The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

IJPSM
33,1 Uncovering the relationship
between whistleblowing and
organizational identity
94 Some preliminary evidence from Italian
Received 1 February 2019 publicly owned universities
Revised 2 July 2019
17 October 2019
Accepted 1 November 2019
Rocco Palumbo
Department of Management and Law,
University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and
Rosalba Manna
Department of Management and Quantitative Studies,
University “Parthenope” of Naples, Naples, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – Whistleblowing – i.e. the employees’ decision to report illegal, immoral and/or illegitimate
practices performed by peers, supervisors and/or subordinates – involves a contestation of the existing
organizational power. Therefore, it challenges the whistleblower’s identification with the organization.
Nevertheless, whistleblowing has been rarely related to organizational identity. The purpose of this paper is
to fill this gap, investigating employees’ whistleblowing intentions in the context of higher education.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative, exploratory analysis concerning the whistleblowing
episodes that occurred in the whole population of Italian publicly owned universities and higher education
institutions was performed (n ¼ 69). Secondary data about whistleblowing were retrieved from the annual
reports arranged by the supervisor for the prevention of corruption and the promotion of transparency.
Findings – Most of Italian publicly owned higher education institutions did not experience whistleblowing.
Conversely, less than a quarter of the sample reported at least ones whistleblowing procedure. The homogeneity
of organizational identity seemed to discourage the willingness of academic employees to report organizational
wrongdoings. ICT-based and anonymized whistleblowing systems were found to support the propensity of
academics to blow the whistle.
Practical implications – Tailored interventions are needed to address the interplay between organizational
identity and academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions. The culture of silence predominating in
institutions characterized by a hegemonic organizational identity should be overwhelmed. Prevention measures
intended to guarantee the whistleblower’s anonymity through the use of ICT-based platforms are useful to
support the academic employees’ willingness to blow the whistle in case of organizational misconduct.
Originality/value – This is one of the first attempts to investigate the interplay between organizational
identity and whistleblowing in public sector organizations.
Keywords Whistleblowing, Higher education, Organizational identity, Organizational integrity,
Organizational wrongdoings
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and study rationale

In the last few years, the challenges faced by public sector organizations increased in size and
urgency (Van Dooren et al., 2015). Inter alia, the growing constraints on public finances have
raised doubts and concerns about the sustainability of traditional management models rooted
in the public realm (Barbera et al., 2016). The so-said “[…] managerialistic enlightenment”
(Diefenbach, 2009, p. 892) has been proposed as an approach to deal with this critical situation:
International Journal of Public
Sector Management it has deeply reshaped the way public sector entities are organized and managed, introducing
Vol. 33 No. 1, 2020
pp. 94-112
business-like models in handling public affairs (Hyndman and Lapsley, 2016).
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3558
The shift toward a new public management model inspired to the ethos of private sector
DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-02-2019-0030 companies has been argued to produce several side effects on the public sector organizations’
ability to accomplish their institutional mandate of generating and distributing public value Whistleblowing
across the community (Simonet, 2015; Hood and Dixon, 2015). More specifically, it has been and
claimed that, while it may determine more effective performance management tools organizational
(De Vries and Nemec, 2013) and better financial results (Monteduro, 2014), the mixture of
public interests with management techniques borrowed from the private realm entails an identity
alteration of the values that inspire the activities of public sector entities (Van Wart, 1998).
In other words, the contamination of public values with private-based management 95
approaches is thought to impair the social sustainability of the public service system
(Bryson et al., 2014).
The scientific literature has proposed a wide array of solutions intended to prevent the
decay of public sector organizations’ ability to produce meaningful value for the community
which is engendered by the advent of managerialistic enlightenment (see, among others:
O’Flynn, 2007; Brandsen et al., 2018). Whistleblowing is arising as an effective tool to
facilitate the detection of public values’ deterioration and to arrange timely interventions
aimed at restoring the integrity of public sector organizations (Ciasullo et al., 2017).
In general terms, whistleblowing involves the intention of an employee to take a formal
action (i.e. to blow the whistle) when encountering illegal, immoral and/or illegitimate
practices performed by peers, supervisors and/or subordinates during their everyday
working activities (Near and Miceli, 1985; Pillay et al., 2017). From this standpoint,
whistleblowing intrinsically implies a dissenting act of public accusation, which is
characterized by a form of disloyalty of the accuser toward the accused members of the
organization ( Jubb, 1999). It implicates the emergence of a value conflict between different
members of the organization, influencing the processes of organizational identification
(Skålén, 2004; Berndtsson et al., 2018). Alongside producing emotional trauma and
psychological distress for the whistleblower (Sprague, 1993), the whistleblowing act leads to
a disidentification with the organization, that may have momentous implications at both the
individual and the collective levels (Bok, 1980).
Scholars have tried to shed light on the conceptual attributes which underpin whistleblowing
(Culiberg and Mihelič, 2017). Moreover, different attempts have been performed to unravel the
determinants and consequences of whistleblowing (Philmore et al., 2017; Previtali and Cerchiello,
2018). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is limited agreement about the
relationship between employees’ whistleblowing intention and organizational identity. This is
surprising, since whistleblowing basically implies a “[…] contestation of truth and power in the
workplace” (Weiskopf and Tobias-Miersch, 2016, p. 1621), questioning the identification of the
whistleblower with the organization.
The article contributes to an identified gap in the scientific knowledge, by adding
information to the debate about the role of organizational identity in influencing the
employees’ whistleblowing intention. An empirical analysis involving the whole population
of Italian publicly owned universities and higher education institutions allowed us to collect
some evidence about the interplay between academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions
and organizational identity. This study was conceived as an attempt to provide an answer
to the following research questions:
RQ1. Does organizational identity affect the employees’ whistleblowing intentions,
stimulating their willingness to challenge existing truth and power in the workplace?
RQ2. What kind of organizational interventions could be designed to steer the interplay
between organizational identity and employees’ whistleblowing intentions?
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides some details about the conceptual
framework which inspired the research strategy and design. Section 3 shows an overview of
the study methodology: first, it describes how organizational identity was operationalized
IJPSM for the purpose of this research; second, it depicts the statistical model that was employed to
33,1 analyze available data; third, it presents the units of analysis. Section 4 reports the main
study results, illuminating the relationship between organizational identity and academic
employees’ whistleblowing intentions. The research findings are critically discussed in
Section 5, which acknowledges the main limitations of this study. Section 6 concludes the
paper, summarizing its conceptual and practical implications and envisioning several
96 avenues for further developments.

2. Conceptual background
2.1 An overview of organizational identity
In spite of the abundance of conceptual and empirical studies dealing with organizational
identity, it is not easy to understand what is meant by this construct. Scholars and
practitioners embraced heterogeneous perspectives to unfold organizational identity and to
investigate its implications. As argued by Whetten (2006: p. 220) “[…] in some cases,
organizational identity is portrayed as a subjective property of observers, whereas in other
cases, it is described as a verifiable property of organizations”. Whatever the approach is
taken to frame this concept, organizational identity provides a platform for understanding the
specific role played by the organization in the society, which is reflected by the employees’
perceptions, attitudes and behaviors (Gioia et al., 2010). However, it should be acknowledged
that organizational identity is not a permanent attribute of organizations (Humphreys and
Brown, 2002); rather, it evolves over time as a result of the modification of collective identities
shaping the employees’ beliefs and actions (Howard-Grenville et al., 2013).
Sticking to the foundational arguments proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985),
organizational identity relies on what is central, distinctive and enduring in an organization.
“Centrality” implies an identification of members around salient formal and/or informal
attributes of the organization, that are collectively forged by employees through dialectic
tensions and negotiations (Kreiner et al., 2015). “Distinctiveness” engenders the uniqueness
of the organization’s values and characteristics as confronted with similar entities operating
in the same and/or comparable environments; from this point of view, distinctiveness
nurtures the process of employees’ collective identification (Cornelissen et al., 2007).
“Endurance” involves the longevity of formal and informal patterns that characterize the
organization: they concur in underpinning organizational identity and foster the
commitment of employees (Anteby and Molnár, 2012).
Organizational identity is generated at different levels, ranging from individual
categorization to social construction (Rondeaux, 2006); besides, it is realized both within and
outside the boundaries of the organization (Glynn and Navis, 2013). Therefore, the
perception of organizational identity and its categorization may show a significant variation
(Hsu and Elsbach, 2013). This is especially true when professional organizations are taken
into consideration (Stiles, 2011). In fact, professionals generally stick to multiple identities,
which are thought to influence the process of organizational identification ( Johnson et al.,
2006; Callan et al., 2007).

2.2 Organizational identity and sub-identities in the higher education context

Focussing on the higher education context, Gioia et al. (2010) stressed that the formation of
organizational identity is determined by individual-level factors, which are the result of
a “[…] social construction of identity claims” (p. 33). Besides, Garcia and Hardy (2007)
maintained that organizational identity reflects the different patterns of the interplay among
members of higher education institutions. While the forging of organizational identity could
be conceived as a senior managers’ attempt to achieve hegemony and institutional
legitimacy within the organization (Stensaker, 2015), dynamics of disidentification can be
noticed at the micro/individual level (Humphreys and Brown, 2002). On the one hand, this Whistleblowing
implies that organizational identity evolves over time, being influenced by the and
distinguishing perceptions of organization members (Gioia et al., 2013). On the other organizational
hand, it entails that multiple sub-identities may arise at the micro-level, challenging the
central organizational identity (Beijaard et al., 2004). In sum, organizational identity turns identity
out to be a composite and multifaceted issue, which reflects the complex essence of higher
education institutions (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009). 97
Various triggers of organizational sub-identities can be identified. Gender has been
thought to play a relevant role in stimulating the rise of sub-identities within educational
institutions (Deem, 2003). The clash of gendered perspectives taken by employees generates
threats to the central organizational identity (Reciniello, 1999), leading to the emergence of
plural identities. Moreover, employees’ age has been identified as a factor stimulating the
emergence of organizational sub-cultures, which imply the pluralism of organizational
identities (Bellou, 2008). Therefore, it could be assumed that the greater the variety of
employees’ age groups, the more heterogeneous the organizational identities within
educational institutions (Weerts et al., 2014). A relationship has been argued to exist
between employees’ ethnic/racial origins and their perceptions of organizational identity
(Garcia and Dwyer, 2018): since ethnicity influences the sense of employees’ belonging to a
community, it is assumed that the co-existence of multiple ethnicities implies the existence
of plural organizational identities (Canen and Canen, 2008). Lastly, yet importantly,
employees operating in different areas of the institution may have diverging perceptions of
what is meant by organizational identity: this determines the development of organizational
sub-identities (Pratt and Foreman, 2000). In line with these considerations, it could be
presumed that the heterogeneity of professional domains that coexist in the organization
challenges the central organizational identity, nourishing plural organizational
sub-identities (Marks and Scholarios, 2007).

2.3 The effects of organizational identity on employees’ whistleblowing intentions

Scholars have variously tried to illuminate the “[…] dark side” of organizational identity
(Dukerich et al., 1998), depicting it as a double-edged sword (Li et al., 2015). Strong
perceptions of central organizational identity may increase the employees’ willingness to
give sense to organizational wrongdoings and to legitimize them, thus reducing the “[…]
organizations’ moral learning capacity” (Ploeger and Bisel, 2013, p. 155). In line with these
arguments, Campbell and Göritz (2014) maintained that the employees of corrupt
organizations are inclined to use rationalization strategies to justify wrongdoings,
supporting values of security and team spirit. Assuming that whistleblowing is a form of
organizational dissent (Berry, 2004), it could be pretended that the stronger and the more
pervasive the central organizational identity, the lower the employees’ willingness to blow
the whistle; conversely, the pluralism of organizational identities is thought to engender
a higher employees’ propensity to report organizational wrongdoings (Manthorpe, 2001).
From this standpoint, the following research assumption could be formulated:
RA1. The pluralism of organizational identities increases the employees’ intention to
blow the whistle.
In addition to these points, it should be noted that various factors might mediate the
relationship between organizational identity and employees’ whistleblowing intentions.
First, employees are encouraged to report organizational wrongdoings when they perceive
that the organization supports them in disclosing misconduct since this strengthens
the collective perception of organizational ethics (Chang et al., 2017). Hence, the greater the
organizational support in designing and implementing reliable and consistent
whistleblowing procedures, the higher the employees’ commitment to denounce
IJPSM organizational wrongdoings. Second, employees are more willing to use whistleblowing
33,1 procedures when they recognize that the organization uses tailored tools and practices
to protect the whistleblower against the risks of organizational retaliation (Cho and
Song, 2015). Third, and lastly, the proceduralization of organizational processes is assumed
to boost whistleblowing intentions, involving greater clarity of organizational
responsibilities assigned to each member of the organization (Previtali and Cerchiello,
98 2018). In sum, three sub-assumptions can be framed:
RA1a. The organizational support to wrongdoings’ report foster the employees’
willingness to blow the whistle.
RA1b. The design of a sound protection system to prevent whistleblowers’ retaliation
encourages the employees’ intention to blow the whistle.
RA1c. The greater the proceduralization of organizational processes, the higher the
employees’ intention to blow the whistle.

3. Methods
3.1 Research strategy and design
An exploratory, quantitative analysis concerning the whistleblowing episodes that occurred
in the whole population of Italian publicly owned universities and higher education
institutions was performed to provide a tentative answer to the research questions. In sum,
69 institutions were involved in this study. Secondary data about whistleblowing
occurrences were retrieved from the annual reports arranged by the supervisor for the
prevention of corruption and the promotion of transparency of each unit of analysis.
The attention was focused on the reports published in 2016 and 2017; this temporal focus
was motivated by the fact that most of the Italian universities and higher education
institutions implemented a formal whistleblowing system in 2015. Information about the
institutional and organizational attributes of whistleblowing procedures implemented by
the units of analysis was available. The occurrence of organizational retaliation against the
whistleblower was taken into consideration in order to increase the depth of analysis and to
detect the drawbacks of whistleblowing at the individual level.
An indirect approach was used to gauge the units of analysis’ organizational identity.
In light of the conceptual background depicted above, we distinguished between hegemonic
organizational identity and plural organizational identity. Sticking to the interpretation of
organizational identity as what is central, distinctive and enduring in an organization, it was
assumed that “elderly” institutions had a more rooted and homogeneous organizational
identity as confronted to “younger” ones. In fact, elderly institutions are more likely to show
an entrenched organizational culture, which triggers a more enduring and central
organizational identity (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Employees’ distribution per age, gender
and ethnicity was also contemplated to discriminate between organizations with a
hegemonic organizational identity and those with a pluralistic organizational identity. More
specifically, it was assumed that the greater the heterogeneity of employees’ composition in
terms of age, gender and ethnicity, the more varied the organizational sub-identities
established in the organization and, consequently, the more plural the organizational
identity (see, among others, Gizir, 2014; Henkel, 2016). Lastly, yet importantly, it was
presumed that the more varied the units of analysis’ range of faculties and degree programs,
the more diversified and plural the organizational identity, due to the multiple faculty
identifications of academics (Harvey et al., 2007).
A step-by-step logistic regression analysis was arranged to shed light on the potential
role of organizational identity in triggering employees’ whistleblowing intentions. While
administrative and collaborative staff were not involved in this research, a focus was put on
academic employees. This decision negatively affected the breadth of this study; however, Whistleblowing
it allowed us to concentrate the spotlight on the units of analysis’ key area of activity, thus and
increasing the dependability of the research findings. organizational
identity
3.2 Data and variables
Table I summarizes the variables which were used in this study. The number of
whistleblowing reports that occurred in 2016 and 2017 was run as the dependent variable of 99
the logistic regression model. The dependent variable was recoded as a dichotomous
variable, with “1” indicating the occurrence of at least one whistleblowing procedure and “0”
indicating that employees did not report any organizational wrongdoing.
The geographical location of higher education institutions was included in the analysis,
in order to elicit the influence of the environmental and socio-cultural context on the
employees’ willingness to use whistleblowing procedures. Both the number of students and
the number of employees permitted us to assess the dimensions of the units of analysis. This
allowed us to shed light on the relationship between the size of the units of analysis and the
employees’ intentions to report organizational wrongdoings.
The number of departments operating in 2017 was used as a proxy to measure the
degree of organizational heterogeneity of Italian universities and higher education
institutions. These variables were discrete; however, they were recoded to obtain categorical
data. The distribution of the employees per age, gender and ethnicity provided information
about the pluralism of organizational identities; both absolute and relative values about
these dimensions were available: absolute values were recoded as categorical variables, with
“1” referring to homogeneous and “5” to plural organizations. Lastly, information about the
whistleblowing systems implemented by the units of analysis was obtained: on the one
hand, control system integration and process mapping allowed us to point out the
contribution of the organizational efforts aimed at enhancing procedural integrity to
support academic employees’ willingness to blow the whistle; on the other hand, the
whistleblowing system’s infrastructure was investigated to appraise its influence on
academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions.

3.3 Statistical model

A statistical approach for discrete choice was designed to meet the purposes of this study.
The use of a logistic regression model is fitting when the observed dependent variable is
dichotomous. In our case, the original dependent variable was recoded as a factor with a
binary response: more specifically, “1” indicated the occurrence of whistleblowing and “0”
indicated that whistleblowing did not occur. The likelihood function is expressed as follows:
X   X   
ln L ¼ wj ln F xj b þ wj ln 1F xj b ; (1)
jES 2S
j=

where S is the set of all observations j, so that yi ≠ 0, F(I) ¼ eI/(1 + eI); wj denotes the optional
weights; and I ¼ βxj is the cumulative logistic distribution function.
Lemeshow and Hosmer (2005) proposed an introduction to logistic regression analysis,
while Long and Freese (2014) showed an overview of logistic estimations, considering both
the situation in which the dependent variable is dichotomous, and the situation in which it is
polytomous. In addition, Hosmer et al. (2013) suggested an exhaustive scheme to guide the
interpretation of logistic regression estimation. Drawing on these references, the following
equation provides a synthetic description of the logistic model which was used to
investigate the relationship between the propensity of academic employees to blow the
 33,1

100

Table I.
IJPSM

The variables run in

the regression model
Variable (ID) Brief description Nature Type Codes Recodings

No. of whistleblowings (WB) Number of reports in 2016 Dependent Discrete na 0: no occurrence of whistleblowing
and 2017
1: occurrence of whistleblowing
Geographical location (GL) Main geographical area Independent Categorical 1: North-Western Italy
where the unit is 2: North-Eastern Italy
established 3: Central Italy
4: Southern Italy
5: Main Italian Islands
Organizational longevity (OL) Organizational age of the Independent Discrete na 1: less than 50 years
unit of analysis 2: between 50 and 100 years
3: more than100 years
Organizational dimension 1 (DS) Number of students Independent Discrete na 1: small dimension
enrolled in 2017 2: medium dimension
3: big dimension
Organizational dimension 2 (DE) Number of academic Independent Discrete na 1: small dimension
employees in 2017 2: medium dimension
3: big dimension
Organizational heterogeneity (OH) Number of departments Independent Discrete na 1: less than 4 departments
operating in 2017 2: between 4 and 8 departments
3: 9 or more departments
Employees’ gender (EG) Distribution of the Independent Discrete and ratio na 1: homogeneous organizations
academic employees’ in 2: varied organizations
terms of gender 3: mixed organizations
4: heterogeneous organizations
5: plural organizations
Employees’ age (EA) Distribution of the Independent Discrete and ratio na 1: homogeneous organizations
academic employees’ in 2: varied organizations
terms of age group 3: mixed organizations
4: heterogeneous organizations
5: plural organizations
Employees’ ethnicity (EE) Distribution of the Independent Discrete and ratio na 1: homogeneous organizations
academic employees’ in 2: varied organizations
terms of ethnicity
(continued )
Variable (ID) Brief description Nature Type Codes Recodings

3: mixed organizations
4: heterogeneous organizations
5: plural organizations
Control system integration (CS) Integration of control Independent Dichotomous 0: No; 1: Yes
systems addressed to
prevent organizational
wrongdoings
Process mapping (PM) Mapping of Independent Dichotomous 0: No; 1: Yes
organizational processes
to increase procedural
reliability
Paper-based whistleblowing Implementation of an Independent Dichotomous 0: No; 1: Yes
anonymized paper-based
whistleblowing platform
E-mailing Implementation of an Independent Dichotomous 0: No; 1: Yes
anonymized e-mail-based
whistleblowing platform
ICT-based whistleblowing Implementation of an Independent Dichotomous 0: No; 1: Yes
anonymized ICT-based
whistleblowing platform
101
identity
organizational
and
Whistleblowing

Table I.
IJPSM whistle and its regressors:
33,1    
Pr Y ¼ 1jX j ¼ F b0 þb1 X 1 þb2 X 2 þ    þbj X j ; (2)

where:
(1) Pr(Y ¼ 1|Xj) is the probability that an employee denounces an organizational
102 wrongdoing using the whistleblowing procedure; in particular:
• Y ¼ 0 indicates a negative outcome (or failure), i.e. the employee did not blow
the whistle; and
• Y ¼ 1 indicates a positive outcome (or success), i.e. the employee blew
the whistle.
(2) β0 is the constant;
(3) βj are the estimated coefficients; and
(4) Xj are the regressors.
We define Xj as the row vector of independent variables, augmented by 1, and β as the
corresponding estimated parameter (column) vector. The odds ratio corresponds to the ith
coefficient is θj ¼ exp(βj). The standard error of the odds ratio is syj ¼ yj sj , where si is the
standard error of βj. Finally, we define Ij ¼ xj as the predicted index of the jth observation.
Therefore, the predicted probability of a positive outcome is:
 
exp I j
pj ¼  : (3)
1 þexp I j

3.4 The units of analysis

Table II provides some details about the characteristics of the units of analysis. More than
a third of universities and higher education institutions (35 percent) were established in
Northern Italy; only 5 (7 percent) were located in the main Italian Islands (Sicily and
Sardinia). The remaining part of the sample was evenly distributed in Central (29 percent)
and Southern Italy (29 percent).
The units of analysis had an average organizational age of 246.8 years: half of the sample
was established in the second half of the twentieth century, while about four in ten
institutions were founded in the nineteenth century or before; only eight universities
(11.6 percent) were settled in the first half of the twentieth century. A third of the population
(33.3 percent) reported less than 10,000 students; about one in four universities (24.6 percent)
had more than 30,000 enrolled students. Most units of analysis (50.7 percent) hosted
more than nine departments; conversely, 15 institutions were structured in less than
four departments (21.7 percent). The average number of academic employees was
927.3 (σ ¼ 888.1), ranging from a minimum of 17 units to a maximum of 4,145 units.
About 11 units of analysis (15.9 percent) had a paper-based whistleblowing system. More
than one in five institutions implemented an anonymized e-mailing platform to report
organizational wrongdoings (21.7 percent). About a fifth of the population (20.3 percent) used
an ICT-based whistleblowing system. The remaining part of the population designed a mixed
whistleblowing procedure; more specifically, less than a third (31.9 percent) used a combination
of e-mailing and paper-based whistleblowing system; about one in ten institutions (10.1
percent) implemented a mix of e-mailing and ICT-based platform.
As depicted in Figure 1, most of the institutions involved in this research (75.4 percent) did
not experience whistleblowing procedures; five universities (7.2 percent) received
 Total
Whistleblowing
Variable No. % and
organizational
Geographical location
Northern Italy 24 34.8 identity
Central Italy 20 29
Southern Italy 20 29
Main Italian Islands 5 7.2 103
Year of foundation
1951 or later 34 49.3
Between 1900 and 1950 8 11.6
1899 or before 27 39.1
Number of academic employees
500 or less 30 43.5
Between 501 and 1,000 13 18.8
Between 1,001 and 2,000 18 26.1
2,001 or more 8 11.6
Number of students
10,000 or less 23 33.3
Between 10,001 and 20,000 18 26.1
Between 20,001 and 30,000 11 15.9
More than 30,000 17 24.7
Organizational heterogeneity
Homogeneous organizations 15 21.8
Mixed organizations 19 27.5
Plural organizations 35 50.7
Whistleblowing system
Paper-based 11 15.9
E-mailing 15 21.8
ICT-based 14 20.3
Mixed, paper-based and e-mailing 22 31.9 Table II.
Mixed, ICT-based and e-mailing 7 10.1 An overview of the
Note: n ¼ 69 units of analysis

one denunciation. Less than 15 percent of the sample reported from two to eight
whistleblowing initiatives. Only two institutions (2.9 percent) had more than ten accusations in
the time span contemplated in this analysis. In sum, a quarter of the sample (24.6 percent)
occurred in at least one whistleblowing episode. The majority of entities that experienced one
or more whistleblowing procedures had more than 1,050 academic employees and more than
25,000 students (71.6 percent); only five institutions concerned by whistleblowing initiatives
(29.4 percent) had less than 850 academic employees and less than 20,000 students.
It is worth noting that about half of the units of analysis (49.3 percent) reported having
opened at least one disciplinary procedure to challenge employees’ corrupted behaviors;
besides, more than one in three universities (40.6 percent) stated that their employees
violated the organizational code of ethics at least once in the two years preceding this
research. In other words, we noticed a mismatch between the willingness of employees to
use whistleblowing and the occurrence of organizational wrongdoings.

4. Findings
In the first step of our empirical study, we performed a binary regression analysis listing
the occurrence of whistleblowing as the dependent variable and several institutional
IJPSM 1.45%

33,1

2.90%
104 4.35%

4.35% Whistleblowing events

0
1
2
3
7.25%
4
6
7
8
14

75.36%

Figure 1.
Whistleblowing events
in the two years
preceding the research

dimensions – i.e. organizational longevity, geographical location, mapping of organizational

processes and integration of internal control processes – as the independent variables. The
output of this preliminary analysis is summarized in Table III. The integration of control
processes for the purpose of organizational wrongdoings’ prevention positively and
significantly influenced the whistleblowing intentions of academic employees. Conversely,
neither geographical location nor organizational longevity was found to affect the academics’
willingness to blow the whistle. Similarly, the mapping of organizational processes did not
significantly influence the willingness of employees to report organizational wrongdoings.

Omnibus tests of model coefficients

χ2 df Sig.
10.81 5 0.050
Model summary
−2 Log likelihood Cox and Snell R2 Nagelkerke R2
24.59 0.29 0.43
Model summary
Variables B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Geographical location: Northern Italy −1.89 1.34 1.99 1 0.158 0.15
Geographical location: Central Italy −2.12 1.45 2.14 1 0.143 0.12
Organizational longevity 1.18 1.09 1.17 1 0.279 3.24
Table III. Process mapping 1.05 1.05 0.99 1 0.319 2.86
The first step of Process integration* 2.55 1.18 4.64 1 0.031 12.81
the binary Constant 0.09 1.02 0.01 1 0.931 1.09
regression analysis Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level
In the second step of the analysis, we included in the regression model the methods and Whistleblowing
techniques used by the Italian publicly owned universities and higher education institutions and
to implement whistleblowing procedures. As previously anticipated, three reporting tools organizational
were taken into consideration: paper-based whistleblowing, e-mailing-based whistleblowing
and anonymized ICT-based whistleblowing. The findings of this integrated regression identity
model are exhibited in Table IV. As compared with the first step of the analysis, we found
that geographical location in Northern Italy was positively and significantly related with 105
whistleblowing initiatives: it seemed that academic employees affiliated to institutions
established in the North of Italy were more likely to use whistleblowing procedures in order
to denounce organizational wrongdoings. While paper-based whistleblowing procedures
might be claimed to discourage the propensity of academic employees to blow the whistle,
ICT-based and anonymized systems were found to encourage whistleblowing intentions.
In the third and concluding step of the study, the variables concerning the degree of
homogeneity/pluralism of the Italian universities’ organizational identity were run in the
statistical model. The findings of this expanded regression analysis are reported in Table V.
It is worth noting that process mapping continued to be negatively and significantly
associated with the academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions. In addition, the
geographical location was significantly related to the academic employees’ willingness to
blow the whistle, with the units of analysis which were established in Northern Italy being
more likely to use whistleblowing procedures. The implementation of ICT-based and
anonymized whistleblowing platforms performed as a positive and relevant regressor of
employees’ propensity to blow the whistle. Both the Italian universities with the highest
share of young employees (aged 35 or below) and those with the highest share of elderly
employees (aged 56 or above) were found to be less prone to use whistleblowing procedures.
Last, but not least, organizational heterogeneity was found to be one of the most relevant
and significant regressor of academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions.

5. Discussion
Acknowledging the limitations which affected this research allows us to better contextualize
the study findings. First, only Italian universities and higher education institutions were
involved in this research; hence, it is not possible to argue for the international generalizability

Omnibus tests of model coefficients

χ2 df Sig.
22.61 8 0.004
Model summary
−2 Log likelihood Cox and Snell R2 Nagelkerke R2
49.47 0.31 0.45
Model Summary
Variables B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Geographical location: Northern Italy* 2.05 0.92 4.98 1 0.026 7.80
Geographical location: Central Italy −0.49 1.04 0.23 1 0.633 0.61
Organizational longevity 1.56 0.82 3.61 1 0.057 4.74
Process mapping −1.39 0.79 3.06 1 0.080 0.25
Process integration 0.26 0.85 0.09 1 0.765 1.29
Paper-based whistleblowing −1.41 0.99 2.01 1 0.155 0.24
E-mailing 1.90 1.72 2,63 1 0.105 6.68 Table IV.
ICT-based whistleblowing* 1.98 0.84 5.60 1 0.018 7.25 The second step of
Constant −3.49 1.27 7.55 1 0.000 0.03 the binary
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level regression analysis
IJPSM Omnibus tests of model coefficients
33,1 χ2 df Sig.
38.89 14 0.001
Model summary
−2 Log likelihood Cox and Snell R2 Nagelkerke R2
33.29 0.47 0.68
106 Model summary
Variables B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Geographical location: Northern Italy* 3.86 1.79 4.61 1 0.032 47.42
Geographical location: Central Italy 0.51 1.75 0.08 1 0.773 1.66
Organizational longevity 0.15 1.66 0.01 1 0.928 1.16
Process mapping* −3.88 1.75 4.89 1 0.027 0.02
Process integration 1.97 1.37 2.08 1 0.149 7.16
Paper-based whistleblowing 0.19 1.57 0.01 1 0.902 1.21
E-mailing 2.71 1.65 2.69 1 0.101 15.11
ICT-based whistleblowing* 4.45 1.82 5.95 1 0.015 85.80
Employees’ ethnicity 2.23 1.48 2.26 1 0.132 9.31
Employees’ gender 0.77 1.17 0.43 1 0.510 2.15
Share of employees aged 35 or less* −4.38 2.04 4.61 1 0.032 0.01
Share of employees aged between 36 and 45 −0.21 1.44 0.02 1 0.887 0.81
Share of employees aged between 46 and 55 3.53 2.04 2.99 1 0.084 34.11
Table V. Share of employees aged 56 or more* −4.29 1.85 5.35 1 0.021 0.01
The third step of Organizational heterogeneity* 5.24 2.34 5.01 1 0.025 189.72
the binary Constant −7.94 3.84 4.26 1 0.039 0.00
regression analysis Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level

of the study results. Second, while the whole population of Italian publicly owned universities
and higher institutions was involved in the analysis, the modest number of entities
participating in this research affected the dependability of the findings reported above. Third,
since most of the units of analysis started implementing formal whistleblowing procedures in
the last few years, there is the risk that the evidence obtained was influenced by the low
confidence of academic employees with these procedures. Fourth, the use of secondary data
did not permit us to tailor the process of data collection to the specific purposes of this
research. Notwithstanding, the data included in the annual reports arranged by the
supervisors for the prevention of corruption and the promotion of transparency turned out to
be a useful source of information to develop a tentative answer to our research questions.
Fifth, and lastly, whistleblowing should be understood as only one of the available tools to
detect organizational wrongdoings. Being an act of disloyalty, whistleblowing is likely to
generate distrust and hostility among employees, with drawbacks at both the individual and
the group levels (MacDougall, 2016). From this standpoint, even though whistleblowing
generally performs as an effective alarm bell to denounce organizational wrongdoings,
ethically healthy organizations should design and implement less formal approaches
to address misbehaviours and, consequently, prevent the occurrence whistleblowing, thus
avoiding its side effects on employees’ interpersonal relationships (Arszulowicz and
Gasparski, 2010). In fact, whistleblowing could be improperly used by employees, who may
maliciously report false misbehaviours to illegitimately obtain advantages over their peers
(Vandekerckhove, 2018). In spite of these limitations, the study results provided some
intriguing insights into the research questions that inspired this paper.
The findings partially confirmed the main research assumptions that were drawn on the
conceptual framework. Organizational identity was found to influence the willingness of
academic employees to report organizational wrongdoings through whistleblowing
procedures. On the one hand, the pluralism of organizational identities triggered by the
multiple faculty identifications of academics seemed to pave the way for greater use of Whistleblowing
whistleblowing procedures and, therefore, for greater willingness of employees to challenge and
the consolidated structure of power within the organization (Brown et al., 2014; Kenny et al., organizational
2019). On the other hand, the more homogeneous and stable the organizational identity, the
lower the propensity of employees to blow the whistle. The academic employees who dealt identity
with homogeneous organizational identities were less prone to challenge the existing
architecture of power within the organization (Afe et al., 2019), probably being afraid of 107
retaliation by their peers (Callahan and Collins, 1992).
It is not surprising that the greater the share of young employees (aged 35 or below) and
the larger the number of elderly employees (aged 56 or more) in the workforce, the lower the
recurrence of whistleblowing. Younger academic employees are more likely to be caught in
the dilemma of whistleblowing, which implies disloyalty to the current articulation of power
within the organization (Andrade, 2015; Lindblom, 2007). Alternatively, older academic
employees are less willing to challenge the traditional dynamics which steer social relations
within the organization (Contu, 2015).
Interestingly, we found support for two out of three research sub-assumptions: both the
organizational support to wrongdoings’ report and the design of a sound protection system
for whistleblowers were positively related to the occurrence of whistleblowing in Italian
publicly owned higher education institutions. Conversely, the proceduralization of
organizational processes seemed to discourage whistleblowing, may be due to the greater
risks of whistleblower’s identification – and, consequently, retaliation – brought by
formalization of organizational activities (Lee and Kleiner, 2011).
Tailored interventions are required to address the interplay between organizational
identity and academic employees’ whistleblowing intentions. First, to overcome the culture
of silence which predominates in institutions characterized by a homogeneous
organizational identity, the promotion of a public service culture among employees is
crucial (Cho and Song, 2015). It permits to overwhelm the fears which are related to the
dissenting act of reporting organizational wrongdoings and to instil perceptions of
organizational justice throughout the institution (Burke and Cooper, 2013). Second,
organizations should make an effort to protect potential whistleblowers against the revenge
and retaliation of accused employees (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Prevention
measures intended to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity through the use of ICT-based
platforms are useful for this purpose. In addition, the organizational ability to implement
and maintain a reliable whistleblowing system paves the way for the enactment of a self-
regulating mechanism within the organization, which reduces the harms produced by
employees’ misconducts (Pemberton et al., 2012). Lastly, yet importantly, the timelier and
more effective the organizational responses to whistleblowing, the greater the employees’
willingness to challenge existing truth and power in the workplace and, therefore, to
overcome the constraining effects of a homogeneous organizational identity (Near and
Jensen, 1983; Moore and McAuliffe, 2010). Hence, the ability of organizations to properly
follow-up whistleblowing procedures is paramount to stir up the employees’ willingness to
report wrongdoings committed by their peers (Lewis et al., 2001; Lewis, 2006).
In sum, the study results provided some confirmation of our initial assumption that a
strong and hegemonic organizational identity is likely to deplete the academic employees’
willingness to blow the whistle, nurturing their loyalty to the current articulation of power
within the organization. On the opposite, the pluralism and heterogeneity of organizational
identity are expected to positively affect the academics’ propensity to use whistleblowing
procedures. Alongside organizational identity, bureaucratic traditions rooted in educational
institutions and the distinguishing socio-cultural attributes of the environmental contexts in
which the latter are established might affect the employees’ propensity to blow the whistle:
these factors should be carefully handled in devising effective whistleblowing systems
IJPSM (Culiberg and Mihelič, 2017). While these findings trigger relevant conceptual and practical
33,1 implications, they also envision some avenues for further development, as reported in the
concluding section.

6. Conclusions
The implications of this paper are threefold. Form a conceptual angle, the paper indirectly
108 suggests the existence of a relationship between the pluralism of organizational identity and
the academic employees’ willingness to blow the whistle when they detect organizational
wrongdoing. The research findings pointed out that the more heterogeneous the faculty of
Italian universities and higher education institutions, the greater the propensity of academic
employees to denounce misconducts; otherwise, hegemonic organizational identities are
expected to constrain the employees’ willingness to use whistleblowing procedures.
Obviously, further developments are needed to fully disentangle the relationship between
organizational identity and employees’ whistleblowing intentions. More specifically, the
negative effects of homogeneous organizational identities on academic employees’
perceptions of the consequences that could be associated with the use of whistleblowing
procedures deserve attention.
From an empirical standpoint, this study stressed that several categories of academic
employees may find greater (tacit and/or explicit) hurdles in reporting organizational
wrongdoings through whistleblowing procedures. On the one hand, younger employees
may be discouraged to blow the whistle, since they are interested in minimizing the risks of
organizational retaliation and in avoiding the side effects of whistleblowing on the progress
of their professional career. On the other hand, elderly employees are less prone to challenge
consolidated structures of organizational power, rationalizing illegitimate behaviors of their
peers for the sake of organizational stability. Future research should be aimed at confirming
that academic employees’ age and career status mediate the relationship between
organizational identity and employees’ whistleblowing intentions.
Last, embracing a managerial perspective, it should be noted that ICT-based whistleblowing
systems are effective in guaranteeing the whistleblowers’ anonymity and, therefore, in
encouraging the report of organizational wrongdoings. Otherwise, the excessive formalization
of control procedures and practices – such as process mapping – may produce unexpected
drawbacks on the employees’ willingness to blow the whistle. This may be the consequence of
the whistleblower’s perception of greater risks to be identified by peers and – therefore – to be
exposed to organizational retaliation. From this standpoint, further conceptual and empirical
developments should be aimed at illuminating the direct and indirect implications of
proceduralization in influencing whistleblowers’ perceptions and behaviors.

References
Afe, C.E.I., Abodohoui, A., Mebounou, T.G.C. and Karuranga, E. (2019), “Perceived organizational
climate and Whistleblowing intention in academic organizations: evidence from Selçuk
University (Turkey)”, Eurasian Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 299-318.
Andrade, J.A. (2015), “Reconceptualising Whistleblowing in a complex world”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 321-335.
Anteby, M. and Molnár, V. (2012), “Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to
forget in a firm’s rhetorical history”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 515-540.
Arszulowicz, M. and Gasparski, W.W. (2010), Whistleblowing: In Defense of Proper Action, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Barbera, C., Guarini, E. and Steccolini, I. (2016), “Italian municipalities and the fiscal crisis: four
strategies for muddling through”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 335-361.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2004), “Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional Whistleblowing
identity”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-128. and
Bellou, V. (2008), “Identifying organizational culture and subcultures within Greek public hospitals”, organizational
Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 496-509.
Berndtsson, J., Johansson, P. and Karlsson, M. (2018), “Value conflicts and non-compliance: Attitudes to
identity
Whistleblowing in Swedish organisations”, Information and Computer Security, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 246-258.
109
Berry, B. (2004), “Organizational culture: a framework and strategies for facilitating employee
Whistleblowing”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Bok, S. (1980), “Whistleblowing and professional responsibilities”, in Callahan, D. and Bok, S. (Eds),
Ethics Teaching in Higher Education. The Hastings Center Series in Ethics, Springer, Boston,
MA, pp. 277-295.
Brandsen, T., Verschuere, B. and Steen, T. (2018), Co-Production and Co-Creation. Engaging Citizens in
Public Services, Routledge, New York, NY.
Brown, A.J., Lewis, D., Moberly, R. and Vandekerckhove, W. (2014), International Handbook on
Whistleblowing Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Bloomberg, L. (2014), “Public value governance: moving beyond
traditional public administration and the new public management”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 445-456.
Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C. (2013), Voice and Whistleblowing in Organizations: Overcoming Fear,
Fostering Courage and Unleashing Candour, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Callahan, E. and Collins, J. (1992), “Employee attitudes toward Whistleblowing: management and
public policy implications”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 12, pp. 939-948.
Callan, V.J., Gallois, C., Mayhew, M.G., Grice, T.A., Tluchowska, M. and Boyce, R. (2007), “Restructuring
the multi-professional organization: professional identity and adjustment to change in a public
hospital”, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 448-477.
Campbell, J.-L. and Göritz, A.S. (2014), “Culture corrupts! a qualitative study of organizational culture in
corrupt organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 291-311.
Canen, A.G. and Canen, A. (2008), “Multicultural leadership: the costs of its absence in organizational
conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Chang, Y., Wilding, M. and Shin, M.C. (2017), “Determinants of Whistleblowing intention: evidence
from the South Korean Government”, Public Performance and Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 676-700.
Cho, Y.J. and Song, H.J. (2015), “Determinants of Whistleblowing within government agencies”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 450-472.
Ciasullo, M.V., Cosimato, S. and Palumbo, R. (2017), “Improving health care quality: the implementation
of Whistleblowing”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 167-183.
Contu, A. (2015), “Rationality and relationality in the process of Whistleblowing: recasting
whistleblowing through readings of antigone”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 393-406.
Cornelissen, J.P., Haslam, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Social identity, organizational identity and
corporate identity: towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and
products”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. S1, pp. 1-6.
Culiberg, B. and Mihelič, K.K. (2017), “The evolution of Whistleblowing studies: a critical review and
research Agenda”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 146 No. 4, pp. 787-803.
De Vries, M. and Nemec, J. (2013), “Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research
on NPM and alternative paths”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 4-16.
Deem, R. (2003), “Gender, organizational cultures and the practices of manager-academics in
UK universities”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 239-259.
IJPSM Diefenbach, T. (2009), “New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of
33,1 managerialistic ‘enlightenment’ ”, Public Administration, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 892-909.
Dukerich, J.M., Kramer, R.M. and Parks, J.M. (1998), “The dark sides of organizational identification”,
in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through
Conversations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 245-256.
Garcia, G.A. and Dwyer, B. (2018), “Exploring college students’ identification with an organizational
identity for serving Latinx students at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and an emerging
110 HS”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Garcia, P. and Hardy, C. (2007), “Positioning, similarity and difference: Narratives of individual and
organizational identities in an Australian university”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-383.
Gioia, D.A., Patvardhan, S.D., Hamilton, A.L. and Corley, K.G. (2013), “Organizational identity
formation and change”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 123-193.
Gioia, D.A., Price, K.N., Hamilton, A.L. and Thomas, J.B. (2010), “Forging an identity: an insider-outsider
study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-46.
Gizir, S. (2014), “A qualitative case study on the organizational identity of faculty members”,
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1309-1324.
Glynn, M.A. and Navis, C. (2013), “Categories, identities, and cultural classification: moving beyond a
model of categorical constraint”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1124-1136.
Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., Zikic, J. and Ready, K. (2007), “How to manage multiple faculty
identifications during change”, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 259-270.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organizational culture, identity and image”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-365.
Henkel, M. (2016), “Multiversities and academic identities. change, continuities, and complexities”, in
Leišytė, L. and Wilkesmann, U. (Eds), Organizing Academic Work in Higher Education:
Teaching, Learning And Identities, Routledge, London, pp. 205-222.
Hood, C. and Dixon, R. (2015), “What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: higher
costs, more complaints”, Governance, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 265-267.
Hosmer, D.W. Jr, Lemeshow, S.A. and Sturdivant, R.X. (2013), Applied Logistic Regression, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Howard-Grenville, J., Metzger, M.L. and Meyer, A.D. (2013), “Rekindling the flame: processes of identity
resurrection”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 113-136.
Hsu, G. and Elsbach, K.D. (2013), “Explaining variation in organizational identity categorization”,
Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 996-1013.
Humphreys, M. and Brown, A. (2002), “Narratives of organizational identity and identification: a case
study of hegemony and resistance”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 421-447.
Hyndman, N. and Lapsley, I. (2016), “New public management: the story continues”, Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 385-408.
Johnson, M.D., Morgeson, F.P., Ilgen, D.R., Meyer, C.J. and Lloyd, J.W. (2006), “Multiple professional
identities: examining differences in identification across work-related targets”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 498-506.
Jubb, P.B. (1999), “Whistleblowing: a restrictive definition and interpretation”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 77-94.
Kenny, K., Vandekerckhove, W. and Fotaki, M. (2019), The Whistleblowing Guide: Speak-up
Arrangements, Challenges and Best Practices, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M.L., Smith, B.R. and Kataria, N. (2015), “Elasticity and the dialectic
tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we are pulling apart?”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 981-1011.
Lee, K. and Kleiner, B. (2011), “Whistleblower retaliation in the public sector”, Public Personnel Whistleblowing
Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 341-348. and
Lemeshow, S.A. and Hosmer, D.W. Jr (2005), “Logistic regression”, in Armitage, P. and Colton, T. (Eds), organizational
Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Vol. 2, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 2870-2880.
identity
Lewis, D. (2006), “The contents of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK: some
lessons from empirical research”, Employee Relations, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 76-86.
Lewis, D., Ellis, C. and Kyprianou, A. (2001), “Whistleblowing at work: the results of a survey of 111
procedures in further and higher education”, Education & the Law, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 215-225.
Li, Y., Fan, J. and Zhao, S. (2015), “Organizational identification as a double-edged sword”, Journal of
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 182-191.
Lindblom, L. (2007), “Dissolving the moral dilemma of whistleblowing”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 413-426.
Long, J.S. and Freese, J. (2014), Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata,
Stata Press, College Station, TX.
MacDougall, D.R. (2016), “Whistleblowing: don’t encourage it, prevent it”, International Journal of
Health Policy and Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 189-191.
Manthorpe, J. (2001), “Whistling in the wind? Constructions of whistleblowers in health and social
care”, The Journal of Adult Protection, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 14-22.
Marks, A. and Scholarios, D. (2007), “Revisiting technical workers: Professional and organisational
identities in the software industry”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 98-117.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005), “Whistleblowing in organizations: an examination of
correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 277-297.
Monteduro, F. (2014), “Public–private versus public ownership and economic performance: evidence
from Italian local utilities”, Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Moore, L. and McAuliffe, E. (2010), “Is inadequate response to whistleblowing perpetuating a culture of
silence in hospitals?”, Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 166-178.
Near, J.P. and Jensen, T.C. (1983), “The Whistleblowing process: retaliation and perceived
effectiveness”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1985), “Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
O’Flynn, J. (2007), “From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and
managerial implications”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 353-366.
Pemberton, S., Tombs, S., Chan, M.M.J. and Seal, L. (2012), “Whistleblowing, organisational harm and
the self-regulating organisation”, Policy and Politics, Vol 40 No. 2, pp. 263-279.
Philmore, A., Charles-Soverall, W., Broome, T. and Pierce, A. (2017), “Perceptions, predictors and
consequences of whistleblowing among accounting employees in Barbados”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 241-267.
Pillay, S., Reddy, P.S. and Morgan, D. (2017), “Institutional isomorphism and whistle-blowing
intentions in public sector institutions”, Public Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 423-442.
Ploeger, N.A. and Bisel, R.S. (2013), “The role of identification in giving sense to unethical
organizational behavior. defending the organization”, Management Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 155-183.
Pratt, M.G. and Foreman, P.O. (2000), “Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 18-42.
Previtali, P. and Cerchiello, P. (2018), “The determinants of whistleblowing in public administrations:
an analysis conducted in Italian health organizations, universities, and municipalities”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1683-1701.
IJPSM Reciniello, S. (1999), “The emergence of a powerful female workforce as a threat to organizational
33,1 identity: what psychoanalysis can offer”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 301-323.
Rondeaux, G. (2006), “Modernizing public administration: the impact on organisational identities”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 569-584.
Simonet, D. (2015), “The new public management theory in the British health care system. a critical
review”, Administration & Society, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 802-826.
112
Skålén, P. (2004), “New public management reform and the construction of organizational identities”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 251-263.
Sprague, R.L. (1993), “Whistleblowing: a very unpleasant avocation”, Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 103-133.
Stensaker, B. (2015), “Organizational identity as a concept for understanding university dynamics”,
Higher Education, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 103-115.
Stiles, D.R. (2011), “Disorganization, disidentification and ideological fragmentation: verbal and
pictorial evidence from a British business school”, Culture and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 5-30.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2015), Performance Management in the Public Sector,
Routledge, London.
Van Wart, M. (1998), Changing Public Sector Values, Routledge, London.
Vandekerckhove, W. (2018), “Whistleblowing and information ethics: facilitation, entropy, and
ecopoiesis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 152 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Wæraas, A. and Solbakk, M.N. (2009), “Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher
education branding”, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 449-462.
Weerts, D.J., Freed, G.H. and Morphew, C.C. (2014), “Organizational identity in higher education:
conceptual and empirical perspectives”, in Paulsen, M. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of
Theory and Research, Vol. 29, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 229-278.
Weiskopf, R. and Tobias-Miersch, Y. (2016), “Whistleblowing, parrhesia and the contestation of truth in
the workplace”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 1621-1640.
Whetten, A.D. (2006), “Albert and whetten revisited. strengthening the concept of organizational
identity”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 219-234.

Corresponding author
Rocco Palumbo can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]