Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Work and Occupations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MICELI, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by RYAN, K. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Can Laws Protect Whistle-Blowers?

Results of a Naturally Occurring Field Experiment

MARCIA P. MICELI

Georgetown University

MICHAEL REHG

Air Force Institute of Technology

JANET P. NEAR

KATHERINE C. RYAN

Indiana University

Data collected over three time periods, from 1980 to 1992, show massive changes in the ways in which federal employees reported wrongdoing and the effects on them for having done so. Laws intended to encourage whistle-blowing seem to have two desired effects: to reduce the incidence of perceived wrongdoing and to increase the likelihood of whistle-blowing. However, two unintended effects are also observed: perceived retaliation increased and whistle-blowers increasingly sought anonymity. The basic model predicting retaliation is essentially the same in the three time periods in which data were collected. Implications for research, practice, and the design of future legislation are discussed.

Work and Occupations, Vol. 26, No. 1, 129-151 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0730888499026001007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Review of Public Personnel AdministrationHome page
J. P. Near and M. P. Miceli
Wrongdoing, Whistle-Blowing, and Retaliation in the U.S. Government: What Have Researchers Learned From the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Survey Results?
Review of Public Personnel Administration, September 1, 2008; 28(3): 263 - 281.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management EducationHome page
D. R. Comer and G. Vega
Unsavory Problems at Tasty's: A Role-Play about Whistle-Blowing
Journal of Management Education, February 1, 2006; 30(1): 251 - 269.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management InquiryHome page
M. P. Miceli
Whistle-Blowing Research and The Insider: Lessons Learned and Yet to Be Learned
Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2004; 13(4): 364 - 366.
[PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
J.-Y. Lee, S. G. Heilmann, and J. P. Near
Blowing the Whistle on Sexual Harassment: Test of a Model of Predictors and Outcomes
Human Relations, March 1, 2004; 57(3): 297 - 322.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
M. P. Miceli and J. P. Near
What Makes Whistle-Blowers Effective? Three Field Studies
Human Relations, April 1, 2002; 55(4): 455 - 479.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
G. N. Powell
Workplace Romances between Senior- Level Executives and Lower-Level Employees: An Issue of Work Disruption and Gender
Human Relations, November 1, 2001; 54(11): 1519 - 1544.
[Abstract] [PDF]