Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of...

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploringthe role of personality as an antecedent ofwhistleblowing behaviour

Brita Bjørkelo*, Stale Einarsen and Stig Berge MatthiesenDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway

This paper reports on the role of personality as an antecedent of proactive behaviour atwork in the form of whistleblowing. In the interest of triangulation, two studies wereused, along with two personality measures. The results of Study 1, conducted among503 municipality employees, show that the NEO Five-Factor Inventory dimensions ofextraversion and agreeableness are significantly associated with whistleblowing, withodds ratios of 1.13 and 0.91, respectively. The result from Study 2, conducted among arepresentative sample of employees, shows that the circumplex of interpersonalproblems dimension domineering was significantly associated with whistleblowing, withan odds ratio of 1.66. The results suggest that personality, in the form of highextraversion and dominance and low agreeableness, do play a role as antecedents ofwhistleblowing.

Organizations aim to prosper while producing and delivering high-quality merchandizeand services. One way to achieve this is by recruiting employees who display

characteristics associated with high job performance (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski,

2002; Motowidlo, 2003). It is therefore always of interest to organizations and society to

learn more about how to increase proactivity and initiative at work, while also reducing

passive attitudes and deviant or overly compliant behaviour.

The dynamic between active and passive behaviour is especially evident when it

comes to how employees respond to wrongdoing at work. Whistleblowing is behaviour

that is characterized not only by intent but also by action when employees areconfronted with organizational wrongdoing (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Personality is

assumed to be one reason why some employees are more inclined than others to engage

in whistleblowing behaviour and initiate actions aimed at solving organizational

challenges (Miceli, 2004). If there are differences that characterize whistleblowers, then

they should be recognizable in individual traits. The main objective of the research

presented here is to investigate the role of personality in relation to proactive behaviour

* Correspondence should be addressed to Brita Bjørkelo, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway (e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

371

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 371–394

q 2010 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/096317910X486385


in the form of whistleblowing, employing two standardized measures of personality and

two comprehensive survey studies.

Proactive behaviourProactivity at work is generally characterized by initiative, such as performing a task

without being asked to do so, assertiveness, which can be described as solving a

potential problem by taking charge such as reporting problematic events, and as taking

charge in general (Crant, 2000; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The notion of proactive

behaviour evolved from the theoretical framework of social interactionism that holds

that ‘behaviour is both internally and externally controlled, and situations are as much a

function of persons as vice versa’ (Bateman & Crant, 1993, p. 104). According to

Bateman and Crant, employees influence their environments in a number of ways,including selecting which situations to participate in, cognitive restructuring of how to

perceive or interpret one’s environment, unintentional evocation, and intentional

efforts to manipulate a situation. In essence, proactive behaviour concerns how

employees, through intent and action, change an existing social or non-social situation

(Bateman & Crant, 1993).

Proactivity, which includes terms such as taking charge (Moon, Kamdar, Mayer,

& Takeuchi, 2008; Morrison & Phelps, 1999), prosocial rule breaking (Morrison,

2006), and voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), can be conceptualized as anticipatoryaction performed by employees in order to effect change on themselves and/or

their environments (Grant & Ashford, 2008). A common feature of this behaviour

is that it shares a focus on ‘addressing or solving problems by stepping outside of

the boundaries of their job’ (Morrison, 2006, p. 8), which is usually described

as extra-role behaviours (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). However, none of

these proactive behaviours specifically addresses the dynamic between actively

initiating behaviour and passive and negligent behaviour in situations in which

an employee is confronted with wrongdoing at work. Whistleblowing is usuallydefined as ‘the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal,

immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or

organizations that may be able to effect action’ (Near & Miceli, 1985, p. 4). Therefore,

in relation to passive versus active behaviour, whistleblowing has a unique position

among proactive behaviours.

Whistleblowing has been specifically linked to the proactive behaviour ‘voice’

(see e.g., Miceli & Near, 1992; Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). In its original form, the

term ‘voice’ relates to ‘any attempt at all to change, rather than to escape from, anobjectionable state of affairs’ (Hirschman, 1970, p. 30). The proactive notion of ‘voice’

usually distinguishes between two ways employees may attempt to make a change;

actions that are taken to encourage something to happen (promotive ‘voice’), and

actions that encourages some type of practice to stop, which has been labelled

prohibitive ‘voice’ (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). According to Le Pine and Van Dyne,

whistleblowing may be defined as one form of prohibitive ‘voice’ as it may be perceived

as critical and aimed at terminating wrongdoing. However, as voice in the form of raising

concern about issues that may be improved is essential for organizational democracy(Rank, 2009), whistleblowing may also be promotive, as employees may warn their

leaders of potential harm (Miceli & Near, 1994).

From an organizational point of view, whistleblowing is a proactive behaviour in that

the employee acts based on a sense of moral or justice, and takes steps to terminate

372 Brita Bjørkelo et al.


wrongdoing, often irrespective of fear of retaliation in a situation where few other

organization members act. Due to the economical and human costs associated with

organizational wrongdoing, such as unethical treatment of personnel, sexual

harassment, and fraud, corporations are dependent on employees that take charge

when most others stay passive (Miceli & Near, 2007; Near & Miceli, 2008). Along these

lines, whistleblowing is a type of proactive behaviour which perhaps is ‘more importantthan ever before’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, p. 5). Rank (2009) states that ‘uncritical

reliance on habitual routines, usually established by members of the majority, likely

stifles proactivity’ (p. 201). Whistleblowers however, perform proactive behaviour in

that they display self-starting, forward looking, and active initiatives to effect change in

matters that may be unknown to the employer. Thus, in the long run, whistleblowing

may influence organizational performance, as it warns of potential pitfalls, and may

prevent loss of public standing and reputation, as well as the cost of a law suit or other

kinds of financial problems.

Individual differencesAlthough whistleblowing may have potential positive consequences for organizations,

many organization members, at least those not role prescribed to act, seem to stay

passive when confronted with organizational malpractice (Miceli et al., 2008). However,

even though the role of individual differences, such as the link between personality inrelation to whistleblowing behaviour has been raised (Miceli & Near, 2005; Miceli et al.,

2008; Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2009; Miceli, Van Scotter, Near, & Rehg, 2001), very few

have empirically investigated this issue.

If it is the case that there are certain characteristics associated with the active

initiating behaviour of whistleblowing, then these are most likely to be seen in

personality tests. While one study investigating whistleblowing intent among 98

respondents did not find any link between whistleblowing and three indicators of

personality: compliance with supervisors wishes, submissiveness to organizationalauthority, and a measure of self-righteousness (McCutcheon, 2000). Others have found a

positive interconnection between proactive personality, indicated by a higher level of

conscientiousness and extroversion as compared with the non-whistleblowing

counterparts, and whistleblowing behaviour (Miceli, Van Scotter, Near, & Rehg,

2001b, cited in Miceli & Near, 2005). One of the reasons why the link between

personality and whistleblowing has been difficult to detect empirically may due to that

earlier studies, have consisted of small samples (McCutcheon, 2000), and to minor

extent have applied validated measures of personality. Thus, studies that apply largersamples and standardized personality tests are needed. Two of the main models of

personality, which also may be seen as complementary, are the five-factor model and the

interpersonal model of personality (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). This study will apply

measures of these two main personality models to hypothesize, and later test, the role of

personality in relation to whistleblowing, employing two large samples.

The five-factor model of personalityAccording to the five-factor model, an individual’s personality consists of five general

dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). These dimensions are seen as

Personality and proactive behaviour 373


deep-rooted traits in an individual’s personality, affecting behaviour, and performance of

many kinds and in a range of situations (Pervin & John, 1997).

The first dimension, neuroticism, is described as the tendency to experience

distressing emotions including shame, anger, anxiety, and depression (Costa et al., 2001).

As neuroticism concerns psychological problems, it is generally correlated with negative

affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1997). Previous studies have shown that employees whohave observed wrongdoing report high scores on negative affectivity (Miceli et al., 2001b,

referred to in Miceli et al., 2008). On the other hand, the whistleblowing-related

behaviour voice is negatively related to neuroticism (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).

Hypothesis 1a: Neuroticism is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The second dimension, extraversion, is described as the tendency to be sociable,

talkative, cheerful and optimistic (Costa et al., 2001). Individuals high on extraversionwelcome change and excitement (Watson & Clark, 1997). According to Watson and

Clark, extraverts are confident and persuasive in social interaction. Extraversion also

taps into positive emotionality (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). Extraversion can

consist of two schemes: surgency, which relates to status, and sociability, which

corresponds to issues of popularity; they resemble the major dimensions of dominance

and nurturance in the interpersonal theory of personality (cf. Watson & Clark, 1997).

However, as these two schemes share common features, Watson and Clark argue that

extraversion is most often treated as one construct within the five-factor model.Previous studies have shown that both whistleblowing and voice are positively

associated with extraversion (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Miceli & Near, 2005).

Hypothesis 1b: Extraversion is positively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

Openness to experience, the third dimension, concerns the tendency to have broad

areas of interest and to being highly imaginative (Furnham, 2008), as well as ‘seeing

possibilities that others miss’ (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 825). According to Furnham, an

individual with high openness to experience is described as curious, easily bored, andless rule bound. A low or average score on the other hand indicates an individual who is

down to earth, traditional, practical and who seeks balance (Furnham, 2008). Case

studies (Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008) and descriptions (Glazer, 1983)

of whistleblowers indicate that these individuals may be less curious and more rule

bound (low in openness) than easily bored and driven by the search for novelty (high in

openness). However, previous studies have shown that openness to experience is

unrelated to voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). This unrelated association is not testable;

it is however assumed that openness to experience is unrelated to whistleblowing.Agreeableness, the fourth dimension, characterizes social interest in the form of

identification with others, empathy, selflessness, and cooperation (Graziano &

Eisenberg, 1997). These traits have previously been linked to the interpersonal model

of personality and to the dimension that concerns love and hate (Digman & Inouye,

1986), nurturance (Pincus, Gurtman, & Ruiz, 1998). In whistleblowing cases, individual

employees may be confronted with a situation in which a superior states that all ethical

considerations have been taken into account in an ongoing project, while, in practice,

he or she perceives or learns about actual unethical patient care or concealed fraud(Bakan, 2004; Bolsin, 1998; Rost, 2006; Soussan, 2008). In such a scenario, high

agreeableness may indicate an individual who does not want to jeopardize his or her

relationships, while low agreeableness is an indication that action could be taken.



Previous studies have shown agreeableness to be negatively associated with voice

(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).

Hypothesis 1c: Agreeableness is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The fifth dimension, conscientiousness, can be described as the tendency to beresponsible, achievement oriented, and persistent (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). At

one extreme, conscientiousness implies being ‘a stickler for rules’, an individual who

cannot ‘bend’ to new rules when the situation, the system or the times change, as was

evident in the Leonard case described by Brodsky (1976). At the other end of the scale,

conscientiousness can instead be the tendency to be an active and responsible

employee who takes charge when problems arise. Whistleblowers are individuals who

must be able to proceed with their intent about reporting perceived wrongdoing. These

individuals may therefore be characterized by high conscientiousness. Preliminaryempirical evidence suggests that conscientiousness is positively associated with

employee voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).

Hypothesis 1d: Conscientiousness is positively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The interpersonal theory of personalityAccording to Wiggins (1979), it is one thing to know how people differ from each other,and another to know what they do to each other. The interpersonal theory of

personality (McCrae & Costa, 1989; Sullivan, 1953) therefore complements the five-

factor model of personality (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). The traits extraversion,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness all have strong social components which play out

in social situations (Larsen & Buss, 2008; Matthews et al., 2003). Thus, while the five-

factor model concerns how an individual may be characterized according to five broad

personality dimensions, the interpersonal perspective deals with how individual

differences play out in social interactions. Interpersonal style can be assessed on theeight dimensions: domineering, vindictiveness, being cold, socially avoidant, non-

assertive, exploitable, overly nurturant, and intrusive, and these dimensions are likely to

vary in terms of severity and breadth, in both clinical and non-clinical populations

(Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990).

The first dimension, domineering, characterizes the tendency to try to change and

control other people (Alden et al., 1990). It is assumed to measure aspects of the same

dimension as extraversion (Kroeck & Brown, 2004; Pincus et al., 1998; Trapnell &

Wiggins, 1990). The act of whistleblowing has been described as a challenging form ofextra role behaviour in that it attempts to ‘prevent or prohibit other behaviours’ (Organ,

1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995, p. 230). Interpersonal dominance may be a prerequisite in

relation to effecting change, as it may enable resistance when superiors or wrongdoers

apply impression-management tactics to discredit the messenger in order to make

the reported wrongdoing appear harmless (Gundlach, Douglas, & Martinko, 2003).

Therefore, it may be the case that whistleblowers are more characterized by dominance

than their non-reporting colleagues.

Hypothesis 2a: Dominance is positively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

Vindictiveness is the second dimension and concerns spitefulness, distrust, feelings

of being too revengeful, and the inability to care about others’ needs (Alden et al., 1990).



According to social psychological theories of prosocial behaviour, whistleblowers are

mostly motivated by a wish to help others (Dozier & Miceli, 1985). It has also been

argued that trust is a predictor of proactive behaviour (Rank, 2009). Studies have shown

that employees who have dared to highlight wrongdoing have often assumed that their

report would be welcomed (Bjørkelo et al., 2008; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999). Based on

the notion that whistleblowers are primarily motivated by prosocial intentions,combined with a general tendency to trust their managers, it is assumed that

whistleblowers are not characterized by an inability to care about others or by distrust.

Hypothesis 2b: Vindictiveness is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The third dimension, being cold, concerns being unable to express affection and love

for others, and having difficulties in committing to others (Alden et al., 1990). As the love–

hate dimension previously has been linked to agreeableness (Digman & Inouye, 1986), anemotionally cold profile may be related to low levels of agreeableness. Generally,

whistleblowers are not characterized by an antisocial motivation associated with a desire

to harm others, but rather by proactive initiative and concern for others (Miceli & Near,

1997; Near & Miceli, 1996). It may however be that some level of interpersonal coldness is

needed in order to be able to effect action. Thus, even though whistleblowers primarily

seem to be motivated by a wish to help others, the act of reporting on a senior

staff member, may play out as emotional coldness in interpersonal interaction.

Hypothesis 2c: Coldness is positively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The fourth dimension, social avoidance, concerns difficulties in maintaining social

contacts, plus feelings of anxiousness, and embarrassment (Alden et al., 1990).

Employees high in social avoidance, who feel awkward in social settings, may be less

likely to report wrongdoing. The part of this dimension that relates to anxiousness may

tap into neuroticism, and also negative affectivity. As mentioned previously, observers of

wrongdoing are characterized by high scores of negative affectivity compared with non-

observers (Miceli et al., 2001b, referred to in Miceli et al., 2008). However, employeeswho not only observe but also report wrongdoing have not previously been described as

socially uncomfortable (Near & Miceli, 1996).

Hypothesis 2d: Social avoidance is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

Non-assertiveness, the fifth dimension, concerns difficulties with being firm and

making one’s needs known to others. It also includes withdrawal from roles of authority

(Alden et al., 1990). Whistleblowers, illustrated here by the case of Tom Bailie who

reported hazards at Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the USA, have described theirexperience in the following manner: ‘What I have to do goes beyond my marriage and

my other family relationships’ (Glazer & Glazer, 1999, p. 282). The decision to go

through with a report requires the ability to make and stick to a decision that,

potentially, goes beyond one’s regular role. It is therefore assumed that potential

whistleblowers who have difficulty being determined and firm are less likely to report

witnessed wrongdoing.

Hypothesis 2e: Non-assertiveness is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The sixth dimension is exploitable. It concerns the tendency to fear that one is

offending others and also includes difficulties relating to feeling and expressing anger



(Alden et al., 1990). Individuals characterized as exploitable are prone to letting

people persuade them too much and to being taken advantage of. Whistleblowers, on

the other hand, have been described as satisfied and valued members of organizations

(Near & Miceli, 1996), something which is not in line with feelings of interpersonal

exploitation.

Hypothesis 2f: Exploitability is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

An individual with a high score on the seventh dimension, being overly nurturant,

feels that they trust, care, and are too generous towards others (Alden et al., 1990). As

stated earlier, this dimension is related to the five-factor dimension of agreeableness

(Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). An individual characterized by a strong tendency to see the

needs of others may be driven by a motivation to secure good interpersonal

relationships with as many people as possible in order not to be perceived as sociallycold. Even though whistleblowers may be characterized as both empathic and caring,

they may be less likely to put the need for secure social relations over the drive to

change an intolerable situation (e.g., violation of ethical standards). As expressed by one

whistleblower: ‘I just hunched my back and heightened my shoulders, and thought:

here comes the storm’ (Bjørkelo et al., 2008, p. 28).

Hypothesis 2g: Nurturance is negatively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

The eighth and final dimension, intrusiveness, concerns interpersonal problems

related to attention seeking and self-disclosure (Alden et al., 1990). According to Alden

and colleagues, this includes feeling that one fools around too much and that one is too

open to people in terms of how much one reveals about oneself in social settings. Taking

the step of reporting wrongdoing is a decision that may be perceived by others as

intrusive. Proactive behaviour in general, and whistleblowing in particular, may elicit

negative reactions from superiors or colleagues because suggestions for change or

improvement may come across as ‘rocking the boat’ (Baer & Frese, 2003; Fine, 2006;Krull, 1996; Near & Miceli, 1986; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999; Sims & Keenan, 1998). In

the classic experiment on group pressure by Solomon Asch, one participant stated that

going against the group left him feeling ‘disturbed, puzzled, separated, like an outcast

from the rest. Every time I disagreed I was beginning to wonder if I wasn’t beginning to

look funny’ (Asch, 1952, p. 465). Whistleblowers are employees that seem to breech

this social psychological ‘barrier’. Thus, it can be assumed that they are characterized by

high scores on the intrusive dimension.

Hypothesis 2h: Intrusiveness is positively related to whistleblowing behaviour.

STUDY 1

Methods

ProcedureData were collected by randomly selecting 1,500 employees out of 17,000 employees

on the payrolls of one of Norway’s largest municipalities. Questionnaires

were distributed through the organization’s internal post, with a response rate of

33.5% (N ¼ 503).



SampleThe mean age in the sample was 45.14 (SD ¼ 10:8) and 70% of the sample were female.

The majority (60%) of the respondents had an educational level equivalent to a college

or university degree (13 years or more), 30% had completed upper secondary school

(up to 12 years), while 10% had completed primary and lower secondary school (up to

9 years). With the exception of women being overrepresented, the demographiccomposition of the sample can be considered representative of the Norwegian public

sector working population (Severinsen & Høstmælingen, 2004). Across the units in the

municipality, almost 47% worked in departments dealing with kindergartens, schools, or

sports, almost 28% worked in healthcare-related positions, almost 16% worked in an

administrative or city council unit, while 2% worked in the culture department, dealing

with structuring, organizing, and financially supporting cultural activities in the

municipality. Some 8% worked in other units.

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA), showed that therewere no significant differences between the units in the municipality regarding age.

A chi-square test for independence showed that there was a significant difference

across units (x2 (4, N ¼ 453Þ ¼ 60:54, p ¼ :001) in that more females worked in the

fields of kindergartens, culture, and health care, while the distribution was more even

in the other units. There were no significant differences across units regarding

whistleblowing.

Measures applied

WhistleblowingWhistleblowing was measured by first presenting employees with the followingdefinition, influenced by the work of Near and Miceli (1985): ‘Whistle-blowing is when

an employee (former or current) that is witnessing or has witnessed an unethical,

illegal or illegitimate practice at work openly (not-anonymous) reports about it to

a person or a body that has the ability to change the practice. Whistleblowing is

not when reporting is done in order to gain personal profit. The person or body

that receives the report may be internal to the organization (for example a leader, safety

deputy, elected employee representative), but may also be an external body or group

of influence (for example the police or other public authorities, media, or anenvironmental organization). Reporting about one’s own exposure to workplace

bullying, is NOT regarded as whistleblowing’.

Response categories following the operational definition were (1) ‘No’, (2) ‘Yes,

on one occasion’, and (3) ‘Yes, on two occasions or more’. Respondents were also

asked about how long it was since they had blown the whistle. Here, response

categories were open-ended and respondents filled in the number of years since they

had blown the whistle. The whistleblowing measure was developed on the basis of

previous whistleblowing research and was administered in Norwegian.

PersonalityPersonality was measured by a Norwegian version of the Neo Five-Factor Inventory

(NEO-FFI; Martinsen, Nordvik, & Østbø, 2005), developed by Costa and McCrae (1992).

The NEO-FFI yields global information about five personality domains and consists of

60 items, where respondents indicate whether or not they agree with a range

of statements about themselves. The first of the five subscales is neuroticism. It includes



12 items with statements such as ‘I often feel inferior to others’ and ‘I often feel helpless

and want someone else to solve my problems’. The extraversion dimension consists of

11 items and includes statements such as ‘I like to have a lot of people around me’ and ‘I

often feel as if I’m bursting with energy’. Openness to experience consists of 12 items

and includes statements such as ‘I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming’ and ‘I often

try new and foreign food’. The agreeableness dimension consists of 12 items andincludes statements such as ‘I would rather cooperate with others than compete with

them’ and ‘I try to be courteous to everyone I meet’. Conscientiousness is measured

using 12 items and includes statements such as ‘I keep my belongings neat and clean’

and ‘I work hard to accomplish my goals’. The NEO-FFI alpha values (Table 1) in this

study were in accordance with the Norwegian norms (Martinsen et al., 2005).

Results

Of the participants that responded to the whistleblowing question (N ¼ 501), 338

employees (67.4%) answered no to the question of whether they had reported in

accordance with the whistleblowing definition presented. Some 69 (13.8%) had blown

the whistle once, whereas 94 employees (18.8%) had blown the whistle twice or more.

Thus, in sum 163 employees (32.6%) reported to have blown the whistle in accordance

with the presented definition. Of the whistleblowers (N ¼ 163), nearly all (97%) had

reported wrongdoing in their current job. The average time since whistleblowing took

place was 2 years (SD ¼ 3:12). An ANOVA showed that there were no significantdifferences between (1) non-whistleblowers, (2) one-time whistleblowers, and (3) two

times or more whistleblowers regarding age. A chi-square test for independence showed

that there was a significant gender difference (x2 (2, N ¼ 497Þ ¼ 6:17, p ¼ :05) in that

females were overrepresented as both non-whistleblowers and one-time whistle-

blowers, while men were overrepresented among whistleblowers who had reported

wrongdoing twice or more.

Preliminary analysesTable 1 presents an overview of the bivariate associations between the five NEO-FFI

dimensions and the whistleblowing variable, including Cronbach’s alpha scores. As

shown, extraversion was the only NEO-FFI dimension that was significantly related to

the whistleblowing variable (.17). The correlation, employing Kendall’s tau correlation

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s product-moment and Kendall’s tau correlations

N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Whistleblowing 503 1.51 0.802. Neuroticism 498 29.47 6.47 2 .06ns (.83)3. Extraversion 498 39.18 5.27 .17* 2 .48* (.78)4. Openness to experience 496 39.23 5.35 .06ns 2 .04ns .17* (.70)5. Agreeableness 498 47.01 4.19 2 .03ns 2 .35* .38* .19* (.68)6. Conscientiousness 498 46.25 4.80 .02ns 2 .40* .37* .11* .51* (.77)

Note. For the ordinal dependent variable, Kendall’s tau correlation was used. Cronbach’s alphacoefficients are presented on the diagonal in parenthesis.

*p , :01 (two-tailed); ns, non-significant.



since whistleblowing is an ordinal variable, was positive, which indicates that high

extraversion is related to more whistleblowing.

Ordinal regressionThe main aim using sample 1, the municipality sample, was to test Hypotheses 1a–1d,

which concern the role of the five NEO-FFI personality dimensions in relation to

whistleblowing. The whistleblowing variable has characteristics that may reflect an

ordinal trend. Thus, a measurement model that acknowledges this, such as an ordinal

regression model (ORM), should be applied when the outcome variable is ordinal (Long

& Freese, 2001), in order to improve the model’s parsimony and power (Agresti, 2002).

To identify the independent variables that were significantly related to the three

whistleblowing categories, ordinal logistic regression models were estimated usingproportional (cumulative) odds models. However, the assumption of the underlying

order of the whistleblowing variable was tested first (Moore, 1999) by running a binary

logistic regression model with the cut-off being never having blown the whistle

(category 1), versus those who had blown the whistle once or more (categories 2 and 3).

Secondly, a binary logistic regression model was run with the cut-off being never having

blown the whistle or having blown the whistle once (categories 1 and 2) versus having

blown the whistle twice or more (category 3). If these two models yield very different

estimates for key parameters then proportional odds models are unlikely to work(L. Moore, personal communication, 12 June 2009). The results showed that the two

models yielded rather similar results, which indicated that a proportional odds model

was likely to work (controlled for age and gender). Hypothesis 1a–1e was then tested in

an ORM procedure.

As presented in Table 2, the dimensions in the NEO-FFI that were significantly related

to whistleblowing (controlled for age and gender) were extraversion (p , :01) and

agreeableness (p , :01). The extraversion odds ratio (OR ¼ 1:13) presented in Table 2

indicates that for every one unit increase, the expected odds increase by 1.13 whenmoving to the next category of whistleblowing. The extraversion 95% confidence

interval ranged from 1.08 to 1.19. The agreeableness odds ratio (OR ¼ 0:91) indicates

that, for every one unit increase, the expected odds decrease by .91 when moving to the

next category of whistleblowing. The agreeableness 95% confidence interval ranged

from 0.87 to 0.97. In sum, the findings from Study 1 showed that the NEO-FFI

personality dimensions of high extraversion and low agreeableness were significantly

associated with whistleblowing with odds ratios of 1.13 and 0.91, respectively.

Table 2. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals for being in a whistleblowing category when

estimated in a proportional odds model

95.0% CI for OR

Variables B SE p OR Lower Upper

Neuroticism 0.01 .02 .70 1.01 0.97 1.04Extraversion 0.13 .02 .00 1.13 1.08 1.19Openness to experience 0.02 .02 .21 1.03 0.99 1.06Agreeableness 20.09 .03 .00 0.91 0.87 0.97Conscientiousness 20.01 .02 .68 1.00 0.94 1.04



Thus, Hypothesis 1b (high extraversion predicts whistleblowing) and Hypothesis 1d

(low agreeableness predicts whistleblowing) were supported, while Hypothesis 1a (low

neuroticism predicts whistleblowing) and Hypothesis 1d (high conscientiousness

predicts whistleblowing) were not supported. As assumed, openness to experience was

unrelated to whistleblowing.

STUDY 2

Methods

ProcedureTo further test the validity and generalizability of the results of Study 1, the findings were

aimed replicated in a second study applying a representative sample and a

complementary measure of personality. Data were collected by randomly selecting a

sample of 4,500 employees from the Norwegian Central Employee Register. This wasdone by Statistics Norway (SSB). Questionnaires were distributed via the Norwegian

postal service with a response rate of 57%. A total of 2,539 questionnaires were

satisfactorily completed and included in this study.

SampleThe mean age was 43.79 (SD ¼ 11:52) and 52% of the sample was female. The majority

had between 11–13 (51%) or 14–17 years (34%) of education. Nearly, 8% had between

18 and 10 years of education, a minority (6%) had up to 10 years of education, while 2%

had more than 20 years of education. With the exception of women being slightly

overrepresented, the demographic composition of the sample may be considered

representative for the Norwegian working population (Høstmark & Lagerstrøm, 2006).

Measures applied

WhistleblowingWhistleblowing was measured by first presenting employees with the following

definition, influenced by the work of Near and Miceli (1985): ‘Whistleblowing describes

situations where an employee (former or current) reports an unethical, illegal or

illegitimate practice at work. The person reports to a person or a body that hasthe ability to change the practice. The person or body that receives the report may

be internal to the organization (for example a leader, safety deputy, elected employee

representative) but may also be an external body (for example the police or other

public authorities, media, environmental organization). Whistleblowing concerns

actions that affect others (individuals, organizations, society). It is not whistleblowing

if one reports injustice towards oneself, if it is done anonymously, in order to gain

personal profit, or if it is conducted through established internal procedures’.

An example of an established internal procedure is the health, safety, and workingenvironment (HSE) system, widely applied in Norwegian working life, to ensure that

general mistakes or deviations from established operating standards are reported (Bull,

Riise, & Moen, 2002). Because whistleblowing procedures were not necessarily

included in such HSE procedures at the time of this study, the operational definition only

included employees who had blown the whistle without applying such ordinary or



standard procedures. Response categories following the operational definition were

(1) ‘No’, (2) ‘Yes, on one occasion’, and (3) ‘Yes, on two occasions or more’.

Respondents were also asked how long it was since they had blown the whistle. Here,

response categories were open ended and respondents filled in the number of years and

months since they had blown the whistle. The whistleblowing measure was developed

on the basis of previous whistleblowing research and was administered in Norwegian.

PersonalityPersonality was measured by the Norwegian version of the Inventory of Interpersonal

Problems – Circumplex (Alden et al., 1990) called circumplex of interpersonal problems(CIP; Pedersen, 2001, 2002; Pedersen & Karterud, 2007). The CIP consists of 48 items

with the following dimensions; domineering (6 items), vindictive (5 items), cold

(6 items), socially avoidant (6 items), non-assertive (5 items), exploitable (6 items),

overly nurturant (6 items), and intrusive (6 items; Pedersen, 2002). The first statements

start with the wording ‘It is hard for me to… ’, followed by statements such as

‘Join groups’. The second part consists of items starting with the wording ‘Things that

you are or do too much of towards others’, followed by statements such as ‘I fight with

other people too much’. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from‘not at all’ (0) ‘to very much’ (4). The CIP alpha values are presented in Table 3.

Results

Of the participants that responded to the whistleblowing question (N ¼ 2; 378), 2,090employees (87.8%) answered ‘no’ to the question of whether they had reported in

accordance with the whistleblowing definition presented, while some 156 (6.6%) had

blown the whistle once, and 132 (5.6%) had blown the whistle twice or more. Thus, in

sum 288 employees (12.2%) said they had blown the whistle in accordance with the

presented definition. Of the whistleblowers (N ¼ 288), some 93% had blown the

whistle in their current job. The mean time since whistleblowing took place was under

3 years (SD ¼ 3:62). An ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences

between non-whistleblowers and one-time or two times or more whistleblowers inrelation to age. A chi-square test for independence showed that there was a significant

gender difference (x2(2, N ¼ 2; 378Þ ¼ 11:65, p ¼ :01) in that females were over-

represented as non-whistleblowers and as one-time whistleblowers, while males had

more often blown the whistle twice or more.

Preliminary analysisTable 3 provides an overview of the bivariate associations between the eight CIP

dimensions, and the whistleblowing variable, including Cronbach’s alpha scores. As

shown, the following CIP dimensions: being too domineering (.10), too nurturant (.05),

and too intrusive (.06), were significantly associated with whistleblowing, employing

Kendall’s tau correlation since whistleblowing is an ordinal variable. All correlations

were positive, which indicates that elevated levels of the eight interpersonal dimensionsare related to more whistleblowing. A high score on dominance indicates reporting

‘problems relating to controlling, manipulating, aggressing toward, and trying to change

others’ (Alden et al., 1990, p. 528). Being overly nurturant indicates trying too hard to

be generous, trustworthy, and caring. Participants who score high on the intrusive



Table

3.

Des

crip

tive

stat

istics

and

Pear

son’s

pro

duct

-mom

ent

and

Ken

dal

l’sta

uco

rrel

atio

ns

NM

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1.W

his

tleb

low

ing

2,3

78

1.1

80.5

1–

2.D

om

inee

ring

2,3

65

0.5

20.5

2.1

0**

(.78)

3.V

indic

tive

2,3

72

0.9

40.9

22

.01

ns

.22**

(.87)

4.C

old

2,3

70

1.1

50.7

6.0

2ns

.21**

.72**

(.80)

5.So

cial

lyav

oid

ant

2,3

60

0.8

80.7

5.0

1ns

.21**

.69**

.73**

(.82)

6.N

onas

sert

ive

2,3

69

1.4

20.7

72

.01

ns

.03

ns

.13**

.31**

.28**

(.78)

7.Explo

itab

le2,3

69

1.2

20.6

9.0

2ns

.21**

.46**

.53**

.60**

.56**

(.76)

8.O

verl

ynurt

ura

nt

2,3

63

1.1

80.6

3.0

5**

.41**

.21**

.28**

.34**

.34**

.50**

(.74)

9.In

trusi

ve2,3

65

1.0

00.5

8.0

6**

.54**

.41**

.33**

.37**

.15**

.39**

.53**

(.59)

Not

e.Fo

rth

eord

inal

dep

enden

tva

riab

le,K

endal

l’sta

uco

rrel

atio

nw

asuse

d.C

ronbac

h’s

alpha

coef

fici

ents

are

pre

sente

don

the

dia

gonal

inpar

enth

esis

.

*p,

:05

(tw

o-t

aile

d);

**p,

:01

(tw

o-t

aile

d);

ns,

non-s

ignifi

cant.



dimension are, on the other hand, characterized by inappropriate self-disclosure,

attention-seeking, and having a hard time being alone. The intrusive dimension, which

consists of six items, showed a rather low Cronbach’s alpha score of .59, as seen in Table

3. An investigation of the inter-correlations of the intrusive items showed that no

particular items should be removed to improve the alpha level and that the dimension

was significantly associated with the dependent variable (Table 3). Furthermore,intrusion has previously shown satisfactory Cronbach’s alphas in clinical as well as non-

clinical samples (Pedersen, 2001). Despite low Cronbach’s alpha scores for the intrusion

dimension, intrusion was included together with the others in the further analysis.

Ordinal regressionThe main aim of using sample 2, the national representative sample, was to testHypothesis 2 (2a–2h), which concerns the role of each CIP personality dimension in

relation to proactive behaviour in the form of whistleblowing, following the same

procedure as for sample 1.

As presented in Table 4, the only CIP dimension that was significantly related to

whistleblowing (controlled for age and gender) was domineering (p , :01). The

dominance odds ratio (OR ¼ 1:66) presented in Table 4 indicates that, for every one unit

increase, the expected odds increase by 1.66 when moving to the next category of

whistleblowing. The domineering 95% confidence interval ranged from 1.27 to 2.16.Thus, Hypothesis 2a (high dominance predicts whistleblowing) was supported, while

Hypotheses 2b (low vindictiveness predicts whistleblowing), 2c (low coldness predicts

whistleblowing), 2d (low social avoidance predicts whistleblowing), 2e (low non-

assertiveness predicts whistleblowing), 2f (low exploitability predicts whistleblowing),

2g (low overly nurturance predicts whistleblowing), and 2h (high intrusiveness predicts

whistleblowing) were not supported.

In sum, the findings from Study 2 showed that the CIP personality dimension of high

domineering was significantly associated with whistleblowing, with an odds ratio of

1.66. This finding provides partial support for the findings from Study 1, as dominance is

assumed to measure the same overarching five-factor dimension as extraversion (Kroeck

& Brown, 2004). Being overly nurturant, which has previously been linked to

agreeableness (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), does not, however, support the finding from

Table 4. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals for being in a whistleblowing category when

estimated in a proportional odds model

95.0% CI for OR

Variables B SE p OR Lower Upper

Domineering 0.51 .13 .00 1.66 1.27 2.16Vindictive 20.09 .11 .44 0.92 0.73 1.14Cold 0.16 .14 .24 1.18 0.90 1.54Socially avoidant 20.15 .14 .28 0.86 0.65 1.14Nonassertive 20.10 .10 .34 0.91 0.74 1.11Exploitable 0.08 .14 .56 1.09 0.82 1.44Overly nurturant 0.05 .13 .73 1.05 0.80 1.36Intrusive 0.13 2 .15 .39 1.14 0.85 1.52



Study 1 that low agreeableness predicts whistleblowing, which indicates that this

finding is less stable across measures.

DISCUSSION

The results of these two studies show that personality, in the form of high extraversion,

low agreeableness, and high domineering in interpersonal interaction, predicts

proactive behaviour in the form of whistleblowing. The finding that extraversion and

dominance are significant predictors of whistleblowing is in line with the notion of

proactivity at work characterized by initiative, action, and behaviour aimed at change

(Bateman & Crant, 1993; Furnham, 1997). The findings are further partly in line with

previous whistleblowing studies that have found personality to have no link withintended whistleblowing (McCutcheon, 2000) but to be associated with whistleblowing

behaviour in the form of a positive association with conscientiousness and extraversion

(Miceli et al., 2001b, cited in Miceli & Near, 2005).

High scorers on extraversion are generally described as enjoying the company of

others and as being talkative and sociable (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), while the

tendency to be domineering signifies trying to change and control other people

(Alden et al., 1990). Individuals characterized by high levels of dominance and

extraversion may, to a greater extent than others, seek social settings, as opposed tomore introverted and socially avoidant individuals who may wait until occasions arise

or even avoid such situations. Talkative and sociable people may also be more prone

to verbally share uncertainty or scepticism about perceived wrongdoing than others,

and may be less submissive. An individual characterized by being domineering and

showing extravert behaviour may also be more resistant than other employees to

impression-management tactics (Gundlach et al., 2003), be it from management or

the wrongdoer(s).

Dominance may also tap into the tendency of ‘not letting go’ and indicatepersistence in relation to issues of personal importance. It may, so to speak, be the

negative side of extraversion. This finding may reflect what previous whistleblowing

studies have found, namely that whistleblowers are employees who continue to report

over and over again if their report is not heard or if they are retaliated against (Bjørkelo

et al., 2008; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999). Altogether, these findings suggest that highly

extravert and domineering employees are more prone to intervene when confronted

with wrongdoing at work than employees without these characteristics. It may also

be the case that these employees are more assertive, at the same time as they areless afraid than other employees to report and are more confident that their concerns

will be heard.

Positive affect is at the core of extraversion, as opposed to neuroticism and negative

affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1997). While previous studies have found that observers of

wrongdoing reported higher levels of negative affectivity than non-observers, this study

found that whistleblowers are characterized by extraversion. It has been proposed

that positive affect is a probable predictor of the likelihood that an employee will

intervene, while observation may be predicted by negative affect (Miceli et al., 2001).This assumption is in line with studies that have found positive affect to be

positively related to personal initiative (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007), to engagement

in proactive behaviour (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009), and to prosocial behaviour

(Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980). This may also be the case with whistleblowing.



As predicted, and in line with previous studies of whistleblowing-related

phenomena, such as voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), low agreeableness also

predicted whistleblowing. The agreeableness dimension may be described as the

motivation ‘to look good in the eyes of others’ (Graziano & Tobin, 2002, p. 719). The

low score implies that whistleblowers may be characterized as being less concerned

than other employees with ‘getting along’ and not ‘rocking the boat’. Low scores onagreeableness are also linked to acting on and expressing one’s emotions (Ilies, Scott, &

Judge, 2006). It therefore appears that whistleblowers are employees who dare to

jeopardize how they look in the eyes of others for the sake of stopping wrongdoing at

work, such as sexual harassment or unethical recruitment practices.

The hypothesis that conscientiousness would be positively related to whistle-

blowing behaviour was not supported. The only previous study that, to our knowledge,

has found such an association (Miceli et al., 2001b, cited in Miceli & Near, 2005)

unfortunately does not report information about sample and measures, which couldhave offered some explanations to these diverging findings. The present study also

tested several other hypotheses about the role of single personality dimensions in

relation to whistleblowing behaviour that did not receive support. This may be due to

that the size of the effect of single personality dimensions in relation to whistleblowing

behaviour still is unclear. Thus, although a link may reasonably be raised based on

theoretical reasoning, the strength of the associations is not known. Hence, it may be

that the role of personality in relation to whistleblowing behaviour may be detected

with a more detailed instrument of personality.Even though personality, in the form of being high on extraversion and dominance

and low on agreeableness, does explain some variance of whistleblowing behaviour in

the present study, a meta-analytic examination of 193 correlations assembled from

almost 19,000 participants across 26 samples, found that situational and contextual

factors seem to be equally important as predictors of whistleblowing behaviour

(Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). In the latter study, context predictors such as

organizational climate were positively correlated with whistleblowing behaviour (.10).

Hence, proactivity in the form of whistleblowing behaviour may both be hired andstimulated. Thus, two of the most effective ways to stimulate whistleblowing behaviour

may be through recruitment procedures and by creating an organizational climate that

signals that management is interested in having employees who act proactively when

they perceive wrongdoing at work.

Strengths and limitationsThe present study has both strengths and limitations. One strength is that this study

reports on two large-scale employee surveys, one of which is a nationally representative

sample. It should be noted, however, that the response rates in the two samples

included in this study ranged from 33.5% in sample 1 to 57% in sample 2. The former is,

to say the least, somewhat low. Response rates of 30% are, however, not ‘uncommon for

survey research’ (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999, p. 410). It should be mentioned

that mean response rates for organizational studies that apply data collected from

individuals has been found to be 52.7, with a standard deviation of 20.4 (Baruch &Holtom, 2008).

Secondly, the present study applied validated measures of individual characteristics.

Together, the NEO-FFI and the CIP cover a broad area of an employee’s personality.

However, even though describing an individual’s standing on the five overall domains of



the NEO-FFI provides a good sketch of a person’s emotional, interpersonal, experiential,

attitudinal, and motivational styles (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 2004), the

full version of the Big Five (NEO-PI-R), which comprises 240 items and includes 30 facet

scales, could have provided a more nuanced result for the overall personality pattern,

as opposed to the short version of NEO-FFI applied in this study. Therefore, it was

useful to apply two personality measures. While both extraversion and agreeablenesswere significant predictors using the NEO-FFI, only extraversion was supported by the

CIP results.

Thirdly, this study investigated actual whistleblowing behaviour, which denotes

reports from employees who acknowledge having actually reported wrongdoing at

work (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005), as opposed to the propensity or intention

to blow the whistle. Measuring actual whistleblowing is based on self-reporting, which

may be flawed due to its reliance on past events. However, measuring actual behaviour

is invaluable because ‘what people say they would do is not necessarily the same as whatthey would do, and what people say would influence their behaviour is not necessarily

what actually influences them’ (Miceli et al., 2009, p. 386). Scenario studies and

hypothetical cases are useful for answering the research question about whether

personality dispositions and, specifically, the tendency to be active and initiate change,

may explain why some employees report wrongdoing while others do not. However,

although such studies are necessary, they alone do not provide a sufficient answer to this

research question because they only concern what people say they would do as

opposed to what they actually do. Universal discharge of any of these researchapproaches, due to low ecological validity or based solely on their reliance on self-

reporting, is therefore unhelpful.

The present study applied a cross-sectional design that is susceptible to common

method variance. According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986), procedural and design

remedies are recommended above statistical remedies in relation to common method

variance. Procedural remedies applied in both studies were different scale end-points

and formats. As anonymity is also assumed to reduce evaluation apprehension and

method biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), this was applied in bothstudies. Statistical remedies include such as Harman’s single-factor test, which is based

on the assumption that common method variance is present if a single factor emerges

from an exploratory factor analysis of all the variables in the study (Podsakoff et al.,

2003). The Harman test did not reveal the presence of single underlying factors in either

of the two studies. This is in line with previous studies that have found common method

variance not to be severe in studies of ‘actual events’ (Miceli & Near, 2002, p. 463).

Future studiesThe present study did not measure positive and negative affectivity, but neuroticism and

extraversion. It is therefore suggested that future studies investigate this link, in order to

establish whether observers of misconduct are systematically characterized by negative

affect and neuroticism, while proactive whistleblowers are extravert individuals

characterized by positive affect. Another suggestion is to test whether whistleblowing

can be explained by ‘common, underlying individual differences in active, pleasure-seeking behaviour’, as suggested by Tellegen (referred to in Watson & Clark, 1997,

p. 787). In line with this, extensive studies by Depue et al. (Depue & Collins, 1999;

Depue, Luciana, Arbisi, Collins, & Leon, 2002) have provided support for the role

of dopamine, an underlying biological mechanism, in relation to personality and



extraversion. The question, therefore, is not only which personality factors relate to

proactive behaviour and whistleblowing, but also why they do so.

Future studies could also investigate whether personality is more a moderator

variable than a direct predictor of whistleblowing behaviour. This may include

investigating the predictive power of situational (e.g., downsizing) and organizational

factors (e.g., the climate for personal initiative). This could include combining individualwith group-level measures in the investigation of the impact of, for instance,

organizational climate (multi-level design) on wrongdoing, observation of wrongdoing,

silent observers, and whistleblowers. Such an approach may also enable an investigation

of the link between personality, proactive behaviour in the form of whistleblowing, and

objective measures of job performance.

Contribution and practical implicationsThe results of the present study may be practically applicable in several ways. Firstly,

they could be used to understand what characterizes proactive employees in general

and whistleblowers in particular. We found that they are mainly extraverted and

domineering in interpersonal interaction. This finding could be applied in discussions

about the role of personality. One framework that may be useful in this regard is the

spiral of incivility, which assumes that a negative and uncivil act may be followed by an

increasingly negative act that in turn may escalate into a spiral of conflict (Andersson &Pearson, 1999; Penney & Spector, 2005). In whistleblowing cases, this type of spiral may

start if the focus is on the individual characteristics of the whistleblower instead of on

the content of the whistleblowing. This focus on the individual may lead to dismissal of

the actual content of the whistleblowing as the act is portrayed as hostile opposition

from a disgruntled employee with bad intentions. As a result of feeling attacked,

managers, complaint recipients, and co-workers may respond to whistleblowing with

formal (e.g., demotion) or informal (e.g., ostracism) retaliation (De Maria & Jan, 1997).

The whistleblowers may in turn counter-strike with the same means. Ultimately,secondary incivility spirals involving more and more parties develop, and the content of

the original whistleblowing is forgotten.

Discussions of the role of personality within the spirals of incivility may then be

extended by using exercises on assumptions and expectations of proactive behaviours,

as these may be perceived as unconventional and challenging (Grant, Parker, & Collins,

2009). Proactive initiative may be ‘negatively sanctioned by peers or managers because

taking initiative “rocks the boat” and is perceived as threatening by those directly

affected’ (Baer & Frese, 2003, p. 49). The aim of working with assumptions andexpectations of proactive behaviour is to match employer and employee expectations

about what range of proactivity and initiative is desired and sought-after in individual

organizations. In continuation, both the discussions and the work on expectations may

be used as background material for developing policies that state that retaliation of

whistleblowers not is tolerated (Greene & Latting, 2004; Miceli et al., 2009). Previous

research has shown that clear examples of unwanted organizational behaviour or

practices is helpful in this regard (Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005).

The results from this study may also have implications for how practitioners shouldwork with potential and actual whistleblowers. Proactive employees who score high on

extraversion and dominance and low on agreeableness may have a tendency to suggest

many changes and to persevere with their initiatives. They may also be attacked for the

way they reported wrongdoing. Counselling sessions may therefore include working



towards balancing the potentially large amount of initiative the employee displays, as

well as helping potential whistleblowers to deal with the whistleblowing act.

Another implication may be that organizations valuing and aiming at creating

proactive workplaces associated with creativity and initiative may actively search for

personnel that possess personality characteristics associated with proactivity (Miceli

et al., 2009). Along these lines, the results from this study may be used to developscreening procedures for employees that portray individual characteristics associated

with extraversion and dominance and to some extent, low agreeableness. Personnel

selection context predictors are usually validated against job performance, which may

be defined as employee behaviour that is valuable to the organization (Motowidlo,

2003). Proactive behaviour in general and whistleblowing in particular has the potential

to be of great value to organizations because having employees that initiate change, take

charge often not only intend but actually try to stop harmful use human and monetary

resources (Fay & Frese, 2001; Miceli et al., 2001).

Conclusion

This study expands knowledge of the role of personality in relation to proactive

behaviour in the form of whistleblowing. More than 15 years ago, Rothschild and

Miethe noted that ‘the characterization generally adopted by management, that whistle-

blowers are disgruntled and embittered employees, is generally not the case’ (1994,

p. 258). Hitherto, few studies have addressed the role of personality in relation to

whistleblowing using broad standardized measures of personality. The results of this

study show that personality in the form of high extraversion, low agreeableness, and

high domineering in interpersonal interaction predicts whistleblowing. Together, thesefindings paint a picture of the role of personality in relation to proactive behaviour in the

form of whistleblowing. Our findings challenge the notion of whistleblowers as mainly

being troublemakers. Organizations and their members should therefore undergo

what Miceli and Near (2005) labelled a cultural transformation, so that whistleblowing

can be regarded more as proactive behaviour than something to avoid. As a result,

whistleblowing may become the effective internal social control system it has the

potential to be.

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to several persons. Without their contributions and efforts this study could

not have been carried out. Data provided to Study 1 presented here was collected by former

students in psychology Kari Severinsen and Andreas Høstmælingen at the Faculty of Psychology,

University of Bergen, with Stig Berge Matthiesen acting as their supervisor. Study 2 was collected

with the help of Statistics Norway (Statistisk Sentralbyra) for the University of Bergen, the Bergen

Bullying Research Group at the Department of Psychosocial Science. The first study was financed

by the Department of Psychosocial Science while the last study was financed by grants from two

Norwegian employers associations (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon and Kommunenes

Sentralforbund) and the Norwegian government (Rikstrygdeverket). Thanks also go to Bengt

Oscar Lagerstrøm and Maria Høstmark in Statistics Norway, and to Anders Skogstad and

Morten Birkeland Nielsen, both from the Department of Psychosocial Science at the University of

Bergen for their contribution. We would also like to express our thanks to Laurence Moore,

Professor of Public Health Improvement, at Cardiff University, UK for statistical advice. We thank

the editor and three anonymous reviewers for very helpful suggestions.



References

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for

the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3 and 4),

521–536.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological

safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

24(1), 45–68.

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York:

Free Press.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales

representatives – test of the mediating effects of goal-setting. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78(5), 715–722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the

mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87(1), 43–51.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational

research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior:

A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

Bjørkelo, B., Ryberg, W., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). ‘When you talk and talk and

nobody listens’: A mixed method case study of whistleblowing and its consequences.

International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), 18–40.

Bolsin, S. N. (1998). Professional misconduct: The Bristol case. Medical Journal of Australia,

169(7), 369–372.

Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual

harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306.

Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington, MA/Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C.

Bull, N., Riise, T., & Moen, B. E. (2002). Work-related injuries and occupational health and safety

factors in smaller enterprises – a prospective study. Occupational Medicine, 52(2), 70–74.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and

Neo-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits

across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

81(2), 322–331.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.

Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate

motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Personality and Social Psychology,

38(2), 181–192.

De Maria, W., & Jan, C. (1997). Eating its own: The whistleblower’s organization in vendetta

mode. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 37–59.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect

at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601–622.

doi:10.1348/096317906X171442

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine,

facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,

291–569.

Depue, R. A., Luciana, M., Arbisi, P., Collins, P. F., & Leon, A. (2002). Dopamine and the structure

of personality: Relation of agonist-induced dopamine activity to positive emotionality.



In J. T. Cacioppo (Ed.), Foundations in social neuroscience (pp. 1071–1091). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 116–123.

Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823–836.

Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies.

Human Performance, 14(1), 97–124.

Fine, S. (2006). Whistle-blowing and industrial psychology. Retrieved from https://www.sio-

p.org/tip/backissues/Jan06/04fine.aspx

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job

stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94–111.

doi:10.1177/0149206307308911

Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behaviour at work. The individual in the organization.

Hove: Psychology Press.

Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work. Exploring and explaining individual

differences at work. London: Routledge.

Glazer, M. (1983). Ten whistleblowers and how they fared. Hastings Center Report, 13, 33–41.

Glazer, M., & Glazer, P. M. (1999). On the trail of courageous behaviour. Sociological Inquiry,

69(2), 276–295.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor

reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality handbook

of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social

desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70(5), 695–727.

Greene, A. D., & Latting, J. K. (2004). Whistle-blowing as a form of advocacy: Guidelines for the

practitioner and organization. Social Work, 49(2), 219–230.

Gundlach, M., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social

information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107–123.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,

and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Høstmark, M., & Lagerstrøm, B. O. (2006). Undersøkelse om arbeidsmiljø: Destruktiv atferd i

arbeidslivet: Dokumentasjonsrapport [A Study of Work Environment: Destructive

Behaviours in Working Life. Documentation Report] [No. 44]. Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyra/

Statistics Norway.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and

experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of

Management Journal, 49(3), 561–575.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.

Kroeck, K. G., & Brown, K. W. (2004). Work applications of the Big Five model of personality.

In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psycho-

pathology. Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 109–129). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Krull, A. R. (1996, September). Whistleblowers and informants – Part 1. Computer Fraud and

Security, 13–19.

Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human

nature (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(6), 853–868.



LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behaviour as contrasting forms

of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality

characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2001). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using

Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Martinsen, Ø. L., Nordvik, H., & Østbø, L. E. (2005). Norske versjoner av NEO PI-R og NEO FFI

[Norwegian versions of the NEO PI-R and the NEO FFI]. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening

[Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association], 42(5), 421–423.

Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin’s circumplex

model and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4),

586–595.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.

In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology

(pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory.

Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596.

McCutcheon, L. E. (2000). Is there a ‘whistleblower’ personality? Psychology: A Journal of

Human Behavior, 37(2), 2–9.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination

of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics,

62(3), 266–297.

Miceli, M. P. (2004). Whistle-blowing research and the insider: Lessons learned and yet to be

learned. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(4), 364–366.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications

for companies and employees. New York: Lexington Books.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1994). Reaping the benefits. Academy of Management Executive,

8(3), 65–72.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1997). Whistle-blowing as antisocial behavior. In R. A. Giacalone &

J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 130–149). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies.

Human Relations, 55(4), 455–479.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Whistle-blowing and positive psychology. In C. Dunn,

R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and

corporate responsibility (pp. 85–102). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2007). Stopping organizational wrongdoing. In P. Gilliland, D. Steiner, &

S. I. Skarlatos (Eds.), Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 295–324).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York:

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2009). A word to the wise: How managers and policy-

makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3),

379–396.

Miceli, M. P., Van Scotter, J. R., Near, J. P., & Rehg, M. T. (2001). Responses to perceived

organizational wrongdoing: Do perceiver characteristics matter? In T. R. Tyler, J. M. Darley, &

D. M. Messick (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 119–135).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and

justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 84–94.



Moore, L. (1999). General practitioners’ prescribing behaviour analysis of GP attitudes,

behaviour and prescribing costs. London: University of London. Master of science in medical

statistics.

Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal

of Management, 32(1), 5–28.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate

workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & D. R. Klimoski (Eds.),

Handbook of psychology (pp. 39–53). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal

of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistle-blowers: Predictors and effects.


Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management,

22(3), 507–526.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2008). Wrongdoing, whistle-blowing, and retaliation in the USA

government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(3), 263–281.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

Pedersen, G. A. (2001). Assessment of self-reported symptoms and interpersonal problems:

Psychometric considerations and validity of clinical use. London: Warnborough University.

Pedersen, G. A. (2002). Norsk revidert versjon av Inventory of Interpersonal Problems –

Circumplex (IIP-C) [Revised Norwegian version of Inventory of Interpersonal Problems –

Circumplex (IIP-C)]. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening [Journal of the Norwegian

Psychological Association], 39, 25–34.

Pedersen, G. A., & Karterud, S. (2007). Associations between patient characteristics and rating

of treatment milieu. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(4), 271–278.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior

(CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

26(7), 777–796.

Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Pincus, A. L., Gurtman, M. B., & Ruiz, M. A. (1998). Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB):

Circumplex analyses and structural relations with the interpersonal circle and the five-factor

model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1629–1645.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.


Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research – problems and

prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Rank, J. (2009). Challenging the status quo: Diversity, employee voice and proactive behaviour.

In M. F. Ozbilgin (Ed.), Equality, diversity and inclusion at work. A research companion

(pp. 195–215). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rost, P. (2006). Whistle blower: Confessions of a healthcare hitman. New York: Soft Skull Press.

Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Whistleblowing as resistance in modern work organizations.

The politics of revealing organizational deception and abuse. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, &

W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. XV–335s). London: Routledge.

Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation.

The battle to control information about organization corruption. Work and Occupations,

26(1), 107–128.

Severinsen, K., & Høstmælingen, A. T. (2004). Sladrehank skal selv ha bank? Whistleblowing i en

norsk bykommune [Whistleblowing in a Norwegian Municipality sample][In Norwegian].

Bergen: University of Bergen.



Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and

interpersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 411–421.

Soussan, M. (2008). Backstabbing for beginners. My crash course in international diplomacy.

New York: Nation Books.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of

personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6),

1189–1203.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are nor

enough: The influence of work–family culture or benefit utilization, organizational

attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415.

Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include

the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4),

781–790.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviours: In pursuit of construct

and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,

J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). Psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms – interpersonal domain.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure. The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan,

J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Received 31 December 2008; revised version received 22 December 2009


Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of...

Documents

Transcript of Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of...