International Journal of Management Sciences
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2015, 8-15
Whistleblowing and Voicing Dissent in Organizations
Muhammad Hariz Hamid1, Zaleha Othman2
Abstract
The role of whistleblowing in organizations is vital. Yet, literature provides no conclusive definition for it. In
fact, whistleblowing has been linked to dissent in organizations. Although whistleblowing and dissent are
conceptually different, literature suggests that they shared some common characteristics. On this basis, the
relationship between these two topics warrants a review especially for future researchers to set proper
contexts for their organizational studies. This paper evaluates relevant literatures from their contextual
definitions. Key components of whistleblowing were examined and the scope of dissent in organizations was
analyzed. Our comparative review supports the assertion that whistleblowing is a form of organizational
dissent.
Keywords: Organizational Dissent, Principled Organizational Dissent, Whistleblowing
1. Introduction
Whistleblowing is a term understood by many, mostly as reported in the news. The phenomenal
coverage and repercussions encountered by Edward Snowden, for instance, open doors for the public to
envision what whistleblowing entails, so much so, it consequences. In an organizational context, the situation
is very much similar. Certainly, wrongdoing can occur at any levels in various types of organizations.
Although the role of whistleblowing in organizations is vital, it may not be able to eliminate wrongdoing
completely. Regardless, perception on whistleblowing is mixed. On one hand, it is viewed as a threat to
organizations’ public image. On the other hand, whistleblowing is believed to be able to help organizations
in preventing and detecting organizational wrongdoing. To understand this issue further, it may be necessary
for us to know what actually constitutes whistleblowing.
Literature provides no conclusive definition for whistleblowing (Brennan & Kelly, 2007; McLain &
Keenan, 1999). The term was defined based on various perspectives, and thus disagreement on some of the
key elements of whistleblowing was seemed to be unresolved. In fact, in some instances, these definitions
were found to be contradicting among each other. This situation poses a considerable challenge for
researchers to set context for studies that they undertake. Nevertheless, literature recommends that
whistleblowing should cover, at least these four key components, namely the whistleblower, the wrongdoing,
the wrongdoer, and the reporting recipient (Near & Miceli, 1985). We explain three of these elements in
more detail in the following sections.
In relation to definitional context, whistleblowing has been linked to dissent in organizations (Martin &
Rifkin, 2004). And quite often, literature on organizational dissent was used to serve as the fundamentals for
whistleblowing studies (e.g., Elias, 2008; Schultz, Johnson, Morris, & Dyrnes, 1993; Shahinpoor & Matt,
2007). Especially to understand research from its proper setting, this paper evaluates both whistleblowing
and organizational dissent literatures from their contextual definitions. Besides, major components of these
two concepts are examined. Also, this paper analyzes the bases used for considering whistleblowing as a
form of organizational dissent.
1
2
College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia
College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia
© 2015 Research Academy of Social Sciences
http://www.rassweb.com
8
International Journal of Management Sciences
Defining Whistleblowing
According to Near and Miceli (1985), whistleblowing is referred to as ‘‘…the disclosure by
organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of
their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action’’ (p. 4). We view that this
definition covers at least three important perspectives. First, a whistleblower can be someone who is current
or past employee of the organization. Secondly, the scope of wrongful activities is not limited to illegal or
illegitimate organizational practices only, but also those that are morally wrong, all of which fall within the
organization’s jurisdiction. And finally, the disclosure is made to parties that could act upon the wrongdoing.
Although this definition has been extensively referred to in many whistleblowing studies, we argue that
it entails a number of arguments. Specifically, this definition does not explicitly address the reporting role of
a whistleblower. Hence, can any organizational employee be regarded as a whistleblower? Or, should we
also consider the reporting role of an employee? Additionally, it does not specify regarding the reporting
avenues. This issue arises especially when the word “persons” was used, that it leaves us in the dark whether
or not it is inclusive of individuals within the same organization. Lastly, the definition gives us no clue
whether the scope of wrongdoing covers the anticipated and probable wrongful acts as well.
To enhance the context of the earlier whistleblowing definition, Jubb (1999) incorporates some essential
provisions. Specifically, he defines whistleblowing as a “…non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto
public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an
organisation, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated…” (p.
83). This definition highlights at least three key elements of whistleblowing. First, it clearly posits that
whistleblowing is performed by individuals who are not prescribed to report by their job role. In other words,
it is made by individuals voluntarily. Moreover, the definition also states that whistleblowing involves
disclosure of information to public. Finally, it also comprises the anticipated and probable wrongful acts.
From our review, we found that perspectives put forward by McLain and Keenan (1999) in describing
whistleblowing is somewhat a blend of both definitions previously discussed. Specifically, they suggest that
whistleblowing involves “present or former organization members going outside prescribed responsibilities
and procedures to report wrongdoing in the organization to entities believed willing and able to stop the
wrongdoing” (p. 266).
In the following sections, we deliberate some of the key components that formed whistleblowing.
 Whistleblower
In general, a whistleblower is known to be the one who leaks out information on wrongful activities to
public. However, the argument on who can be regarded as a whistleblower in an organizational context is
persists. Many studies have defined whistleblowing as a disclosure that could be made by both current and
former employees of the victim organization (Jubb, 1999; McLain & Keenan, 1999; Near & Miceli, 1985).
Note that the scope of a whistleblower is not confined to current employees only, but also inclusive of past
employees. Why is that so?
Occasionally, while performing their routine job, employees may have unintentionally observed some
wrongful activities in organizations. Upon such awareness, the employees will decide whether to report the
wrongdoing or to remain silent. However, in some instances, employees choose to quit their job instead
(Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). By quitting prior to blowing the whistle, an employee could
minimize the effects of whistleblowing on his or her personal career. In addition, studies also show that
employees may have to sacrifice their job at the organization in the effort to ensure whistleblowing
effectiveness. Notably, some literatures report findings on whistleblowing that were made by outsiders. For
instance, in their empirical study, Read and Rama (2003) viewed whistleblowing from a perspective that
disclosure could be made by both, current employees and outsiders.
9
M. H. Hamid & Z. Othman
 Subject Matter
Employees blow the whistle in organizations regarding various types of wrongful activities. The scope
of wrongdoing is broad enough to cover variety of malpractices that may happen in organizations. This
includes activities that are illegal, illegitimate, immoral, and unethical (Near & Miceli, 1985), all of which
could adversely impact the organizations. Despite the complex nature of wrongdoing, employees may be
able to anticipate some potential wrongdoings before they occur. In this regard, we may be wondering if the
scope of whistleblowing definition is only limited to wrongdoing that are already happened. Or, does it also
cover the anticipated and probable wrongful acts? As we have discussed previously, literature is generally
silent on this issue. In this regard, Jubb (1999) provides two important criteria of wrongful activities. First,
the wrongdoing must be serious in nature. And also, it may comprise activities that are already happened,
expected, or probable to happen.
 Reporting Role
In some cases, employees blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing although they are not
assigned by their job role to do so. In other words, they were among ordinary employees who are aware of
the occurrence of wrongful activities, and decide to make a report. Often times, this disclosure is regarding
classified information that they have access to (Jubb, 1999). In contrast, some employees are prescribed to
report wrongdoing in the workplace. Hence, they are responsible to disclose any organizational wrongdoings
that they observe to an authorized reporting recipient.
An issue rises whether we should also consider a disclosure made by employees who are role-prescribed
to report as whistleblowing. This is especially when Jubb (1999) limits whistleblowing to encompass nonobligatory disclosures only. In other words, reporting that is made out of obligation, that is, of those who are
prescribed to report, should not be considered as whistleblowing. Similarly, McLain and Keenan (1999)
assert that whistleblowing is not related to an assigned responsibility to report. From our review, we found
that literature is mixed on the reporting role of a whistleblower. Specifically, there is a group of researchers
who also consider reporting that is made out of role responsibility to report as whistleblowing (Brennan &
Kelly, 2007; Near & Miceli, 1985). In fact, Near and Miceli (1996) found that whistleblowers are more likely
to be characterized as those who are assigned to report on wrongdoing.
 Reporting Avenue
The process of defining whistleblowing has also regard the selection of reporting avenues. However,
one important issue concerning this element is that, can all disclosures that are made through different
reporting channels be considered as whistleblowing? In this regard, literature indicates that whistleblowing is
a restricted term. Many researchers describe whistleblowing as a disclosure made to outside parties (e.g.,
Jubb, 1999; McLain & Keenan, 1999). Their stated definitions implicitly disregard reporting that is made
internally as an act of whistleblowing. For instance, Jubb (1999) proposes that whistleblowing is made to
external party who can change the situation.
Nevertheless, another group of researchers regarded both internal and external reporting as
whistleblowing. In fact, literature from the field of accounting had commonly applied this view (e.g., Eaton
& Akers, 2007; Figg, 2000). They assert that despite made internally, any disclosure that bypassed the
existing reporting channel should be regarded as whistleblowing. In other words, it is when the
organizations’ hierarchical structure is challenged (King, 1999; Near & Miceli, 1985). In reference to this
standpoint, we found that literature has been divided into two strands of research: internal and external
whistleblowing.
2. Employee Dissidence in Organizations
Employees, in reality, have a little room to speak up about their dissatisfaction at work. Literature
proposes that this lack of opportunity is mostly resulted from the organizations’ policy toward dissent
(Stanley, 1981). Indeed, policy plays a significant role, not only toward the long-term performance, but also
10
International Journal of Management Sciences
to the survival of an organization. Needless to say, a weak policy could affect all the stakeholders.
Paradoxically, literature affirms that principled dissent frequently occurs in organizations that give less
tolerance to dissent (Rebbitt, 2013). Regardless, employees who are committed to the organization would
voice out dissenting opinions especially when the existing policy was found to be flawed or dysfunctional
(Evans, 2008; Shahinpoor & Matt, 2007). For that reason, dissent is also believed to be essential for
organizational strategic decision, and that the lack of it could bring various forms of errors (Stanley, 1981).
Despite the many reasons for dissent, employees justify that they express their concerns out of the
feeling of moral responsibility to upheld justice and to act for the greater good (Shahinpoor & Matt, 2007).
Besides, it could also possible for some individuals to dissent regarding personal issues (Kassing, 2001).
Nevertheless, dissent is a costly behavior. Reporting unanticipated bad news on organizational performance
and other possible risks could expose a dissenter to retaliatory actions (Teo & Casperz, 2011).
3. Defining Organizational Dissent
Organizational dissent is referred to as an expression of disagreement or opposing opinions regarding
organizational practices or policies (Kassing, 2011). This definition encompasses two key perspectives,
specifically the expression of disagreement, and the subject matter that the employees are contradicted on.
Through an extended review of organizational dissent literature, we could also discover another salient term
called principled organizational dissent. This term was first coined by Graham to represent the act of dissent
in organizations that is triggered by an awareness of issues of principle (Schultz et al., 1993). By proposing a
model to explain her thesis, Graham (as cited in Shahinpoor & Matt, 2007) defines principled organizational
dissent as “…the effort by individuals in the workplace to protest and/or to change the organizational status
quo because of their conscientious objection to current policy or practice’’ (p. 38).
Technically, there are at least two aspects that differentiate these two terminologies. First, principled
organizational dissent highlights the effort to “protest and/or change” the organization’s status quo. In
comparison, despite the fact that organizational dissent addresses the conflicting opinions, its definition
offers no clue on the form of “expression”. Further, according to Shahinpoor and Matt (2007), the term
principled organizational dissent emphasizes that the criticism is formed in a constructive manner out of
one’s conscience. Yet again, we found that organizational dissent is silent on this matter.
From a definitional context, we view that principled organizational dissent is more relevant to the scope
of whistleblowing research, and that it has been considered in a number of earlier researches (e.g., Kaplan &
Whitecotton, 2001; Sonnier & Lassar, 2013; Zhuang, Thomas, & Miller, 2005). These studies, which mostly
conducted from an accounting background, examine principled dissent with regard to employees’ awareness
of serious organizational wrongdoing such as financial fraud. The approach is justifiable as fraud occurrence
is one of the issues of principle.
In the following sections, we present discussion on one of the key elements of dissent, that is, the
audience. To provide a meaningful comparison between dissent and whistleblowing, we view that this
perspective should be adequately addressed as it was not explicitly elaborated in the suggested definitions for
dissent (Croucher, Kassing, & Diers-Lawson, 2013).
 Types of Dissent
Based on the types of audience, Croucher et al. (2013) classify dissent into three: upward, lateral, and
displaced. Upward (or also known as “articulated”) dissent is mainly channeled toward higher ranking
officials, those at the top management level and/or with the supervisory roles. In essence, employees choose
to dissent upward because they believe that the audience is able to change the situation (Dozier & Miceli,
1985). Prior studies show that this type of dissent is more socially accepted as compared with other types of
dissent. Additionally, it is also considered as a proactive behavior that can provide meaningful feedback to
correct the unfavorable circumstances (Kassing, 2011). As compared with their counterparts, upward
dissenters are characterized as those who are more satisfied with their jobs, held better positions, and have
more quality rapport with supervisors (Kassing, 2001).
11
M. H. Hamid & Z. Othman
Meanwhile, lateral dissent, which also called latent dissent, is mostly referred to the employees’
complaints expressed to coworkers of similar rank. Literature suggests that this voice of discontentment
usually revolves around problems at work (Croucher et al., 2013). Organizational employees choose to
involve in lateral dissent especially when they perceive that the organization’s internal reporting avenues will
not be effective, partially attributed to the victim organization’s dependence on the wrongdoing (Near &
Miceli, 1995), or the fact that the reporting channels have been blocked, inaccessible, or simply unavailable
for the employees to use.
The final type of dissent is displaced dissent. It denotes the expression conveyed to those outside the
organization, such as family and friends. Employees choose displaced dissent primarily to gain sympathy and
advice from people who are close to them. Besides, they also believe that it is safer for them to resort to this
type of dissent as it is considered to be free from organizational influence, and thus it will be less likely for
them to be encountered with reprisals by employers or exposed to professional implications (Croucher et al.,
2013).
 Dissent Strategies
Based on two key assessments, namely level of trust on the reporting recipient and urgency of the
wrongdoing to be made known to others, Edmondson and Munchus (2007) propose four behavioral dissent
strategies.
Organizational silence is the most common and prevalent strategy. It occurs when employees choose to
withhold information about potential problems in organizations (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). This may
reflect the existence of the “code of silence” in the workplace (Rothwell & Baldwin, 2007). This decision is
purposely made especially when employees perceive that the organizations did not welcome dissenting
voice, and that they considered speaking up as too risky for them personally (Miceli, Near, & Schwenk,
1991). Ironically, employees are not encouraged by their employers to express disagreement regarding
organizational practice mainly because such action is perceived as challenging the organizations’ status quo
(Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). In many instances, dissenters are being suppressed as they were
accused to threaten the organizational identity as well as the organization’s interest (Kayes & Kayes, 2012).
Meanwhile, organizational rumbling denotes a situation where employees speak up on issues, mostly to
organizational members who shared a similar view (Edmondson & Munchus, 2007). These employees,
however, will not communicate their concerns to parties who have control over the matter. This strategy is
equivalent to lateral dissent where employees will avoid expressing their disagreement to those who have
contradicting opinions, especially among policy makers and superiors.
The third strategy, which termed as organizational communication, is considered as an ideal way of
communication in organizations. It permits upward feedback, from subordinates to superiors. Organizational
members are allowed to freely respond, express concerns, and raise issues that could hinder the organization
from achieving its goals. When free flow of communication has become a common practice in the
workplace, employees tend to be more open to report wrongdoing (Sims & Keenan, 1998). Besides,
organizational communication also encourages transparency in organizations. Literature asserts that the more
transparent the organization is, the more likely the employees to report wrongdoing. This is because, the
effects of reporting will become clearer, and the evidence of wrongdoing will become more convincing for
reporting purposes (Miceli & Near, 1985).
Organizational blasting is the final strategy, and the last resort available for employees to speak up in
organizations. It represents the expression of concerns made by employees to authorities higher than the
decision maker, who can affect action (Near & Miceli, 1985). This action is commonly undertaken due to the
unwillingness of the decision maker to respond to and/or tolerate with the issue. The well-known cases of
Enron and WorldCom are among the good examples of this situation (Rebbitt, 2013). Conceptually, literature
addresses this strategy as a form of internal whistleblowing (Edmondson & Munchus, 2007).
12
International Journal of Management Sciences
4. Conclusion
Both terminologies, whistleblowing and organizational dissent, were used in the literature to describe
the act of reporting concerns in the workplace. In fact, whistleblowing has been considered by some scholars
as a form of organizational dissent. To get a clear picture of the claim, this paper evaluates relevant
literatures from their contextual definitions. Key components of whistleblowing were examined and the
scope of dissent in organizations was analyzed. Most importantly, this paper evaluates the fundamentals that
bridge the link between whistleblowing and organizational dissent. Some of the main findings of our
comparative review are presented below.
First, we found that the term principled organizational dissent was used primarily regarding
wrongdoings at organizational level as it was referred to as an expression of disagreement toward
organizational policies, procedures, and/or practices. More importantly, when the word “status quo” was
used in its definition, we argue that the reporting does not signify a one-off nature of wrongdoing. Rather, it
refers to routine practices in organizations which were considered to be wrongful. Meanwhile,
whistleblowing definition appears to cover a broader scope of wrongdoing. It caters all nature of wrongful
activities that occur in the workplace, both at organizational and personal levels. Additionally, organizational
dissent is considered as more subjective as it involves individual perception toward cases ought to be
reported. An employee may raise an issue that personally concerns him or her, however, such issue could be
perceived differently by other organizational members (Near & Miceli, 1985). In fact, often times, the motive
for dissent is also questionable (Stanley, 1981). In contrast, whistleblowing is characterized, and more known
to be motivated by a prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Dozier & Miceli, 1985).
Our review also suggests that, employees who blow the whistle internally, bypass the decision maker
who refuses to respond to dissenting opinions. In dissent literature, this scenario is termed as organizational
blasting, of which a higher authority will receive the report instead. As compared with external
whistleblowing, reporting internally is less harmful to organizations (Miceli et al., 1991), and intuitively, less
risky to the whistleblower. More importantly, apart from avoiding the negative repercussions of external
disclosure, internal whistleblowing allows the organization to scrutinize and to correct the wrongdoing (Near
& Miceli, 1995). It is also important to note that the scope of external whistleblowing has no equivalent in
organizational dissent literature. Despite involving outside parties, displaced dissent refers to employees’
expression of disagreement to family and friends only (Kassing, 2001). On the contrary, in the context of
external whistleblowing, whistleblowers use media to disclose information to public (Dozier & Miceli,
1985). In this regard, we view that organizational dissent is more manageable as it does not involve media
coverage. Paradoxically, unless proven to be related to discriminatory issues such as gender, disability, race,
and etc., literature asserts that there is no legal recourse for employees who dissent against corporate
mismanagement (Edmondson & Munchus, 2007). In other words, the dissenter will bear all the risks
associated with such action. On the other hand, whistleblowers, to some extent, can be protected by relevant
whistleblowing provisions.
In conclusion, whistleblowing and dissent in organizations are two concepts, though not
interchangeable, shared some common characteristics. Our comparative review supports the assertion that
whistleblowing is a form of organizational dissent. Discussions provided in this paper shed lights on the
potential research opportunities relating to whistleblowing and dissent. By identifying the unique attributes
of these two research fields, more meaningful studies can be carried out. Also, we suggest that this review is
useful for future researchers to set proper contexts for their organizational studies. Indeed, the close
association of whistleblowing and organizational dissent could spark more research to integrate these two
literatures to better understand and encourage whistleblowing and dissenting voices in organizations.
References
Brennan, N., & Kelly, J. (2007). A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors. The British Accounting
Review, 39(1), 61-87.
13
M. H. Hamid & Z. Othman
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. The Academy of Management
Review, 11(4), 710-725.
Croucher, S. M., Kassing, J. W., & Diers-Lawson, A. R. (2013). Accuracy, coherence, and discrepancy in
self- and other-reports: Moving toward an interactive perspective of organizational dissent.
Management Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 425-442.
Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823-836.
Eaton, T. V., & Akers, M. D. (2007). Whistleblowing and good governance. The CPA Journal, 77(6), 66-71.
Edmondson, V. C., & Munchus, G. (2007). Managing the unwanted truth: A framework for dissent strategy.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 747-760.
Elias, R. (2008). Auditing students’ professional commitment and anticipatory socialization and their
relationship to whistle blowing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(3), 283-294.
Evans, A. J. (2008). Dealing with dissent: Whistleblowing, egalitarianism, and the republic of the firm.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(3), 267-279.
Figg, J. (2000). Whistleblowing. Internal Auditor, 57(2), 30-37.
Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics,
21(1), 77-93.
Kaplan, S. E., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2001). An examination of auditors’ reporting intentions when another
auditor is offered client employment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 45-63.
Kassing, J. W. (2001). From the looks of things: Assessing perceptions of organizational dissenters.
Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 442-470.
Kassing, J. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kayes, A., & Kayes, D. C. (2012). The ethics of dissent: The case of David Kelly. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, 66, 230-237.
King, G. (1997). The effects of interpersonal closeness and issue seriousness on blowing the whistle. The
Journal of Business Communication, 34(4), 419-436.
King, G. (1999). The implications of an organization's structure on whistleblowing. Journal of Business
Ethics, 20(4), 315-326.
Martin, B., & Rifkin, W. (2004). The dynamics of employee dissent: Whistle-blowers and organizational jiujitsu. Public Organization Review, 4(3), 221-238.
McLain, D. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). Risk, information, and the decision about response to wrongdoing in
an organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(3), 255-271.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of
correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3),
277-297.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing
associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38(3), 525-544.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the whistle and why? Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 45(1), 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.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistleblowing. Journal of
Business Ethics, 4(1), 1-16.
14
International Journal of Management Sciences
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3),
679-708.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22(3), 507526.
Read, W. J., & Rama, D. V. (2003). Whistle-blowing to internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal,
18(5), 354-362.
Rebbitt, D. (2013). The dissenting voice: Key factors, professional risk & value add. Professional Safety,
April, 58-61.
Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2007). Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the code of silence in
police agencies in the State of Georgia. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 341-361.
Schultz, J. J., Johnson, D. A., Morris, D., & Dyrnes, S. (1993). An investigation of the reporting of
questionable acts in an international setting. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 75-103.
Shahinpoor, N., & Matt, B. F. (2007). The power of one: Dissent and organizational life. Journal of Business
Ethics, 74(1), 37-48.
Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and intrapersonal
variables. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 411-421.
Sonnier, B. M., & Lassar, W. M. (2013). An empirical evaluation of Graham’s model of principled
organizational dissent in the whistleblower context post-SOX. Journal of Forensic & Investigative
Accounting, 5(2), 131-174.
Stanley, J. D. (1981). Dissent in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 13-19.
Teo, H., & Caspersz, D. (2011). Dissenting discourse: Exploring alternatives to the whistleblowing silence
dichotomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 237-249.
Zhuang, J., Thomas, S., & Miller, D. L. (2005). Examining culture's effect on whistleblowing and peer
reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 462-486.
15