Results for demographic data are summarised in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. As shown in Table 3.1, age, tenure in the public sector and tenure in the current organisation significantly discriminated among the three groups. In discussing these and subsequent results, most attention is given to the comparison between non-role reporters and the other two groups, since non-role reporters are closest to the traditional notion of ‘whistleblowers’. Accordingly, on average, those who reported outside their role:

Other demographic variables are shown in Table 3.2. Note that because of the nature of these data (categorical rather than continuous), it is not possible to conduct direct comparisons between each group, as was done for Table 3.1. The statistical analysis examines the overall significant difference in the variables shown, although, exercising caution, it is possible to make some inferences about where the difference lies among the various groups. For ease of interpretation, variables for which there were more than two categories (for example, level of education) were collapsed into two categories. There were overall significant differences for gender, role in the organisation, employment status, language and work-unit size. Employees who reported outside their role:

It should be noted that a number of these variables are likely to be interrelated. Age, tenure in the public sector, tenure in the current organisation, role in the organisation, employment status and salary are all potentially related in varying degrees to respondents’ seniority in the organisation. For example, managers are likely to be permanent employees, be older and earn more than others.

Our main interest is in identifying how employees who reported outside their role differed from the other two groups. There are major differences between non-role reporters and role reporters. In general, role reporters are more likely to have the cluster of characteristics associated with seniority. This is hardly surprising given that, by definition, many role reporters are in supervisory positions over other staff. Role reporters are also less likely to be female, which again probably reflects the lack of women in supervisory roles.

Of more interest is the comparison between non-role reporters and non-reporters; here, the differences are less extreme. In general, there is a tendency for non-role reporters to possess more seniority characteristics than non-reporters. Even though this seniority was not directly related to their reporting behaviour (inasmuch as it was not clear that they reported because of their role), it could be that seniority gave them greater confidence to report or more extensive knowledge of reporting procedures. The finding for gender is more interesting. Women, if they have direct evidence of wrongdoing, are proportionately more likely to report outside their role than are men. At this stage, we can only speculate on the reasons. Perhaps women have a greater sense of duty or they could have higher reporting rates because they are less inclined to deal with the matter themselves.

Finally, it is worth noting variables for which there are no significant differences among groups. We found no evidence that reporting behaviour varied for Indigenous cultural background, union membership, level of education or work location (urban/rural).

The employee survey contained a number of standardised scales, as well as items written for this study. Scales are described in Table 3.3, beginning with measures of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) introduced in Chapter 1. All items in each scale run from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘5 = strongly agree’. Alpha (α) levels describe the degree of internal consistency of each scale—that is, the extent to which each item in the scale contributes to the overall construct (they all measure the same thing). Possible values run from 0 to 1 and any score above 0.7 is considered satisfactory. On this basis, all scales with the exception of the ‘personal industry’ subscale can be considered to have good internal consistency, and ‘personal industry’ is sufficiently close to the criterion to proceed with its use in a research context.

Results of the analyses comparing the three employee groups with respect to these scales are shown in Table 3.4. There were significant differences on most scales (with the exception of ‘personal industry’), although the pattern of significance between particular groups varied. It was found that, on average, employees who reported outside their role:

Overall, the differences between non-role reporters and role reporters were greater than between non-role reporters and non-reporters. In either case, however, the differences between the groups were small. When sample sizes are large, such as in the present study, relatively minor differences can show up as being statistically significant. Caution needs to be exercised, therefore, when interpreting the results. For example, while non-role reporters were found to have significantly higher levels of ‘interpersonal helping’ than non-reporters, the difference was just 0.1 on a five-point scale (a 2 per cent variation). While there is therefore a statistical difference, from a practical point of view, not too much should be read into the finding.

With this caveat in mind, some tentative conclusions can be drawn. Looking first at the comparison between non-role reporters and role reporters, role reporters were more positive in their attitudes than non-role reporters on eight of the 10 scales (the exceptions being ‘personal industry’ and ‘interpersonal helping’). As with the demographic data, these findings might be expected given the more senior position that role reporters typically hold.

For the non-role reporters versus non-reporters comparison, there are differences on seven scales (not ‘personal industry’, ‘loyal boosterism’ and ‘organisational propensity to whistleblow’) and, as noted, these differences are small. On the whole, employees who report outside their role see themselves as more dedicated corporate citizens than employees who do not report. This suggests that at least some of the motivation to report wrongdoing comes from a greater commitment to pro-social organisational behaviour and a belief that reporting is for the good of the organisation. As one might expect, these employees are also more positive towards whistleblowing. They are, however, slightly less positive towards their job, the whistleblowing legislation and the likely management response to whistleblowing and they are marginally less trusting in the management team than are non-reporters.

One problem with interpreting these results is that the directions of these effects are a matter of speculation. For example, it is not clear whether less trust in the management team encourages employees to report wrongdoing or whether the experience of reporting wrongdoing makes employees less trusting of the management team. The second of these possibilities seems the most likely, as further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

In addition, when interpreting the results, it needs to be borne in mind that, in absolute terms, none of the groups responded negatively on any scale. The lowest mean score was 3.1, which was just on the positive side of the scale midpoint (‘neither agree nor disagree’). All other scores were positive. For example, therefore, when it was reported that non-role reporters had lower ‘trust in management’, this must be interpreted in relative terms.

Leaving aside employees whose role includes reporting the wrongdoing, these findings indicate a number of personal differences between employees who have direct evidence of wrongdoing and who do not report it and those with direct evidence who do report. Non-role reporters are less senior and more likely to be female than non-reporters. They are also more likely to have somewhat more positive views with regard to their level of organisational citizenship and whistleblowing generally, but somewhat more negative views of management and the whistleblowing legislation. Together, these results give a picture of whistleblowers as possessing stronger personal motivations to report wrongdoing, but also as being more cynical about the process of reporting. Still, these differences are small and absolute scores are mostly positive.

There is little in the findings to support either of the main stereotypes that might justify attempts to develop a predictive model of whistleblowing, based on personal characteristics. While there is some evidence that reporters either begin or end the process with views consistent with higher organisational citizenship, overall there is little to differentiate them from the larger number of employees who elect not to report. For example, there was no significant difference between the reporters and non-reporters on the ‘personal industry’ scale—the main measure of perceived diligence. There is even less evidence to support a view of whistleblowers as predisposed to conflict—for example, because they are disgruntled and embittered employees, driven to report by perverse personal characteristics. This being the case, there are good reasons to believe that explanations for variations in reporting behaviour are more likely to lie outside the individual in other circumstances, such as the characteristics of the wrongdoing itself.