This chapter examined the unique role of managers in relation to their support for whistleblowing as well as whether that support was conditional on their levels of job satisfaction. The results reveal a relatively consistent set of findings in relation to comparisons between managers and non-managers. Managers tend to have a much greater stake in their workplaces. They reveal higher levels of organisational affiliation in terms of organisational citizenship, trust in management and job satisfaction. At the same time, they appear to have a stronger recognition of the value of whistleblowing in the workplace.

An additional part of the analysis involved assessing independently whether job satisfaction was related to whistleblower support. The results show that respondents with the highest level of job satisfaction tend to also have the highest degree of support for whistleblowing, as well as the highest scores for other organisational variables. Given the salience of job satisfaction, comparisons were conducted to assess whether managerial support for whistleblowing was a function of levels of job satisfaction. The results reveal that job satisfaction was a salient facilitating factor of support for whistleblowing, as well as reported knowledge of reporting procedures. The findings therefore illustrate how experiences at work, in terms of whether one is satisfied or not, can lead to various tangible benefits across organisations. One of the hidden benefits for satisfied employees, regardless of their managerial status, is that they demonstrate much greater awareness of and competency towards whistleblowing.

This observation was largely reinforced in the multivariate analyses that revealed that being a manager increased the probability of support for whistleblowing net of various demographic and organisational influences. In short, over and above the role of organisational climate influences, it is clear that managers have a unique role to play in encouraging whistleblowing, even if this role is also often complex.

These results illuminate a suite of implications for managing whistleblowing in public sector organisations. The findings illustrate that managers are very well placed to materially affect their work environments. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, managers are crucial for providing a professional and productive work setting. Unfortunately, however, there are numerous examples whereby managerial competence is stretched and workplace experiences begin to unravel. In such settings, employee morale and concerns about fair work and decision making might no longer take priority (Byrne 2005). The results suggest that a concerted effort is needed if the potential contribution of good management cultures and styles to the productive management of whistleblowing is to be maximised.

Underscoring the potential for maximising the generally positive culture of management in the agencies studied is the evidence in the final part of the chapter that managers are far less certain about rights and obligations relevant to their own role in respect of real whistleblowing incidents. There are strong signs that managers themselves recognise the need to close the gaps between broad principle and practical realities. How this might be done becomes a question of agency systems and procedures, building on the general support for whistleblowing that has been found among individual managers. The environment exists for the development of better systems and procedures. This fact reinforces the imperatives that can now be more clearly identified for doing so, based on the current standard of systems and procedures described in subsequent chapters.

The current research is not without limitations. In addition to some of the methodological constraints outlined in Chapter 1, the findings presented illustrate the need to conduct further, more fine-grained analyses. The findings suggest that many of the relationships between managers and whistleblower support and commitment are complex and various organisational context variables (for example, citizenship, loyalty, and so on) need to be further explored to assess the interactive or multiplicative influences. Additionally, the specific attributes of managers need to be further considered. Managers are clearly not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ category. Further analysis will need to explore a range of competencies as well as the possible relationship to gender and age to more fully consider the full range of influences that affect managers in their responses to and handling of whistleblowing. At the same time, a host of organisational context variables needs consideration. For example, there is reason to believe that organisational size can be a salient influence on job satisfaction and whistleblower support. Further analysis is needed to explore these issues in greater detail in a concerted attempt to understand the unique role of managers in handling whistleblowing in public sector organisations.

In summary, the findings from this research point to more effective strategies for promoting the importance of whistleblowing as well as the knowledge required to advance whistleblowing management practice. Strategies to promote an effective organisational climate appear salient to the extent that they facilitate job satisfaction among employees. Uncovering the key ingredients for facilitating job satisfaction for managers and non-managers alike provides the added benefits of there being more direct impact on the overall organisational health across public sector agencies. These results strengthen the evidence that whistleblowing is often recognised as necessary and even healthy in organisations and confirms the potential for building stronger systems for ensuring that the incidence of unfair treatment of whistleblowers is minimised. Perhaps most importantly, these results suggest that by investing in the job satisfaction of managers, as well as by promoting greater awareness among managers of their whistleblowing reporting obligations and procedures, organisations can do a great deal to reduce the risks of some of the outcomes described in earlier chapters, and increase the prospects of the whistleblowing process being handled well.