Cultural Influences on Whistleblowing: A Study of Philippine and U.S.

Managers
JOHN P. KEENAN, Ph.D. Executive Director, Leadership Programs ACCEL Medaille College 2 Hillsboro Drive Orchard Park, NY (716) 667-2516 (phone/fax); (716) 390-9657 (cell) jkeenan945@aol.com (email

STEVEN REMINGTON, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing Harold Walter Siebens School of Business Buena Vista University 610 West 4th St. Storm Lake, Iowa 50588 (712) 749-2474 (phone); (712) 749-1462 (fax) Remington@bvu.edu.(email)

Publication Information: Keenan, J. P. and Remington, S. (2002). Cultural Influences on Whistle blowing: A Study of Philippine and U.S. Managers. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Western Decision Sciences Institute, April 2-5, 2002, Las Vegas, NV. Culture and Whistleblowing: A Study of Philippine and U.S. Managers

ABSTRACT International commerce and the increasing globalization of our planet with respect to political, social and economic realities results in a variety of new dilemmas for leaders and managers in multinational organizations. One area where major difficulties often arise concerns handling ethical problems within a different cultural context. Whistle blowing is one possible response to ethical problems. This study considers the differences in culture between a United States sample of managers and a Philippine sample of managers using Hofstedes (1991) theory of International Cultures. The study explores how these cultural differences may help in our understanding of the differences in reported whistle blowing tendencies.

INTRODUCTION International commerce and the increasing globalization of our planet with respect to political, social and economic realities results in a variety of new dilemmas for leaders and managers in multinational organizations. One area where major difficulties often arise concerns handling ethical problems within a different cultural context. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on cross-cultural or multi-cultural ethics although efforts are being made in developing a conceptual approach to cross-cultural ethics (Wines and Napier, 1992). While the study of cultural differences is intriguing in and of itself, the effect those 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 whistle blowing (Miceli, & Near, 1992; Keenan, 2000, 1995; Keenan & Parikh, 2000, Keenan & Xin, 1999; Sims & Keenan, 1999). Whistle blowing has been defined as present or former organization members reporting illegal, unethical, or illegitimate activities under the control of organization leaders to parties who are willing and able to take action to correct the wrongdoing (Keenan & McLain, 1992). Whistle blowing can be seen as a positive action (the employee=s attempt to improve the organization) or a negative action (the employee=s attempt to turn-in the organization). 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 whistle blowing tendencies. Multi-national organizations are taking greater interest in whistle blowing. Some have established special departments for the receipt of whistle blowing reports (Ewing, 1983). Others have established ethics codes that encourage employees to contact the organization's legal counsel

should they observe or become aware of possible illegal or unethical activities (Mathews, 1987). A study of international codes of conduct for multi-national corporations (MNEs) indicates substantial agreement on the moral duties of MNEs (Getz, 1990). Purpose of Study While a number of organizational and individual factors have been considered within the study of whistle blowing, a major shortcoming of prior whistle blowing research concerns the fact that there has been a tendency to examine whistle blowing from a culturally-bound perspective without looking at cultural and international differences (Keenan & Parikh, 2000, Keenan & Xin, 1999, 1993). One explanation has to due 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, 1991; Kedia & Bhagar, 1988; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Despite such difficulties, the present paper attempts to extend whistle-blowing research into the international arena. This study will consider the differences in culture between a United States sample of managers and a Philippine sample of managers using Hofstede=s (1991) theory of International Cultures, and how those cultural differences may help in our understanding of the differences in whistle blowing tendencies. Hofstede=s Theory Hofstede (1991) theorized that there were four primary dimensions that could differentiate the cultures of our world. They are classified as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. A description of the relationship of each of these classifications to the organizational environment follows. 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,

1991, 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. 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 (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 (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 decisionmaking and listened to when they speak. 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, 1991, p. 116). Organizations within a culture with a strong uncertainty avoidance are more likely to have rules and procedures to govern the environment. Little is left open to chance or interpretation. These rules, however, 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 strong uncertainty avoidance are more comfortable, "even ineffective rules satisfy people's emotional

need for formal structure" (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" (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. The dimension of individualism refers to the extent to which "the ties between individuals are loose" (Hofstede, 1991, 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 which score high on this dimension focus on work goals that 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" (p. 63). 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.

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, 1991, p. 82). Women are expected to be "modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life" (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 that are feminine, to 100, for cultures that are masculine. 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. Hofstede (1991) has classified both the Philippine culture as well as the culture of the United States of America on each of the four dimensions described above. His research categorized 50 countries and 3 regions in total. We have used those classifications to compare the two cultures within our sample.

Comparing Philippine and United States of America Cultures For the power distance dimension, the Philippines ranked 4 with a score of 94. The United States ranked 38th, with a score of 40. 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, 1991). Compared to other countries, the Philippines scores very high while the United States scores moderate on this dimension. Given these kind of differences, we felt that this was significant and warranted the inclusion of the power distance dimension in our testing.

For the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, the Philippines ranked 44, with a score of 44. The United States ranked 43rd, with a score of 46. 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. The Philippines and the United States both scored at the moderate level on the uncertainty avoidance dimension. Given the lack of significant differences, we felt that this did not warrant including the uncertainty avoidance dimension in our testing. For the dimension of individualism, the Philippines ranked 31, with a score of 32. The United States ranked 1st, with a score of 91. 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. The United States scored extremely high on the individualism dimension, actually, the highest of those cultures studied by Hofstede (1991); while the Philippines scored moderate on the individualism dimension, being more a of a collectivistic culture. A collectivistic culture tends to emphasize filial piety, mutual obligations, and concern for the needs of the group before those of oneself. We felt that these kind of differences, as measured by the individualism dimension, may be significant enough to warrant inclusion in our testing. For the dimension of masculinity, the Philippines ranked 11/12 (scores that are tied result in a split ranking) with a score of 64. The United States ranked 15th, with a score of 62. 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. The United States ranks on the higher end of the masculinity dimension compared to Turkey (Hofstede, 1991). We felt that this kind of small difference between these two cultures, as measured by the masculinity dimension, was not significant enough to warrant inclusion in our testing.

Whistle blowing When attempting to explain or predict whistle blowing, a number of issues are of interest. To begin with, individual and organizational tendencies to whistle blow may lead to an increased tendency to whistle blow are important ( Keenan, 2000, 1995, 1990; McLain & Keenan, 1999; Miceli and Near, 1992; Sims and Keenan, 1998). Tendencies to blow the whistle is a measurement of how positively whistle blowing is considered. That is, whether the individual or organization considers whistle blowing as the right thing to do. Positive attitudes toward whistle blowing may help to predict or explain whistle-blowing behavior. We propose individual and organizational tendencies to whistle blow may be influenced by the cultural dimensions of individualism (the expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only) and power distance (the degree to which employees feel comfortable approaching or contradicting supervisors). Given the differences between the United States and Philippine cultures on the individualism and power distance dimensions, we have included both in our tests. The United States sample scored higher than the Philippine 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 Philippine sample will be less disposed to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow, because the Philippine respondents are less likely to challenge the established authority patterns governing their behavior. Given these two countervailing cultural influences, we expect that there will be no significant differences between Philippine managers and United States managers with respect to (a) an individual tendency to whistleblow, and (b) an organizational tendency to whistleblow. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis one: There will no significant differences between the United States managers, compared to Philippine managers, with respect to: (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. Individual differences in the judgement of the severity of situations may lead to an increased or decreased tendency to blow the whistleblow. We propose that this moral perception of ethical behavior may be influenced by the cultural dimensions of individualism (the expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only). 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 Philippine sample will perceive wrongdoing as more severe, because they are more collective, looking out for the

10

larger group. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed: Hypothesis two: Philippine managers will have more strongly 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 fear of retaliation for whistleblowing may be influenced by the cultural dimension of power distance. Because the Philippine 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. We thus expect United States managers will report less fear of retaliation. Thus, we propose: Hypothesis three: The United States managers will report less fear of retaliation for whistleblowing than Philippine managers. The expressed likelihood to whistleblow may be helpful in our understanding and prediction of whistleblowing (Keenan, 1995). We suggest that expressed likelihood to whistleblow may be influenced by both the individual and power distance cultural dimensions; individualism (the expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only), and power distance (the degree to which employees feel comfortable approaching or contradicting supervisors). 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 position. On the other hand, the

11

individualism dimension suggests that the Philippine 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. Given these conflicting cultural dimensions, we therefore propose no differences between the two groups in likelihood of blowing the whistle The following hypothesis is therefore proposed: Hypothesis four: There is no significant difference between United States and Philippine managers in expressed likelihood of blowing the whistle.

METHODOLOGY Subjects The populations for this study were managers in small to mid-size firms in the U.S. and comparatively larger firms in the Philippines. 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 Philippine sample consisted of 110 managers. They had worked for their firm for an average of nearly 18 years and had spent 15 years in their current position. Their companies employed an average of 251 employees. Seventy three percent of U.S. managers were male compared with 47% of Philippine managers. Descriptive statistics are presented in table 1. Precautions were taken to ensure confidentiality. Measures The questionnaire included items that measured managers' opinions and perceptions

12

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 Table 1: Demographic Characteristics Average (std. dev) Philippines (n=110)

Variable Age Job Tenure Organizational tenure Number of Employees Gender - Percentage male

U.S. (n=186)

46.42 (25.97) 44.74 (14.27) 15.15 (32.31) 6.74 (14.56) 17.65 (30.42) 13.92 (16.39) 251.2 (376,92) 119.03 (232.51) 47% 73%

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 concerned issues related to the likelihood one would report various kinds of wrongdoing, organizational policies and practices, individual perceptions and attitudes toward whistleblowing, and 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 There was a total of nine scales used in this study. These included scales to measure: moral perceptions of major fraud (3 items), minor fraud (3 items), and harm to others (3 items); the degree of likelihood of blowing the whistle on major fraud (3 items), minor fraud (4 items), and harm to others (3 items); organizational propensity for whistleblowing (3 items); individual

13

propensity for whistleblowing ( 6 items); and 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, 2000, 1999, 1995). The reliability estimates for both the United States and Singapore 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: "Thou shalt not be reimbursed for alcoholic beverages." 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

14

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. 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. RESULTS Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for variables explored for both Philippine 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 Philippine samples to examine the differences between these two groups. Hypothesis 1 proposed that there would be no differences between the United States managers, compared to Philippine managers, with respect to both individual and organizational

15

tendency to whistleblow. The results do not support this hypothesis indicating that Philippine managers have a significantly stronger individual tendency to whistleblow (t = -2.36 , p > 0.05), as well as a stronger organizational tendency to whistleblow (t = -3.64, p > 0.05).

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and t-tests Philippines (n=110) Mean s.d.Alpha tvalue Alpha

Variable

U. S. (n=186) Mean s.d.

Individual propensity Organizational propensity Moral perceptions Against major fraud Against minor fraud Against harm to others Fear of retaliation Likelihood to whistle blow Major fraud Minor fraud Harm to others

4.63 4.30 4.31 3.84 4.33 2.47 4.53 4.12 4.27 * p < .05

0 .61 0.59 1.17 1.20 1.24 1.11 1.15 1.05 1.14

0.84 0.28 0.76 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.94 0.88 0.90

4.46 4.01 4.31 3.22 4.55 2.26 4.69 3.78 4.57

0.61 0.70 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.78 0.52 0.82 0.72

0.78 0.66 0.31 0.69 0.88 0.70 0.71 0.80 0.79

-2.36* -3.64* 0.22 -5.29* 1.83 -1.93* 1.66 -3.11* 2.79*

Hypothesis 2 proposed that Philippine managers will have more strongly expressed perception of wrongdoing than United States managers. The results partially support this hypothesis. For one of the three measures of moral perception (minor fraud), the Philippine managers reported significantly higher scores than the United States managers (t = -5.29, p < 0.05). For the other two measures (major fraud and harm to others), there were no differences between the two cultures.

16

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the United States managers will report less fear of retaliation for whistleblowing than Philippine managers. The results support this hypothesis (t = -1.93, p > .05). Hypothesis 4 proposed that there would be no significant difference between United States and Philippine managers in expressed likelihood of blowing the whistle. The results partially support this hypothesis. There was not significant difference between US managers and Philippine managers with respect to likelihood to blow the whistle on major fraud. On the other hand, there were significant differences between the groups on the other two variables. For example, Philippine managers, compared to their United States counterparts, were much more likely to blow the whistle on minor fraud (t = -3.11, p < 0.05). On the other hand, United States managers were more likely to blow the whistle on harm to others ( t= 2.79, p < 0.051). DISCUSSION Our findings for hypothesis one do not support our proposition that there would be no significant differences between the U.S. and Philippine respondents with respect to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow. The Hofstedes individualism dimension suggests that the Philippine sample would be more disposed to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow. Cultures scoring low in the individualism dimension are classified as collective. 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 Philippine 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 Philippine sample will

17

be less disposed to both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow; because the Philippine respondents are less likely to speak up to their supervisors and challenge the established authority patterns governing their behavior. Given these countervailing dispositions, it was expected that there would be no differences between the two groups. Apparently, there is a stronger tendency in the Philippine culture on the part of responsibility felt to the welfare of the collective whole that outweighed power distance tendencies on both individual and organizational tendencies to whistleblow. When testing hypothesis two, our results indicated that the Philippine sample expressed more severe perceptions for wrongdoing classified as minor, less serious forms of fraud, but not with respect to major fraud or harm to others forms of wrongdoing. These results might relate to the collectivistic quality of the Philippine culture. Unlike the United States, which has a strong individualistic culture that supports an expectation that the individual will look out for him/herself only, the Philippine culture emphasis looking out for the welfare of the collective whole first. Thus there might be a tendency to feel that wrongdoings, even of a less serious nature, are cause for concern since they are seen as violating the welfare and well being of the group. Another possible factor related to this is the dimension of short versus long term orientation. Philippine culture tends to be short-term whereas the United States culture might be viewed as comparatively more long-term. In short-term orientations, individuals are expected to keep face, respect tradition, and reciprocate for gifts, favors, and greetings. When violations of a less serious order occur, the Philippine managers feel more strongly about the perceived negative outcomes experienced by violating these understandings and traditions of reciprocation and concern for the welfare of the group.

18

Hypothesis three proposed that there would be significant differences between the United States sample and the Philippine sample on expressed fear of retaliation for whistleblowing. This expectation of differences was based upon the cultural dimension of power distance. Because the Philippine 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. Our results support this expectation. We tested expressed likelihood to whistleblow in hypothesis four. Expressed likelihood was measured for major fraud, minor fraud, and harm to others. We proposed that there would be no significant differences between the United States sample and the Philippine sample for expressed likelihood to whistleblow. This expectation was based upon the countervailing cultural dimensions of individualism and power distance. The individualism dimension suggests that the Philippine 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 Philippine sample will be less likely to blow the whistle than the United States sample because they tend to defer to those in authority positions, tend not to approach their supervisors, and hesitate to take actions themselves (Hofstede, 19991). Our findings indicate the Philippine managers feel more comfortable in speaking out about minor, less serious forms of wrongdoing than their American counterparts. Thus the cultural dimension of collectivism appears to have more strongly affected them to whistleblow against minor wrongdoing than the power distance dimension. On the other hand, the United States managers greater likelihood to blow the whistle on harm to others wrongdoing, perhaps is

19

indicative of Americans concern with human rights and workplace safety. Limitations and Implications For the Study Hofstede=s (1991) 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 never the less provide insight. We recognize that the direct measurement of actual whistleblowing behavior may be the best way to understand or explain whistleblowing tendencies; however this is often not realistic in social science research. In addition, waiting for a behavior to occur does little for any predictive benefit, which might be gained from advanced knowledge. Asking respondents how they would respond in a given situation is commonly used as a poor (but never-the-less measurable in advanced) 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 Philippine and United States managers. Lastly, as Philippine and United States companies become increasingly diverse, more research attention is clearly warranted on studying whistleblowing across cultures and across nations. We 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.

20

REFERENCES Adler, N. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8(2):226-232. Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 8:1-52, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. 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., & 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.

21

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, Mexico. 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, (pp. 368-371, Washington D.C. Keenan, J. P. And Xin, K. (1999). Comparing Chinese and American managers on whistle blowing: An exploratory study and evaluation. In D.K. Despotis and C. Zopounidis (Eds.), Decision Sciences Institute 5th International; Conference Proceedings, (pp. 736-739), Athens, Greece. Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Vol. 7(1). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 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 whistle blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267-281. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. New York: Lexington Books. Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistle blowing: Organizational and interpersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics. 17: 411-421. Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of managers whistle blowing tendencies. International Journal of Values-Based Management, 12:137-151. United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). (1981), Whistleblowing and the Federal employee. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

22

Wines, W. A. & Napier, N. K. (1992). Toward an understanding of cross-cultural ethics: A tentative model. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:831-842.

23