DOCSLIB.ORG

Three Essays on Culture and Whistleblowing: a Multimethod Comparative Study of the United States and Japan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three Essays on Culture and Whistleblowing: a Multimethod Comparative Study of the United States and Japan THREE ESSAYS ON CULTURE AND WHISTLEBLOWING: A MULTIMETHOD COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‗I AT MᾹNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT APRIL 2015 By Masahisa K. Yamaguchi Dissertation Committee: Dharm P.S. Bhawuk, Chairperson H. David Bess Kiyohiko Ito O. Nicholas Ordway Kentaro Hayashi, Outside Member i Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ vii GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Essay 1: Whistleblowing in the Lifeworld I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in the United States ......................................................... 7 IV. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in Japan ......................................................................... 24 V. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 28 VI. Whistleblowing Awareness in the United States ................................................................................ 34 VII. Whistleblowing Awareness in Japan .................................................................................................. 37 VIII. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 43 IX. Whistleblowers in the United States ................................................................................................... 44 X. Whistleblowers in Japan ..................................................................................................................... 58 XI. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 60 XII. Whistleblowing in the Media: the United States ................................................................................ 61 XIII. Whistleblowing in the Media: Japan ................................................................................................... 65 XIV. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 67 XV. Whistleblowing in Corporation ........................................................................................................... 68 a. United States: Case Study of GM‘s Faulty Ignition ........................................................................ 68 b. Japan: Case Study of Toyota‘s Unintended Acceleration ............................................................... 69 c. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 72 XVI. General Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 72 Essay 2: Moral Intensity & Whistleblowing Behavior I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 77 II. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 77 III. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 81 a. Scenario Development .................................................................................................................... 82 b. Translation ...................................................................................................................................... 89 c. Sample ............................................................................................................................................. 90 IV. Results.................................................................................................................................................. 90 ii a. Ranking Responses For The Sample From the United States ......................................................... 91 b. Ranking Responses for the Sample from Japan .............................................................................. 98 c. Combined Score of the Ranking Responses for the United States and Japan ............................... 105 d. Preferred Choice for the Sample from the United States .............................................................. 113 e. Preferred Choice for the Sample from Japan ................................................................................ 115 f. Combined Score of the Preferred Choice for United States and Japan ......................................... 117 g. Combined Score of the Five Given Responses ............................................................................. 119 h. Combined Score of the Four Given Responses ............................................................................. 121 i. Whistleblower Response (Only the Fifth Response for all Situations) .......................................... 123 j. Order Effect in Presentation of Scenarios ...................................................................................... 125 k. Gender Effect ................................................................................................................................ 127 l. Ethnicity Effect .............................................................................................................................. 129 V. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 133 VI. Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 135 VII.Summary & Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 136 Essay 3: Cultural, Organizational & Individual Differences in Whistleblowing I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 138 II. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 138 III. Hypothesis & Model Building ........................................................................................................... 144 1. Whistleblowing and Culture Theories ..................................................................................... 144 a. Tightness and Looseness ............................................................................................. 145 b. Individualism & Collectivism ..................................................................................... 147 c. Social Axiom ............................................................................................................... 148 2. Whistleblowing and Organizational Variables ........................................................................ 151 a. Organizational Policy Towards Whistleblowing ........................................................ 152 b. Perception of Politics in Organizations ....................................................................... 152 c. Perceived Organizational Support in Organizations ................................................... 153 3. Whistleblowing and Individual Differences ............................................................................ 155 a. Allocentrism & Idiocentrism ....................................................................................... 155 b. Big Five Personality Factors ....................................................................................... 156 IV. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 158 a. Power Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 158 iii b. Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 158 c. Instruments Used ........................................................................................................................... 159 d. Scale Development ....................................................................................................................... 160 e. Sample ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Recognize Workplace Bullying and Harassment
    How to recognize Workplace bullying and harassment The Workers Compensation Act explains the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers as they relate to workplace health and safety. These obligations include preventing and addressing workplace bullying and harassment, as outlined in WorkSafeBC’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policies D3-115-2, D3-116-1, D3-117-2. Under these OHS policies, employers must train supervisors and workers to recognize the potential for bullying and harassment in the workplace. Examples of bullying and harassment Definition Not all inappropriate, offensive, or disrespectful WorkSafeBC’s OHS policies use the conduct is bullying and harassment. The phrase “bullying and harassment” as a behaviour must be humiliating or intimidating single term, which: to be considered bullying and harassment. The (a) includes any inappropriate conduct following are some examples of behaviour or or comment by a person towards comments that might suggest bullying and a worker that the person knew or harassment is taking place: reasonably ought to have known • verbal aggression or insults; calling someone would cause that worker to be derogatory names humiliated or intimidated, but • vandalizing personal belongings (b) excludes any reasonable action taken • sabotaging someone’s work by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of • spreading malicious gossip or rumours workers or the place of employment. • engaging in harmful or offensive initiation practices Intent does not determine whether the behaviour • physical or verbal threats (this could also is bullying and harassment. A person cannot constitute “violence” or “improper activity or excuse their behaviour by saying he or she did behaviour” under the Occupational Health and not intend it to be humiliating or intimidating.
    [Show full text]
  • The Defend Trade Secrets Act Whistleblower Immunity Provision: a Legislative History, 1 Bus
    The Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review Volume 1 Article 5 Issue 2 Fall 2017 2017 The efeD nd Trade Secrets Act Whistleblower Immunity Provision: A Legislative History Peter Menell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/betr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter Menell, The Defend Trade Secrets Act Whistleblower Immunity Provision: A Legislative History, 1 Bus. Entrepreneurship & Tax L. Rev. 398 (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/betr/vol1/iss2/5 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The usineB ss, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. Menell: DTSA Whistleblower Immunity SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE The Defend Trade Secrets Act Whistleblower Immunity Provision: A Legislative History Peter S. Menell** ABSTRACT The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) was the product of a multi-year effort to federalize trade secret protection. In the final stages of drafting the DTSA, Senators Grassley and Leahy introduced an important new element: immunity “for whistleblowers who share confidential infor- mation in the course of reporting suspected illegal activity to law enforce- ment or when filing a lawsuit, provided they do so under seal.” The mean- ing and scope of this provision are of vital importance to enforcing health, safety, civil rights, financial market, consumer, and environmental protec- tions and deterring fraud against the government, shareholders, and the public. This article explains how the whistleblower immunity provision was formulated and offers insights into its proper interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Whistleblower Protection Act
    WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ProtectedProtected WhistleWhistle BlowingBlowing • An employee, former employee, or applicants for employment • Makes a disclosure which he/she reasonably believes evidences: – A violation of a law, rule, or regulation – Gross mismanagement – Gross waste of funds – Abuse of authority – Substantial and specific danger to public health or safety • To a supervisor, high ranking agency official or the Inspector General – Fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement must be reported to the Inspector General Reprisal/RetaliationReprisal/Retaliation • Whistleblower Protection Act also prohibits acts of reprisal or retaliation for making a protected disclosure (see previous slide) • Reprisal or retaliation can include but are not limited to imposing or unreasonably refusing the following: – Adverse action or disciplinary action – Detail or reassignment – Appointment – Promotion – Decisions concerning pay, benefits or awards – Performance evaluations (positive or negative) • Act of retaliation should be reported to the OIG and/or EAC management – OIG can protect employees against retaliation and reprisal ProtectedProtected DisclosuresDisclosures • Violation of any law, • Gross mismanagement rule or regulation – More that a difference of – Need not involve a specific opinion type of waste, fraud or – Not simple negligence or abuse wrongdoing – Can include violations of – Management action or agency policy or procedure inaction that creates a – Must be a substantive
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Partnership Lou Pingeot Lou Pingeot | Dangerous Partnership
    REPORT June 2012 Private Military & Security Companies andtheUN Private Military&SecurityCompanies Dangerous Partnership Lou Pingeot Lou Pingeot | Dangerous Partnership Published by Global Policy Forum 777 UN Plaza, 3D New York, NY 10017 USA Tel: +1 212 557 3161 Fax: +1 212 557 3165 Internet: www.globalpolicy.org Email: [email protected] Contact: Lou Pingeot Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung e.V. (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation) Franz-Mehring-Platz 1 10243 Berlin Germany Tel: +49 30 44310 0 Fax: +49 30 44310 230 Internet: www.rosalux.de Email: [email protected] Contact: Gabriele Kickut Cover Photo: Shutterstock.com New York, June 2012 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents Acknowledgements 5 Executive Summary 7 I – Introduction 9 II – The Private Military and Security Sector 10 Origins 10 Structure 11 Activities and Clients 12 Cozy Relations with Host Governments 14 Branding and Public Relations 14 Cultural Insensitivity, Aggression and Violence 15 Secrecy and Lack of Accountability 16 III – Expressions of Concern about PMSCs 18 Public Critics and Government Concerns 18 Concerns about UN use of PMSCs 19 Concerns expressed at the UN 20 IV – PMSCs at the UN 22 The Buildup 22 Recent Increase of Contracts 23 Services used by the UN 24 Compartmentalization? 27 V – Use of Disreputable Companies 28 DynCorp International 28 Saracen 29 G4S & ArmorGroup 29 VI – Weak Arguments for the UN’s Use of PMSCs 31 Lower Cost? 31 Rapid Deployment and Constant Availability? 32 Last Resort? 32 VII – Many Serious Problems 34 3 Lou Pingeot | Dangerous Partnership VIII – PMSCs
    [Show full text]
  • Bad Cops: a Study of Career-Ending Misconduct Among New York City Police Officers
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Bad Cops: A Study of Career-Ending Misconduct Among New York City Police Officers Author(s): James J. Fyfe ; Robert Kane Document No.: 215795 Date Received: September 2006 Award Number: 96-IJ-CX-0053 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Bad Cops: A Study of Career-Ending Misconduct Among New York City Police Officers James J. Fyfe John Jay College of Criminal Justice and New York City Police Department Robert Kane American University Final Version Submitted to the United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice February 2005 This project was supported by Grant No. 1996-IJ-CX-0053 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of views in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Police Commissioner's Report
    THE POLICE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT JANUARY 2016 THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 22 40 58 INFORMATION HOUSING BUREAU RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY BUREAU BUREAU TABLE OF CONTENTS 26 42 60 DETECTIVE BUREAU VIOLENCE- PERSONNEL REDUCTION TASK BUREAU / STAFFING FORCES 44 ORGANIZED CRIME 62 28 CONTROL BUREAU PERSONNEL COLLABORATIVE BUREAU / REFORM 4 POLICING 46 AND RECRUITMENT TRANSPORTATION LETTER FROM 30 BUREAU 64 THE MAYOR CRITICAL RESPONSE CIVILIAN MEMBERS 6 COMMAND 48 FIELD INTELLIGENCE 66 LETTER FROM 32 OFFICERS THE POLICE FACILITIES COMMISSIONER STRATEGIC RESPONSE GROUP 50 68 10 GRAND LARCENY 34 DIVISION CARS & EQUIPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POLICING PLAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BUREAU / YOUTH PROGRAMS 52 70 14 ADMINISTRATION STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPSTAT 36 COMMUNITY 54 AFFAIRS BUREAU / 72 16 SCHOOL SAFETY USE-OF-FORCE DIVISION POLICY 2014 / 2015 STATISTICAL TRAINING BUREAU ROUNDUP 20 38 56 76 TRANSIT BUREAU DISCIPLINE COMMUNITY NYPD HISTORICAL PARTNER PROGRAM TIMELINE SPRING 3100 ISSN #0038 8572 is published bimonthly by the New York City Police Department, One Police Plaza, New York, 10038. Periodicals postage paid at New York City, NY. “Ride-Along Enclosed” Postmaster: Send address changes to SPRING 3100 c/o New York City Police Department, One Police Plaza, New York, 10038. SPRING 3100 ©2014 BY NYPD. All rights reserved; No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the Editor. L E T T ER FROM MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO appointed Bill Bratton to be New York City Police Department’s technological infrastructure; new use-of-force ICommissioner in January 2014, and, two years later, this policies and procedures; a more efficient and fairer internal report—about the sweeping changes in the NYPD— discipline system; 1,300 new officers; new technological underscores my reasons for doing so.
    [Show full text]
  • Repression by Lawsuit
    THE NEW YO 'K TIMES, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1978 Repression By Lawsuit By Anthony Lewis BERKELEY, Calif., Feb. 15—On the ance — which is surely expresso 01 White and enforced, as a condition of Gov- House tape of June 23, 1972— the kind the. First Amendment wa in- ernment employment. the one that finally forced his resigna- tended to protect. tion—Richard Nixon told H. R. Halde- American freedom often depends on But the C.I.A., and now the Jus ce whistle-blowing by people who are not man why they could expect Richard Department, argue that what the k so nice. It may take a disaffected Deep Helms, the C.I.A. chief, to cooperate on says does not matter, and neither s Throat to expose the abuse of official 'Watergate. "We protected Helms from the First Amendment. That is bec e power. And no one can doubt that .one hell of a lot of things," he said. Mr. Snepp, like other employees of there has been abuse in intelligence When the Senate Intelligence Com- agency, signed an agreement to ay agencies. mittee asked what "things," Mr. Nixon nothing about its classified work th- Attorney General Bell, explaining described one episode. Mr. Helms had out getting its permission first. e the decision to sue Frank Snepp, said come to him about a book that a for Government suit claims damages f •m he just wanted to find out from the mer C.LA. employee planned to pub- Mr. Snepp—all his royalties— or courts whether secrecy "contracts" lish, he said, and he agreed to legal breaking the promise.
    [Show full text]
  • As Assange Awaits Ruling, Wikileaks Faces Its Fate 1 November 2011, by RAPHAEL G
    As Assange awaits ruling, WikiLeaks faces its fate 1 November 2011, By RAPHAEL G. SATTTER , Associated Press Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Legal analysts were predicting a ruling in favor of extradition. "Very, very few people defeat a European Arrest Warrant," said Julian Knowles, an extradition lawyer at London's Matrix Chambers who has been following the case. "The courts in England generally lean in favor of extradition." Assange may have the right to challenge an This is a Monday, Feb. 7, 2011 file photo of WikiLeaks unfavorable verdict in Britain's Supreme Court. But founder Julian Assange as he leaves Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London. Assange on Tuesday Nov. Knowles said that if he were denied leave to 1, 2011 awaits a judge's extradition verdict, it could be appeal, it could be only days before he were sent to WikiLeaks' very future that's at stake. Its finances under Scandinavia to face allegations of sex crimes. pressure and some of its biggest revelations already public, WikiLeaks may not have the strength to survive if That result could be devastating for WikiLeaks. Britain's High Court judge decides Wednesday in favor of a Swedish request to extradite Assange to face trial For much of the past year Assange has been over rape allegations, some experts argue. (AP running the website from a supporter's country Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File) manor in eastern England, where the terms of his bail have confined him to virtual house arrest. The 40-year-old Australian says he has 20 staff (AP) -- As Julian Assange awaits a judge's members, but it's unclear who might take over were extradition verdict, it could be WikiLeaks' very he jailed.
    [Show full text]
  • JULIAN ASSANGE: When Google Met Wikileaks
    JULIAN ASSANGE JULIAN +OR Books Email Images Behind Google’s image as the over-friendly giant of global tech when.google.met.wikileaks.org Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of US power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation... Google is watching you when.google.met.wikileaks.org As Google enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s / WikiLeaks population... Google was accepting NSA money to the tune of... WHEN GOOGLE MET WIKILEAKS GOOGLE WHEN When Google Met WikiLeaks Google spends more on Washington lobbying than leading military contractors when.google.met.wikileaks.org WikiLeaks Search I’m Feeling Evil Google entered the lobbying rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012. Boeing and Northrop Grumman also came below the tech… Transcript of secret meeting between Julian Assange and Google’s Eric Schmidt... wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html Assange: We wouldn’t mind a leak from Google, which would be, I think, probably all the Patriot Act requests... Schmidt: Which would be [whispers] illegal... Assange: Tell your general counsel to argue... Eric Schmidt and the State Department-Google nexus when.google.met.wikileaks.org It was at this point that I realized that Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone... the delegation was one part Google, three parts US foreign-policy establishment... We called the State Department front desk and told them that Julian Assange wanted to have a conversation with Hillary Clinton...
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads but Many Other Countries — Such As the RCMP Said the Policy Revisions /JJ Release on April30.Pdf)
    CMAJ News For the record Published at www.cmaj.ca between Apr. The new warning letter regards in persistent or significant disability or 20 and May 18 breaches uncovered during a July– incapacity, be life-threatening or result August 2009 FDA inspection of an in death. Apotex receives second FDA Apotex facility located at 150 Signet The report indicates that there has Drive in Toronto, during which “sev- been a steady increase of adverse reac- warning eral violations that are identical” to tion reports since 2001, when roughly those found during the inspection of the 11 000 incidents were reported (www.hc he United States Food and Drug Etobicoke facility were discovered. -sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/med Administration (FDA) has “These identical CGMP violations eff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v20n2-eng.pdf). T issued a second warning letter demonstrated a lack of adequate Roughly 70% (18 301) of 2009 inci- in a year to Toronto, Ontario-based process controls and raised serious dents involved pharamaceuticals, while generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc. questions regarding your corporation’s 23% (5998) involved biotechnology for lapses in good manufacturing prac- quality and production systems,” the products. There were 833 adverse reac- tices. warning letter states. tion reports involving biologics, 516 The violations cause Apotex drug The violations included contamina- involving natural health products, 379 products to be considered “adulterated” tion of a diabetes drug with an “active involving radiopharmaceuticals and 34 within US regulations
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Sean R. Tiffee 2013
    Copyright by Sean R. Tiffee 2013 The Dissertation Committee for Sean R. Tiffee Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Trauma and the Rhetoric of Horror Films: The Rise of Torture Porn in a Post Nine-Eleven World Committee: ____________________________________ Joshua Gunn, Supervisor ____________________________________ Katherine Arens ____________________________________ Barry Brummett ____________________________________ Richard Cherwitz ____________________________________ Dana Cloud Trauma and the Rhetoric of Horror Films: The Rise of Torture Porn in a Post Nine-Eleven World by Sean R. Tiffee, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August, 2013 Dedication To my family, for always being there. Acknowledgements If I were to list every person who helped me on my journey towards the completion of my Ph.D., this section would be longer than the dissertation itself. Although I want to thank everyone, these limitations require me to note only those whose support was instrumental, endless, and tireless. First and foremost, I want to thank my advisor, Joshua Gunn. Josh’s patience, diligence, and guidance are unmatched and I am truly blessed to be one of his advisees. Mere words are not capable of expressing how much I appreciate his efforts and his meticulous attention to detail pushed me to produce the very best work that I could. He is someone that I am proud to call a mentor and humbled to call a friend. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Whitacre, Ph.D
    FEATURE CLE: WHEN GOOD LEADERS LOSE THEIR WAY Sponsor: Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP CLE Credit: 1.0 Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:25 p.m. - 2:25 p.m. Exhibit Hall 2 Owensboro Convention Center Owensboro, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter ........................................................................................................ i When Good Leaders Lose Their Way ................................................................... 1 Just Imagine for a Minute ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]