Culture and Whistleblowing

Culture and Whistleblowing

Culture and Whistleblowing: An Empirical Study of Croatian and United States Managers Utilizing Hofstede’s
Cultural Dimensions

A. A. TAVAKOLI, Ph.D.
MBA Director
School of Business and Economics
Fayetteville State University
1299 Murchison Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[910] 672-1527 [phone]
[910] 672-2046
atavakoli@uncfsu.edu

JOHN P. KEENAN, Ph.D.

Executive Director,
Leadership Programs
ACCEL – Medaille College
2 Hillsboro Drive
Orchard Park, NY
[716] 667-2516 [phone/fax]
jkeenan945@aol.com

B. CRNJAK-KARANOVIC, Ph.D.
Faculty of Economics
University of Split
Split, Croatia
++385 21 343 938
b_crnjak@efst.hr

The first two authors have contributed equally; the paper has no formal lead author

Key Words: Ethics, Whistleblowing, Hofstede, Culture, Managers

Correspondence: A. A. Tavakoli email: atavakoli@uncfsu.edu

Page 1
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Abstract
Leaders and managers of today’s multinational corporations face a plethora of problems and
issues directly attributable to the fact that they are operating in an international context. With
work-sites, plants and/or customers based in another country, or even several countries,
representing a vast spectrum of cultural differences, international trade and offshore operations,
coupled with increased globalisation in respect to political, social and economic realities,
contribute to new dilemmas that these leaders must deal with. Not the least of these being a Code
of Ethics and ethical decision making.

This paper examines the differences in culture between a group of managers from the United
States and similar group from Croatia using Hofstede’s theory of International Cultures. The
study explores how these cultural dimensions may help in our understanding of the differences in
reported whistleblowing.

The authors then postulate four hypotheses regarding various aspects of whistleblowing. These
Hypotheses were than tested using a survey administered to a sample of USA and Croatian
managers. Finally, the paper discusses the findings and practical implications for contemporary
managers in the international arena.

Introduction
Our complex global economy has dramatically increased the frequency with which managers
from one culture are called on to lead work groups and teams composed of members from
different cultures (Rohwer, 1995). This results in variety of new dilemmas for leaders and managers in
multinational organizations.

Page 2
 Culture and Whistleblowing

There is an abundance of relevant literature defining the cultural elements of national,

professional and corporate culture (Burns and Stalker, 1961, O'Toole, 1979, Pettigrew, 1979,
Deal and Kennedy, 1982, Hofstede, 1984, Laurent, 1986, Schneider, 1986, Schwartz and Bilsky,
1990, O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen, 1994, Trompenaars, 1996). Studies have highlighted the
importance of the distinction between national and other types of culture (Schneider, 1986,
Rogovsky, 1996).

One area where major difficulties often arise concerns the handling of ethical problems within a
different cultural context. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on cross-cultural or
multicultural ethics, although efforts are being made in developing a conceptual approach to
cross-cultural ethics (Wines and Napier, 1992, Tsui and Windsor, 2001)

While the study of cultural differences is intriguing in and of itself, the effect these cultural
differences have when it comes to the ethical decision-making of managers is of practical
significance to researchers and organizations. One aspect of ethical decision-making that has
received recent interest by researchers is whistleblowing (Alford, 1999; Beattie, 2000; Keenan,
2002, 2000, 1995; Keenan & Parikh, 2000, Keenan & Xin, 1999; Miceli, & Near, 1992; Sims &
Keenan, 1999). Although a number of organizational and individual factors have been
considered with the study of whistleblowing, a major shortcoming of prior whistleblowing
research concerns the fact that there has been a tendency to examine whistleblowing from a
culturally bound perspective without looking at cultural and international differences (Keenan,
2002; Keenan & Xin 1993, 1999).
According to Miceli & Near (1992) the most commonly accepted modern definition of
whistleblowing is “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. This act of dissent in response to an ethical
dilemma typically contains the following six elements. (Jubb, 1999)

1. The act of disclosing damaging news or information

Page 3
 Culture and Whistleblowing

2. The whistleblower agent

3. A disclosure subject – some potential wrongdoing
4. A target organisation that is held responsible
5. A disclosure recipient, for example the media or ombudsman1, and,
6. An outcome – the disclosure enters the public domain

The employee has several options when confronted with an ethical decision-making problem.
These options range from total acquiescence to the act of whistleblowing and ‘going public’. It is
important to note that whether the act of whistleblowing is contemplated out of an altruistic
sense of morality, or as a mechanism for revenge, whistleblowing and the prediction of
whistleblowing is of paramount interest to the corporation. A mishandled case of whistleblowing
can undo years of marketing and public relations. Likewise, a well-handled act of
whistleblowing can be advantageous to all parties with future catastrophes being averted and
dealt with in the initial gestation period.

By definition it is much simpler dealing with whistleblowing within ones own culture as the
actions and reactions of all parties are fairly predictable, or are they? Considering that acts of
whistleblowing often results in corporate upheaval, individual frustration, anguish and a tainted
corporate image. It would appear that whistleblowing has the potential to seriously impact on the
most carefully laid plans both in the short term, or with long term, irrevocable consequences.

Following this line of thought, it is reasonable to assume that acts of whistleblowing occurring in
a foreign culture would be considerably more difficult to deal with, as the actions, motivations
and reactions of all parties are not predictable and may even appear to be illogical. It is therefore,
imperative that management is able to deal with whistleblowing in an ethical and efficient
manner with the introductions of various interventions and/or resources for both parties.

Page 4
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing can be seen as a positive action or a negative action. With either interpretation,
the interest in the employee’s tendencies to whistleblow is significant, as are any characteristics,
individual or organizational, which can be used to predict or modify whistleblowing tendencies.

Understanding Hofstede’s dimensions of culture has the potential to assist management in

predicting whistleblowing probability or acceptance, based on cultural factors. This is not so
much a tool to derail whistleblowing efforts, rather, a phenomena that management needs to be
aware of when formulating lines of communication, reporting protocols and management
structures. Management can use the predictors to account for various cultural norms and mores
with the result that modified SOP’s or standard operating procedures are developed that
encourage internal reporting that may otherwise not have occurred. This internal reporting 2 may
avert cases of whistleblowing through the timely and positive intervention of management.

International human resource management increasingly advocates national culture awareness to

form effective partnerships with the culturally diverse employee population found within MNEs
(Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1987). Multinational organizations are taking greater interest in
whistleblowing. Some have for example established special departments for the receipt of
whistleblowing reports. Others have established ethics codes, which encourage employees to
contact the organization's legal counsel should they observe or become aware of possible illegal
or unethical activities. In fact, a study of international codes of conduct for multi-national
enterprises [MNEs] indicates substantial agreement on the moral duties of MNEs.

Purpose of Study
While a number of organizational and individual factors have been considered within the study
of whistleblowing, a major shortcoming of prior whistleblowing research concerns the fact that
there has been a tendency to examine whistleblowing from a culturally-bound perspective
without looking at cultural and international differences (Keenan & Remington, 2002; Keenan &

Page 5
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Parikh, 2000, Keenan & Xin, 1999, 1993). One explanation has to do with the fact that the
concept of culture has been a difficult one with respect to agreements on definition, influences on
behavior, measurement, and managerial practices (Adler, 1983; Hofstede, 1997; Kedia &
Bhagar, 1988; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Despite such difficulties, the present paper attempts
to extend whistleblowing research into the international arena. This study will consider the
differences in culture between a United States sample of managers and a Croatian sample of
managers using Hofstede’s Theory of International Cultures, and how those cultural differences
may help in our understanding of the differences in whistleblowing tendencies.

Hofstede’s Theory
Hofstede (1980) theorized that there were four primary dimensions, which could differentiate
the cultures of our world. They are classified as power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism, and masculinity. Later Bond and Hofstede (1988) in a smaller scale study added a
fifth dimension, which they refer to as “Confucian Dynamism”. Considering the fact that
Yugoslavia was not considered in the later study this paper focuses on the following four
dimensions.

Power Distance
Power-distance is "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and
organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally" Hofstede
(1997, p. 28). It ranges in value from zero, for a culture with a small power-distance, to about
100, for a culture with a large power distance. Power-distance refers to the degree to which
employees feel comfortable approaching and/or contradicting their supervisors. Organizations
within a large power-distance culture centralize power; employees are given instructions and are
expected to, and in most cases will, comply.

Page 6
 Culture and Whistleblowing

The organizational structure is quite tall, with many layers of management. Any contact between
management and employee must be initiated by management. "Superiors are entitled to
privileges" and any visible indication of status increases their authority Hofstede (1997 p. 35). In
contrast, organizations within a small power-distance culture are more decentralized. Supervisors
and employees are considered equal in status. The role a person plays in the organization [a
manager for example] can be temporary, and is established more for convenience than an
indication of superiority. The organizational structure tends to be flat and managerial perks are
avoided. Employees expect that they will be consulted before decision-making and listened to
when they speak.

Uncertainty-avoidance
Uncertainty-avoidance is the degree to which employees feel threatened by unknown or
uncertain situations. Uncertainty-avoidance is scored from zero, indicating a culture with the
weakest uncertainty avoidance, to 100, indicating a culture with the strongest uncertainty
avoidance. "Uncertainty-avoiding cultures shun ambiguous situations. People in such cultures
look for a structure in their organizations which makes events clearly interpretable and
predictable” Hofstede, (1997, p. 116). Organizations within a culture with strong uncertainty-
avoidance are more likely to have rules and procedures to govern the environment. Little is left
open to chance or interpretation. It is interesting to note however that these rules may or may not
be followed nor do they have to be logical or consistent. As long as a rule exists, the members of
a culture with a strong uncertainty-avoidance are more comfortable, "even ineffective rules
satisfy people's emotional need for formal structure" Hofstede (1997, p. 121).

Conversely, organizations within a culture with a weak uncertainty-avoidance are less likely to
establish rules and procedures unless absolutely necessary. "People in such societies [weak
uncertainty-avoidance cultures] pride themselves that many problems can be solved without
formal rules" Hofstede (1997, p. 121). Interestingly, while there are fewer rules to follow within
a culture with a weak uncertainty-avoidance classification, these few rules may be more likely to
be followed than the multitude of rules found within a culture with strong uncertainty-avoidance.

Page 7
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Individualism
The dimension of individualism refers to the extent to which "the ties between individuals are
loose" Hofstede (1997, p. 51). In an individualist culture, everyone is expected to look out for
him/herself and his/her family. At the opposite end of the individualism dimension is
collectivism. Collectivism refers to the extent to which people view themselves as a small part of
a larger group. This dimension ranges from almost zero, indicating a collective culture, to almost
100, indicating an individualistic culture. From the organizational perspective, individualism can
be described as an employee’s independence from the organization. Those cultures, scoring high
on this dimension, focus on work goals, which stress individual achievements, rather than group
achievements.

Employees within an individualistic culture look out for their own interests. "Work should be
organized in such a way that this self-interest and the employer's interest coincide" Hofstede
(1997, p. 6). Managers manage individuals in an individualistic culture and employment
decisions are based upon individual skills. In contrast, in an organization within a collective
culture, employees look out for their in-group. Employee actions are designed to benefit their in-
group, even if the individual him/herself must suffer. In a collective culture, managers manage
groups and employment decisions are based upon group membership and group achievements.

Masculinity
The cultural characteristic of masculinity refers to societies where gender roles are clearly
divided. Men are expected to be "assertive, tough, and focused on material success" Hofstede
(1997, p. 82). Women are expected to be "modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life"
Hofstede (1997, p. 82). Societies where gender roles are not clearly divided; that is, men and
women can be tough and/or tender, are classified as feminine. The masculinity index ranges from
zero, for cultures, which are feminine, to 100, for cultures, which are masculine.

Page 8
 Culture and Whistleblowing

An organization within a feminine culture resolves conflicts by compromise and negotiation.

Within this feminine climate, employees work to live. In a masculine culture however, the
organization is more likely to resolve conflict by letting the conflicting parties fight it out; here,
employees live to work.

Comparing Croatian and United States Cultures

Hofstede (1997) has classified both the Croatian culture as well as the culture of the United
States of America on each of the four dimensions described above. Though Hofstede did not
study Croatia- a former republic of the Former Yugoslavia- as distinct from Yugoslavia, the
historical roots of both cultures share a common past with respect to cultural emphases.
Hofstede’s research categorized 50 countries and 3 regions in total. We have used those
classifications to compare the two cultures within our sample.
It is interesting to see the wide variance in results using Hofstede’s four cultural indicators. This
can be easily seen in the graphical representation below. Croatia scored significantly higher in
both Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance while the United States scored higher in both
Individuality and Masculinity.

Power Distance
For the power-distance dimension, Croatia ranked 12th with a score of 76 whilst the United States
ranked 38th, with a score of 40.3Compared to other countries, Croatia scored high while the
United States scored moderately in this dimension.

Countries with a high power-distance more readily accept inequality and paternalism. They base
status on rank, ancestry and wealth and objectives are dictated to subordinates. Countries that

Page 9
 Culture and Whistleblowing

typify a high power-distance include India, Hong Kong, France, Belgium and Latin America.
(Faulkner and Gray, 1994)
Figure 1 Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance
For the dimension of uncertainty-avoidance, Croatia ranked 8 th, with a score of 88. The United
States ranked 43rd , with a score of 46. 4 Compared to other countries, Croatia scored very high
while the United States scored moderately on this dimension.

In countries that rank high in this dimension, people feel threatened by uncertain situations. They
tend to lay down rules and procedures for workers, and creative approaches are not welcomed.
Countries that typify high uncertainty-avoidance include Japan, Germany, France, Mexico, and
Greece. Low uncertainty-avoidance countries include USA, Singapore, Hong Kong, Great
Britain, Sweden and Jamaica. (Faulkner and Gray, 1994)
Figure 2 Uncertainty Avoidance

Individualism
For the dimension of individualism, Croatia ranked 31 st [out of 35 with three countries tied],
with a score of 27. The United States ranked 1st, with a score of 91.5 The United States scored
extremely high on this dimension, actually, the highest of those cultures studied by Hofstede
(1997); while Croatia scored moderately on the individualism dimension, being more of a
collectivistic culture.
A collectivistic culture tends to emphasise filial piety, mutual obligations, and concern for the
needs of the group before those of oneself. In individualistic societies, workers take
responsibility for themselves. Countries that strive for individualism include Anglo–American
countries, Scandinavia and Belgium. Countries that reflected a collectivist approach included
Singapore, Portugal, Mexico and Costa Rica. (Faulkner and Gray, 1994)
4

Page 10
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Figure 3 Individualism

Masculinity
For the dimension of masculinity, Croatia ranked 48/49 [scores that are tied result in a split
ranking] with a score of 21. The United States ranked 15 th, with a score of 62i. Croatia ranks very
low on the masculinity dimension compared to the United States, which ranks relatively high
(Hofstede, 1997).

In a masculine society, financial success and advancement are highly valued as opposed to
feminine cultures where relationships, cooperation and security rank as priorities. Masculine
oriented societies include the United States, Venezuela, Mexico, Japan and Great Britain. While
feminine countries include Latin America, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, and The Far East.
(Faulkner and Gray, 1994)
Figure 4 Masculinity

The Four-Field Matrix

The following four-field matrix was constructed using the dimensions from Hofstede’s study of
international cultures. It clearly shows the relative position of Croatia and the United States in
relation to the dimensions of power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and
masculinity.

Figure 5 The Four-Field Matrix

The matrix was constructed using the data from each dimension and then placing this on an axis.

Page 11
 Culture and Whistleblowing

The Power Distance axis runs from low on the bottom to high. Croatia scored high on this
dimension and accordingly is placed high whilst the USA is placed in the lower right hand
corner.

We then look at the second dimension, that is, the dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance. In this
dimension Croatia once again scored high and is placed at the top of the axis whilst the USA is
once again represented in the bottom right hand corner.

The next axis examined was that of Individualism. In this category, the results were markedly
different with the United Sates scoring extremely high and Croatia scoring low. The United
States actually scored the highest out of all of the countries surveyed by Hofstede. The
representation shows this phenomenon with the USA on the right hand side of this left-to-right
axis.

The last field or axis that was examined is that of Masculinity. Once again, Croatia scored low in
this field while the United States scored towards the high end. This is shown with the United
States again being positioned at the right hand end of the left-to-right axis.

As can be seen in Figure 5, the USA is vastly different from Croatia in regards to culture and is
sitting diagonally opposite in the bottom right quadrant. Using results from Hofstede’s surveys,
or alternatively, conducting new surveys, it would be possible to plot any number of countries on
this matrix. The utility of this matrix is that management can see, at a glance, whether or not two
cultures are similar or dissimilar and to what degree.

Whistleblowing
When attempting to explain or predict whistleblowing, a number of issues are of interest. To
begin with, individual and organizational tendencies that may lead to an increased tendency to
whistleblow are important (Keenan, 2002, 2000, 1995, 1990; McLain & Keenan, 1999; Miceli

Page 12
 Culture and Whistleblowing

and Near, 1992; Sims and Keenan, 1998). Tendencies to ‘blow the whistle’ or, ‘turn in’ the
organisation is a measurement of how positively whistleblowing is considered. That is, whether
the individual or organization considers whistleblowing as the right thing to do.

Some of the factors leading to this acceptance of whistleblowing include historical experience
regarding the verity or legitimacy of previous whistleblowing. Positive attitudes toward
whistleblowing may help to predict or explain whistleblowing behavior. Other factors that may
contribute to the decision to blow the whistle could be self-interest, a moral decision or an
altruistic cause.

Base on a number of other studies of cultural influences on whistleblowing (Keenan, 2002;

Keenan and Parikh, 2000; Keenan and Xin, 1999; Sims and Keenan 1999), we propose that the
cultural dimensions of individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity
may influence individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow. Given the differences
between the United States and Croatian cultures with regard to individualism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity dimensions, we included all four in our tests.

The United States sample scored higher than the Croatian sample on the individualism
dimension. We suggest that individuals within a culture scoring low on the individualism
dimension and thus higher on collectivism will tend to display greater degrees of responsibility
and obligation to the needs of the group. They might be thus expected to speak out with respect
to observations of wrongdoing that negatively affected the welfare of the collective whole. On
the other hand, the power-distance dimension suggests that the Croatian sample will be less
disposed to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow, because the Croatian
respondents are less likely to challenge the established authority patterns governing their
behavior.

Additionally, the masculinity dimension suggests that the Croatian sample, being a more
feminine culture, will be less willing to directly confront conflict situations and thus be less

Page 13
 Culture and Whistleblowing

willing to blow the whistle. Given the interaction of these cultural influences, we expect that
United States managers, compared to Croatian managers, will have a stronger [a] individual
tendency to whistleblow, and [b] organizational tendency to whistleblow. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis I
The United States managers, compared to Croatian managers, will have a stronger: [a]
individual tendency to whistleblow, and [b] organizational tendency to whistleblow.

In addition to the importance of individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow, the

moral perception of wrongdoing may also be important in attempting to predict or explain
whistleblowing. Likewise, the perceived consequences will contribute to the decision to blow the
whistle. (MacGregor 2001) Individual differences in the judgement of the severity of situations
may lead to an increased or decreased tendency to blow the whistle. Looking once again at the
four-field matrix we see the following dimensions evident. We propose that the evidence of the
following cultural dimensions may influence this moral perception of ethical behavior;
1. Individualism the expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only, and,
2. Uncertainty avoidance [greater likelihood to have rules and procedures to govern the
environment with little left open to chance or interpretation].

We suggest that individuals within a culture scoring high on the individualism dimension will be
less likely to perceive an unethical situation as severe. The individualism dimension suggests that
the Croatian sample will perceive wrongdoing as more severe, because they are more collective,
looking out for the larger group. Similarly, cultures scoring high on the uncertainty-avoidance
dimension will be more likely to perceive an unethical situation as severe since established rules
would be violated. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:

Page 14
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Hypothesis II
Croatian managers will have a stronger expressed perception of wrongdoing than United
States managers.

Fear of retaliation may also play a significant role in the tendency to whistleblow. Thus, the
measurement of this fear may be important in the explanation or prediction of whistleblowing.
We propose that the cultural dimensions of power-distance and masculinity may influence the
fear of retaliation for whistleblowing. Again referring to the matrix we see the following
phenomena;
1. Because the Croatian respondents have a very high power distance score, they are less
likely to challenge the established authority patterns governing their organizations, will
prefer to defer decisions to their bosses, and will tend to fear reprisal if they spoke out
and challenged authority.
2. Also, since Croatian managers come from a more feminine culture, they are less willing
to openly air conflicts and seek direct confrontations with others.
We thus expect United States managers will report less fear of retaliation. Thus, we propose:

ypothesis III
The United States managers will report less fear of retaliation for whistleblowing than
Croatian managers.

Fear of retaliation can be a major hurdle to pass before one is prepared to blow the whistle on an
organization. Examining the two cultures leads one to propose that Croatian managers will be
more reluctant to whistleblow due to a fear of retaliation whilst US managers will express less
fear. This is based on the following dimensions being evident in the four-field matrix;
1. Individualism; the expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only,

Page 15
 Culture and Whistleblowing

2. Power distance; the degree to which employees feel comfortable approaching or

contradicting supervisors, and,
3. Masculinity, the degree to which employees feel comfortable, openly resolving conflict
by letting the conflicting parties fight it out

We suggest that those respondents in a culture scoring high on the power-distance dimension
would indicate a decreased tendency to whistleblow. In this type of culture, employees do not
approach supervisors and defer decisions to those in authority positions.

On the other hand, the individualism dimension suggests that the Croatian respondents will be
more likely to blow the whistle, because they are more collective, tending to display greater
degrees of responsibility to the welfare and needs of the group. The masculinity dimension
however, suggests that the United States managers will feel more comfortable blowing the
whistle by taking a stand and directly confronting a conflict situation.

Given these conflicting cultural dimensions, we therefore propose that United States managers
will have a stronger likelihood of blowing the whistle. The following hypothesis is therefore
proposed:

Hypothesis IV
United States managers will have a stronger expressed likelihood of blowing the whistle.
All of the preceding hypotheses lead us to this conclusion. The matrix clearly shows the US
enjoying a low power-distance, high masculinity, high individualism and low uncertainty
avoidance. This combination leads us to the proposal that US managers will have less hesitation
when it comes to blowing the whistle on the organization. The opposite holds true for Croatia
and is shown by the positioning on the matrix.

Page 16
 Culture and Whistleblowing

M
ethodology
Subjects. The populations for this study were managers in small to mid-size firms in the U.S.
and comparatively larger firms in Croatia. The U.S. sample consisted of 186 managers. Their
mean age was 45, they had worked in the same firm for an average of nearly 14 years and they
had held their current position for an average of nearly 7 years. On average their companies
employed 119 people. The Croatian sample consisted of 106 managers. They had worked for
their firm for an average of nearly 4 ½ years and had spent 2.4 years in their current position.
Their companies employed an average of 328 employees. Seventy three percent of U.S.
managers were male compared with 51% of Croatian managers. Descriptive statistics are
presented in Table 1. Precautions were taken to ensure confidentiality.

Measures. The questionnaire included items, which measured managers' opinions and
perceptions about organization practices with respect to whistleblowing. It was a revised version
of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board survey questionnaire which was used in a major
study of employee whistleblowing within federal agencies in 1980 (USMSPB, 1981).
Terminology was changed to reflect work environments of managers within the private sector.

Using a Likert-type response format, one question concerned issues related to moral perceptions
of various kinds of fraud and harmful behavior. Similar questions addressed issues related to the
likelihood of reporting various kinds of wrongdoing, organizational policies and practices,
individual perceptions and attitudes toward whistleblowing. Questions also dealt with the degree
of fear of retaliation or reprisal for blowing the whistle.

The second part of the questionnaire requested information on a variety of demographic issues
including sex, age, education, industry type, organizational size, managerial level, and years of
managerial experience. The questionnaire was translated to Croatian and validated for reliability.

Page 17
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics Average [std.dev]

There were a total of nine scales used in this study. These included scales to measure;

1. Moral perceptions of major fraud [3 items],

2. Moral perceptions minor fraud [3 items],
3. Moral perceptions harm to others [3 items],
4. The degree of likelihood of blowing the whistle on major fraud [3 items],
5. The degree of likelihood of blowing the whistle on minor fraud [4 items],
6. The degree of likelihood of blowing the whistle on harm to others [3 items],
7. Organizational propensity for whistleblowing [3 items],
8. Individual propensity for whistleblowing [6 items], and,
9. Degree of fear of retaliation for whistleblowing [4 items].

Each of the scales has been tested and successfully used in previous studies of whistleblowing
(Keenan, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1995). The reliability estimates for both the United States and
Croatia samples for each of the nine scales are reported in Table 2. Considering the fact that the
sample size for the current study is quite small, the alpha for all the scales appears to be
satisfactory.

Moral Perceptions.
Moral perceptions were examined by means of a nine-item scale, which was originally based on
responses by managers attending management development programs over several years about
various kinds of incidences commonly faced related to fraud and illegal behavior. Perceptions of
minor fraud, major fraud, and harm to others are each examined by means of three items. For
example, one of the "minor fraud/illegality" items respondents were asked to rate on a five-point
scale ranging from not a fraud/illegality to a very serious fraud/illegality was: Increasing a travel
expense report $25 to cover the cost of drinks. Your company has a written policy: "….. not be
reimbursed for alcoholic beverages."

Page 18
 Culture and Whistleblowing

An example of a "harm to others" item was, ‘discriminating against another because of sex, race,
age, or religion’. Lastly, an example of a "serious fraud/illegality" item was: Arranging for
subordinates to get paid for overtime not worked in exchange for 35% of overtime pay.

Likelihood of Blowing the Whistle.

This scale includes ten items measuring the following three factors: "Likelihood of Reporting
Major Fraud," "Likelihood of Reporting Minor Fraud," and "Likelihood of Reporting Harm to
Others."

Using a Likert-type format, respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they would
be likely to report activities such as;

 Stealing company funds or property,

 Bribery or kickbacks,
 Using an official position for personal benefits,
 Giving unfair advantage to contractors or vendors, and,
 Reporting waste caused by buying unnecessary or deficient goods or services.

Personal Propensity.
This five-item scale used a Likert-type format. Questions included items asking respondents to
indicate the degree that they approved such behaviors as blowing the whistle on illegal and
wasteful activities, felt personally obliged to blow the whistle if they observed wrongdoing, and
perceived that whistleblowing was in the best interest of the company.

Organization Propensity.

Page 19
 Culture and Whistleblowing

This three-item scale used a similar Likert-type format. Respondents were asked to indicate the
degree that they perceived their organizations as encouraging blowing the whistle on wrongdoing
as well as providing sufficient information on where to blow the whistle.

Retaliation.
This scale included four items. First, respondents indicated the degree of adequacy of protection
their company offers to employees reporting illegal or wasteful activities. Two other questions
concerned degree of confidence that one's supervisor and those above one's supervisor would not
take action against the respondent if they were to report illegal or wasteful activities within
organization operations. A final question asked whether it was possible for the respondent's
organization to effectively protect from reprisal an employee who discloses illegal or wasteful
activities.

R esults
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for variables explored for
both Croatian and United States sample groups. Descriptive statistics for all study variables are
also displayed. A two-tailed t-test was conducted on the US and Croatian samples to examine the
differences between these two groups.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and t-tests

Hypothesis I proposed that United States managers, compared to Croatian managers, would have
a stronger individual and organizational tendency to whistleblow. The results support this
hypothesis indicating that United States managers have a significantly stronger individual
tendency to whistleblow [t ‘ 2.64 , p > 0.01], as well as a stronger organizational tendency to
whistleblow [t ‘ 8.55, p > 0.01]. Our findings for Hypothesis I supported our proposition that
there would be a significant difference between the U.S. and Croatian respondents with respect
to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow. Hofstede’s dimension of

Page 20
 Culture and Whistleblowing

individualism suggests that the Croatian sample would be more disposed to both individual and
organizational tendencies to whistleblow. Cultures such as Croatia, that score low in the
individual dimension are classified as collective; and organizations within a collective culture
support the individual as a small part of a larger group and would therefore encourage behavior
that acts in support of the interests and needs of the group, inclusive of whistleblowing. The
Croatian sample scored low on the individualism dimension, because they are more collective,
deferring to authority and the larger group. On the other hand, the power distance dimension
suggests that the Croatian sample will be less disposed to both individual and organizational
tendencies to whistleblow; because the Croatian respondents are less likely to speak up to their
supervisors and challenge the established authority patterns governing their behavior.
Additionally, the masculinity dimension suggests that the Croatian sample, being a more
feminine culture, will be less willing to directly confront conflict situations and thus be less
willing to blow the whistle. Given these dispositions, it was expected that United States
managers would have stronger individual and organizational tendency to whistleblow.

Hypothesis II proposed that Croatian managers will have a more strongly expressed perception
of wrongdoing than their counterparts in the United States. The results only partially supported
this hypothesis since only one of the three measures of moral perception [minor fraud], showed a
significant difference. [t ‘5.01, p < 0.01]. For the other two measures [major fraud and harm to
others], there were no differences between the two cultures. When testing Hypothesis II, our
results indicated that the United States sample’s perception was more critical for wrongdoings
classified as minor or less serious forms of fraud. The Croatian sample on the other hand, viewed
the more serious acts of fraud and harm to others, more seriously than their American
counterparts. These results might relate to the power distance and low masculinity quality of the
Croatian culture. Unlike the United States, which has a high masculinity culture and a low power
distance which encourages individuals to speak out and directly confront conflicts, the Croatian
culture emphasizes deferring to authority and preferring to let conflicts work themselves out
more informally. Thus there might be a lack in the tendency to feel that wrongdoings are as
morally severe as in the United States culture.

Page 21
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Hypothesis III proposed that the United States managers will report less fear of retaliation for
whistleblowing than Croatian managers. The results support this hypothesis [t ‘ -7.50, p > .01].
Hypothesis III proposed that there would be significant differences between the United States
sample and the Croatian sample on an expressed fear of retaliation for whistleblowing. This
expectation of differences was based upon the cultural dimension of power distance and
masculinity. Because the Croatian respondents have a very high power-distance score, they are
less likely to challenge the established authority patterns governing their organizations, and will
defer decisions to their bosses. Croatians will also tend to fear reprisal if they speak out and
challenge authority. Furthermore, Croatian respondents have a low masculinity score, resulting
in the fact that they are more comfortable resolving conflicts by compromise and negotiation
rather than by confrontation. Our results support this expectation.

Page 22
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Hypothesis IV proposed that United States managers would have a more expressed likelihood of
blowing the whistle. The results partially support this hypothesis. There were no significant
differences between US managers and Croatian managers with respect to likelihood to blow the
whistle on minor fraud and harm to others. However the results showed a significant difference
between the groups on the likelihood to blow the whistle with regard to major fraud [t ‘3.21, p <
0.01]. We tested expressed likelihood to whistleblow in Hypothesis IV. Expressed likelihood
was measured for major fraud, minor fraud, and harm to others. We tested the United States
sample and the Croatian sample for expressed likelihood to whistleblow. This expectation was
managers would be more likely to blow the whistle based upon the cultural dimensions of power
distance and masculinity. The individualism dimension suggests that the Croatian respondents
will be more likely to blow the whistle because they are more disposed to be concerned with the
welfare of the collective whole rather than their own personal needs. Yet the power distance
dimension suggests that the Croatian sample will be less likely to blow the whistle than the
United States sample because they tend to defer to those in authority positions and tend not to
approach their supervisors, and hesitate to take actions themselves (Hofstede, 1997). Similarly,
the masculinity dimension suggests the United States managers will be more willing to openly
confront situations they are in conflict with. Our findings indicate the United States managers
feel more comfortable in speaking out about major, more serious forms of wrongdoing than their
Croatian counterparts.

Limitations and Implications For the Study

Hofstede’s (1997) theory provides a framework for uncovering cultural differences between
groups, which may help explain and predict managerial whistleblowing behavior. While this
theory cannot explain all differences between two cultures, the theory does nevertheless provide
insight. Many other studies have found that Hofstede’s Dimensions have generally been borne
out in the analysis of surveys with results generally consistent regardless of target countries and
sample groupings. (Shafe and Park 1999, Cohen et al 1995, Agacer and Doupnik 1991).

Page 23
 Culture and Whistleblowing

We recognize that the direct measurement of actual whistleblowing behavior may be the best
way to understand or explain whistleblowing tendencies, however, this is not realistic in social
science research. Asking sample group members how they would respond in a given situation is
commonly used as a poor, but nevertheless, measurable substitute.

Age, education level, position level, organizational tenure, gender, and religious preference have
all been linked to whistleblowing tendencies (Graham, 1986; Keenan, 1990; Miceli & Near,
1988; Sims & Keenan, 1999). Given the potential influences on whistleblowing tendencies by
demographic characteristics, samples need to be better matched on these characteristics in future
studies of Croatian and United States managers. The availability to conduct research of this
sensitive nature was quite limited, however, within the unstable environment of Croatian society
during the study period. The opportunity to carefully select matching sample groups was limited.

Also, continued attention needs to be given to the validation of whistleblowing scales used as
well as further testing of a model of whistleblowing in order to provide a better conceptual
foundation for explanation of past research and guidance of future investigations. For example,
the alpha values of some of the variables was low for this particular study, although studies of
other cultural groups have for the most part held up the usefulness of the scales being used. For
this study, it is most likely that findings were attenuated by the nature of the scales being used.
Modification of items within each scale might be suggested for future studies. For example, on
the likelihood to blow the whistle on major fraud scale, the dropping of the “bribes and
kickbacks” item led to an improvement of the reliability score to .88. Thus, scales will need to
be continued to be refined with respect to future studies.

On the whole, however, the results are informative and encouraging, and we hope they will
stimulate further research on ethics and whistleblowing in both the United States and Croatia. As
companies and organizations across the globe become increasingly diverse, more research
attention is clearly warranted on studying whistleblowing across cultures and across nations. We

Page 24
 Culture and Whistleblowing

also recommend future cross-cultural research on ethical decision-making, and hope that other
researchers will gain from our attempt at linking international cultural theory and whistleblowing
behavior.
There are implications we can draw from the study with respect to management practices. The
findings of our student suggest that there are important issues concerning the effectiveness of
current managerial approaches to whistleblowing both from a theoretical and practical point of
view. Study findings suggest that cultural factors play a role with respect to managerial ethics
and whistleblowing. It is recommended that organizations should develop and communicate
policies and standards related to potential cultural differences with respect to ethical issues and
whistleblowing. Also, organizations should provide all employees opportunities to blow the
whistle on wrongdoing and both educate them and provide them support on doing so with an eye
to the cultural factors at play. There also needs to be mechanisms and reinforcements for
protection of whistleblowers from fear of retaliation. Prior studies also suggest that if
bottom-line pressures and a "don't rock the boat" mentality prevails, fraudulent practices, abuses,
and waste can be expected to continue. This eventually can lead to loss of clients, customers, or
employees along with potential costly lawsuits, and negative publicity.

Findings of the present study also suggest that organization leaders take note of the
cultural influences and powerful effect of individual propensity and moral belief variables on
blowing the whistle. Encouragement and support of training and development programs focused
on bringing greater awareness about the importance of cultural forces, moral issues, and the
ethical dimensions of problem-solving and decision-making might help in this area

Endnotes

1. Some governments are campaigning to establish legislation or a codified practice

encouraging and protecting whistleblowers to ‘blow the whistle’ internally. (Oziel 2002).

Page 25
 Culture and Whistleblowing

2. Recent developments have seen organizations establish a reporting situation where

management are to be the first to be appraised of potential problems. (Oziel, 2002).
3. A rank of one indicates the largest power distance, and a rank of 53 indicates the smallest
power distance. The power distance scores range from 104, for the country/region with
the largest power distance; to 11, for the country/region with the smallest power distance
(Hofstede, 1997).
4. A rank of one indicates the strongest uncertainty avoidance and a rank of 53 indicates the
weakest uncertainty avoidance. The uncertainty avoidance scores range from 112, for the
country/region with the strongest uncertainty avoidance; to 8, for the country/region with
the weakest uncertainty avoidance.
5. A rank of one indicates the country/region with the strongest individualism, and a rank of
53 indicates the country/region with the strongest collectivism. The scores range from a
high of 91, for that country/region with the strongest individualism culture; to a score of 6
for that country/region with the strongest collectivism [weakest individualism] culture.
6. A rank of one indicates the country/region with the strongest masculine culture, and a
rank of 53 indicates a country/region with the strongest feminine culture. The scores
range from a high of 95, for that country/region with the strongest masculine culture; to a
score of 5 for that country/region with the strongest feminine culture.
7. A survey of more than 125 chief internal auditors concluded that 76% of employee
whistleblowing complaints were found to be true. (Fig 2000)

R
eferences
Adler, N.: 1983, ‘Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend’, Academy
of Management Review 8(2); 226-232.

Agacer, G.M. & Doupnik, T.S.: 1991, ‘Perceptions of auditor independence: A cross-cultural
study’, The International Journal of Accounting 26; 220-237

Page 26
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Alford, C. F.: 1999, ‘Whistle-blowers: How much we can learn from them depends on how
much we can give up’, The American Behavioral Scientist 43 (2); 264-277.

Beattie, B.: 2000, ‘Whistle blowing’, New Zealand Management, 47(4); 60.

Bond, M. A. (Ed.): 1988, The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology (Sage

Publications, Newbury Park, Calif).

Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M.: 1961, The Management of Innovation, (Tavistock, London, UK)

Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.W. & Sharp, D.J.: 1995, ‘An exploratory examination of international
differences in auditors ethical perceptions’, Behavioral Research in Accounting 7: 37-64

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A.: 1982, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass).

Faulkner and Gray.: 1994, ‘Cognizant of Culture’, Small Business Reports: Business Bulletins
6.

Figg, J.: 2000, ‘Whistleblowing’, The Internal Auditor 57: 30-37

Graham, J. W.: 1986 ‘Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay’, In B. M. Staw

and L. L. Cummings [Eds.], Research in Organizational Behavior, (JAI Press Greenwich, CT)
8:1-52

Hofstede, G.: 1980, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
(Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif)

Hofstede, G.: 1984, ‘The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept’, Academy of
Management Review 9 389-398.

Hofstede, G.: 1997 Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (London: McGraw-
Hill).

Jubb, P.: 1999, ‘Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation’, Journal of

Business Ethics, 21; 77-94

Page 27
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Kedia, B. L. & Bhagar, R. S.: 1988, ‘Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across
nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management’, Academy of
Management Review 13(4);559-571.

Keenan, J. P.: 1990, ‘Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: Determinants of perceptions

of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle’, Journal of
Business and Psychology 5(2);223-235.

Keenan, J. P.: 1991, ‘Upper-level managers, middle-level managers, and whistleblowing: A

comparative study and evaluation’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Miami Beach.

Keenan, J. P.: 1995, ‘Whistleblowing and the first-level manager: Determinants of feeling
obliged to blow the whistle’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality vol 10, no. 3:571-
584.

Keenan, J. P.: 2000, ‘Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud. A study of executives
and managers’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 12;199-218.

Keenan, J. P: 2002, ‘Comparing Indian and American managers on whistleblowing’,

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 14, 2,3:79-89.

Keenan, J. P., & McLain, D. A.: 1992, ‘Whistleblowing: A conceptualization and model’ In J.
L. Wall and K. R. Jauch, [Eds.], Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, August
10-12, Las Vegas, NV, 350-352.

Keenan, J. P. & Parikh, R.: 2000, ‘Blowing the Whistle on Wrongdoing: A Cross-Cultural
Study’ In Proceedings of the Applied Business Research Conference, March 13-17, Puerto
Vallarta,.

Keenan, J. P. and Remington, S.: 2002, ‘Cultural Influences on Whistleblowing: A Study of

Philippine and U.S. Managers’, In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the
Western Decision Sciences Institute, (Las Vegas, NV) April 2-5, 2002

Keenan, J. P. and Xin, K.: 1993 ‘Comparing Indian and American managers on
whistleblowing: An exploratory study and evaluation’, In D. F. Rogers and A. S. Raturi [Eds.],
1993 Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute (Washington D.C.) pp. 368-371

Keenan, J. P. And Xin, K.: 1999 ‘Comparing Chinese and American managers on
whistleblowing: An exploratory study and evaluation’, In D.K. Despotis and C. Zopounidis
[Eds.], Decision Sciences Institute 5th Interntional; Conference Proceedings (Athens, Greece)
pp. 736-739

Page 28
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C.: 1952 ‘Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions’, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass ) Vol. 7[1]

Laurent, A.: 1986, ‘The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resource Management’,
Human Resource Management, 25, 91-102.

MacGregor, I: 2001, ‘Need to protect whistleblowers’ Australian Financial Review, July 4

2001 pg 51

McLain, D. A. & Keenan, J. P.: 1999, ‘Risk, information, and the decision about response to
wrongdoing in an organization’, Journal of Business Ethics 19; 255-271.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P.: 1988 ‘Individual and situational correlates of whistleblowing’,
Personnel Psychology 41; 267-281.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P.: 1992, Blowing the whistle, The organizational and legal
implications for companies and employees (Lexington Books, New York)

O'Hara-Devereaux, M. & Johansen, R.: 1994 , Globalwork Bridging Distance, Culture and Time
(Jossey-Bass Publishers’ San Francisco, Calif.)
O'Toole, J. J.: 1979 ‘Corporate and Managerial Cultures’ In Behavioral Problems in
Organizations, Ed, Cooper, C. L (Prentice-Hall, Englwood Cliffs, NJ).

Oziel, C.: 2002 ‘UK encourages corporate whistleblowers: Now management will be the first,
not the last, to know about potential problems: Called a win for everyone’. National Post f/k/a
The Financial Post, 16 Reuters

Pettigrew, A. M.: 1979, ‘On Studying Organizational Cultures’, Administrative Science

Quarterly 24; 570.

Rogovsky, N.: 1996 ‘IHRM Practices in Multinational Corporations: Developing IHRM

Integrative Frame-Work’ University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn.

Shafer, W.E. & Park, L.L.: 1999, ‘An empirical investigation of cultural differences in
ethicaldecisionmaking among US accounting students’, Journal of Education for Business, 74;
220-224

Schneider, S. C.: 1986, ‘National vs Corporate Culture: Implications for Human Resource
Management’, Human Resource Management 27;133-148.

Page 29
 Culture and Whistleblowing

Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W.: 1990, ‘Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of
Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 58; 878-891.

Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P.: 1998; ‘Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and
intrapersonal variables’, Journal of Business Ethics 17; 411-421.

Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P.: 1999, ‘A cross-cultural comparison of managers’ whistleblowing
Tendencies’, International Journal of Values-Based Management 12;137-151.

Trompenaars, F.: 1996, Riding the Waves of Culture (Wernon Sodenstrom, Finland).

Tsui, J., & Windsor, C.: 2001, ‘Some cross cultural evidence on ethical reasoning’, Journal of
Business Ethics, 31;143-150

United States Merit Systems Protection Board USMSPB.: 1981, Whistleblowing and the
federal employee ( U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)

Vladimirova, A.: 2000, ‘Balkan states stand behind business code of ethics’ Financial Times
March 10, 2000

Wines, W. A. & Napier, N. K.: 1992, ‘Toward an understanding of cross-cultural ethics: A

tentative model’, Journal of Business Ethics 11; 831-842.

Page 30