1989
DOI: 10.2307/976577
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In Praise of Difficult People: A Portrait of the Committed Whistleblower

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
113
0
1

Year Published

1992
1992
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 161 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
5
113
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Empirical research in this tradition, mostly quantitative, has led to the conclusion that a number of individual, situational and organisational factors can have an impact on whistleblowing intentions or behaviour (see e.g. King & Hermodson, 2000;Near & Miceli, 1996;Jos et al, 1989). It is not our intention to go into detail about the results, but three important remarks should be made.…”
Section: Defining and Explaining Whistleblowingmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Empirical research in this tradition, mostly quantitative, has led to the conclusion that a number of individual, situational and organisational factors can have an impact on whistleblowing intentions or behaviour (see e.g. King & Hermodson, 2000;Near & Miceli, 1996;Jos et al, 1989). It is not our intention to go into detail about the results, but three important remarks should be made.…”
Section: Defining and Explaining Whistleblowingmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In public organizations, there is the possibility of damaging taxpayers through opportunism, for example, by misallocating state funds or by staying on the job even when employees are no longer competent or qualified. Whistleblowers regularly report such misbehavior in public sector organizations (Cropf, 2008;Jos et al, 1989).…”
Section: Can Public Sector Organizations Learn From Benedictine Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, if a manager reports earnings quality concerns to an external party, there are additional personal costs to consider. For example, the social costs and retaliation faced by employees that blow the whistle externally are significant and well documented (e.g., Carson et al 2008;Jos et al 1989). Dyck et al (2010) anecdotally describe the personal effects for managers who blow the whistle on fraud with consequences including termination, poor job prospects, imprisonment, litigation, and threats/intimidation.…”
Section: H2bmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When reporting externally (e.g., to the external auditor or bank), the manager is increasing the likelihood that any earnings management and/or fraud in the financial statements is not only detected, but also adjusted (i.e., restated). As noted previously, the short-term social costs/retaliations faced by employees that blow the whistle externally are significant and well documented (e.g., Carson et al 2008;Jos et al 1989). To measure this short-term cost, we asked participants in our study:…”
Section: Countervailing Costs Of Reporting Concerns Over Earnings Quamentioning
confidence: 99%