Whistleblowing

The whistleblowing literature provides a useful lens to understand reporting of SH in organizations. Whistleblowing is the disclosure of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices in organizations (Near & Miceli, Reference Near and Miceli1985) with the disclosure being made by internal (e.g., incumbents) or external actors (e.g., external auditors). Researchers have identified various individual differences (e.g., job satisfaction, job performance, and propensity to whistle blow; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, Reference Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran2005; Tavakoli, Keenan & Cranjak-Karanovic, Reference Tavakoli, Keenan and Cranjak-Karanovic2003) and organizational factors (e.g., supervisor support, ethical and authentic leadership; Bhal & Dadhich, Reference Bhal and Dadhich2011; Liu, Liao, & Wei, Reference Liu, Liao and Wei2015; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, Reference Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran2005) that influence reporting of unethical and/or problematic behavior.

Compared to individual factors, organizational factors have been found to hold more explanatory power and consistency in whistleblowing (Vadera, Aguilera, & Caza, Reference Vadera, Aguilera and Caza2009). Notably, research has found the organizational climate (i.e., perceptions of procedural justice) for reporting to be a key determinant in reporting sexual harassment in the workplace (Bergman et al., Reference Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina and Fitzgerald2002). In line with past research, we argue that the organizational climates within organizations may be influential for individuals when determining whether they will report experiences of SH.

Organizational climate

In order to increase disclosure of SH events and complement a needs analysis, organizations can perform a “climate analysis” (Medeiros & Griffith, Reference Medeiros and Griffith2019), where the organization considers employees level of comfort in reporting SH when it occurs. This analysis becomes crucial, particularly in the case of SH, because organizational climate captures the shared perceptions that are a “critical determinant of individual behaviors in organizations” (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, Reference Carr, Schmidt, Ford and DeShon2003, p. 605). Schneider, White, and Paul (Reference Schneider, White and Paul1998) differentiated between specific climates and foundation climates, with specific climates being climates “for something” (e.g., customer service, voice, SH). Foundation climates, on the other hand, refer to the shared perceptions about broader foundational issues that sustain work (Wallace, Popp, & Mondore, Reference Wallace, Popp and Mondore2006). The difference is primarily an issue of bandwidth (Carr et al., Reference Carr, Schmidt, Ford and DeShon2003), with foundation climates being broader in nature and specific climates being narrower in scope and focus. We argue that a foundation climate construct may be influential for both deterring and reporting SH: psychological safety climate.

Psychological safety

A primary reason that people do not report SH and other forms of unethical behavior is because they fear retaliation from their organization, or they believe that nothing will be done as a result of the reporting (Lee, Heilmann, & Near, Reference Lee, Heilmann and Near2004). One way to increase SH reporting is to increase an organization’s psychological safety climate. Psychological safety refers to the belief that one is safe at work to express him/herself without fear of negative consequences (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990). Psychological safety has been shown to be positively related to numerous job attitudes and behaviors including employee engagement, task performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, & Vracheva, Reference Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan and Vracheva2017). Psychological safety provides employees with a feeling of security that allows them to operate at work without fear of repercussions (Edmondson, Reference Edmondson1999).

We position psychological safety climate as a foundation climate that can set the stage for greater reporting of SH. We feel psychological safety is uniquely placed within the climate literature to capture shared perceptions of being able to report unethical behaviors, including SH, because it helps remove one of the larger barriers identified that prevents people from reporting. Specifically, the fear of negative consequences against one’s self for reporting the behavior may hinder reporting of SH. Thus, creating a climate of psychological safety is an important step in ensuring that there is transfer of SH training related to reporting because this climate provides employees with a sense of security that is important when filing a claim of unethical behavior against another employee.

Organizations wanting to increase the reporting, and decrease the prevalence, of SH may find that psychological safety climate has far reaching effects to this end. Psychological safety climate represents a work context within which more specific climates that affect SH can develop. Indeed, there is some evidence that suggests that foundation climates enable the development of more specific climates (e.g., Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, White and Paul1998; Wallace et al., Reference Wallace, Popp and Mondore2006). There are other specific climates that may relate to SH, however. Next, we discuss two specific climates that may emerge from strong psychological safety climates: voice climate and sexual harassment climate. Voice climate represents shared perceptions that speaking up in the workplace is encouraged (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, Reference Morrison, Wheeler-Smith and Kamdar2011). Prohibitive voice, which is focused on expressions of concern about issues that might harm the organization (Liang, Farh, & Farh, Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012), may be raised to address issues around SH. In addition to voice climate, SH climate, which captures shared perceptions of intolerance for sexual harassment (Rubino et al., Reference Rubino, Avery, McKay, Moore, Wilson, Van Driel and McDonald2018), may develop under the foundational roots of climate for psychological safety. Thus, for each of these specific climates (i.e., voice and SH), the foundational climate of psychological safety may enable these more specific climates to emerge.

In addition to studying the current psychological safety climate, organizations can work to increase the psychological safety for employees by improving contextual factors that have been shown to be related to psychological safety. As with whistleblowing behavior, research shows that leaders and others play a role in feelings of psychological safety. Within a team context, leader inclusiveness (the extent to which leaders create a welcoming and inclusive environment) has been shown to be positively related to team member psychological safety (Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006). Additionally, meta-analytic findings have shown that positive leader relations was positively related to psychological safety (Frazier et al., Reference Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan and Vracheva2017). Leaders can help establish a climate that is inclusive and safe by setting the standard and leading by example. When leaders model behavior that is supportive, caring, and not tolerant of mistreatment, employees will be more likely to feel comfortable discussing issues that arise with organizational leadership. As a way to increase psychological safety, organizations can train leaders and managers to engage in inclusive practices that help employees feel comfortable disclosing mistreatment.

Additionally, coworker support has been shown to be positively related to psychological safety (Frazier et al., Reference Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan and Vracheva2017). Coworker support has also been shown to be negatively related to perceptions of unethical behavior such as perceived discrimination (Ruggs, Martinez, Hebl, & Law, Reference Ruggs, Martinez, Hebl and Law2015). Further, coworker support explains the positive relationship between disclosure of a stigmatized identity and job attitudes (Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Akers, Reference Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl and Akers2011). Taken together, these findings suggest that coworkers can help set the stage for creating a climate that would allow individuals to feel safe disclosing SH. Specifically, coworkers can help to create social norms that foster psychological safety because they establish a level of behavior expectations that are not tolerant of mistreatment and are welcoming of reporting and sanctioning mistreatment. Thus, climate analysis should examine the levels of coworker support that are expressed and seek ways to incorporate training on supportive behaviors that can be beneficial in helping create psychological safety and encouraging people to report SH when it occurs.