Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions o...

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title: Stakeholders’ Attributions of Whistleblowers: The Effects of Complicity and Motives on Perceptions of Likeability, Credibility, and Legitimacy;
Authors and Corporations: Richardson, Brian K., Garner, Johny
In: International Journal of Business Communication, 59, 2022, 3, p. 334-354
published:
SAGE Publications
Media Type: Article, E-Article

Not logged in

further information
Physical Description: 334-354
ISSN: 2329-4892
2329-4884
DOI: 10.1177/2329488419863096
published in: International Journal of Business Communication
Language: English
Subjects:
Collection: SAGE Publications (CrossRef)
Table of Contents

<jats:p> Organizational wrongdoing remains a persistent, prevalent problem, one that leads to exponentially more injuries, deaths, and cost than street crime in the United States each year. Whistleblowing has become one of the primary ways in which wrongdoing is exposed and investigated, but without support from key stakeholders, whistleblowing may not affect constructive change. This study used an attribution theory framework to explore relationships between stakeholders’ perceptions of different types of whistleblowers. Specifically, we varied whistleblowers’ motives (altruistic and selfish) and involvement in wrongdoing (complicit or innocence) to test their effects on stakeholders’ intentions to ostracize the whistleblower and their perceptions of the whistleblower’s likeability, legitimacy, and three dimensions of credibility (goodwill, trustworthiness, and competence). Respondents were composed of two stakeholder groups, fraternity and sorority members and university alumni. Results indicate that both stakeholder groups found the innocent whistleblower more likeable and credible than the complicit whistleblower, while the fraternity/sorority respondents found the altruistic whistleblowers more likeable, credible, and legitimate, than their selfish counterparts. The article concludes with implications of the findings for whistleblowers, and limitations and directions for future research. </jats:p>