an under-recognized, powerful force that shapes whistleblowing in organizations, particularly when transgressors are fellow members of a highly entitative group (i.e., a group that is perceived as highly unified). Two experiments show that group entitativity heightens concern about possible consequences that the transgressor would face if a crime were to be reported, and that this concern reduces the likelihood of reporting wrongdoing in organizations to authorities. Further, the studies identify a mechanism through which concern about the transgressor is heightened in highly entitative groups: potential reporters perceive that the transgressor felt remorse for their crime. Thus, when fellow members of highly entitative organizations commit crimes, people are more likely to imagine that these transgressors felt anxiety or guilt about their actions, and this prompts greater concern for transgressors in ways that encourage people to let them "off the hook." We discuss the implications of these findings for how reporting to authorities can be encouraged within highly entitative organizations.

Reframing whistleblowing intention: an analysis of individual and situational factors

“…Some others argue that whistleblowing is viewed as voluntary and rational behaviour (Miceli et al , 2012; Near and Miceli, 1985), often governed by assessments of costs and benefits (Miceli and Near, 1988). Fortunately, whistleblowers are sometimes considered “problem employees” because they alert others about wrongdoings, thus harming the employers’ reputations (Khan and Howe, 2021). Alternatively, they can be recognised as legitimate contributors who are worthy of protection (Lee and Xiao, 2018; Stubben and Welch, 2020; Vandekerckhove and Phillips, 2019) because their actions are beneficial and alert inside/outside parties of wrongdoing.…”

Samarco’s scandal: a perspective of organizational spirituality and corporate social responsibility

“…Individualist organizational cultures perpetuate impunity because members do not report wrongdoing (Khan and Howe, 2020). Misconducts that become a scandal costs a good reputation.…”

Cooperative behavior in the workplace: Empirical evidence from the agent-deed-consequences model of moral judgment

“…For example, perceiving that a transgressor experiences remorse for their organizational crimes (i.e., that they are not entirely a bad “Agent”) can deter people from whistleblowing. The effect of remorse is particularly strong if the transgressor is part of a cohesive and homogenous work group, thus signaling the role of moral norms about deeds (Khan and Howe, 2021 ). Similar findings are reported in other studies as well.…”

“…They capture motivational factors to perform a certain behavior (Grasmick and Bursik, 1990 ; Ajzen, 1991 ; Gibbons et al, 1998 ). While the focus of this study is to investigate moral judgments as a mediator for willingness to cooperate, it should be acknowledged that this mediation is only partial, meaning that the ADC components may also affect this willingness via other mediators such as personal monetary and non-monetary consequences for the cooperating partner (e.g., negative Consequences in one interaction may reduce willingness to engage in further cooperation) or effects of trust (e.g., a bad intent of the Agent may decrease trust and in consequence willingness to cooperate), which could explain remaining direct effects of the components (Mo and Shi, 2017 ; Khan and Howe, 2021 ).…”