! DIFFERENT MOTIVATORS FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS by Andrew Ghalili A research study submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland August 2020 "!2020 Andrew Ghalili All Rights Reserved ! ! ABSTRACT What are the motivating factors for U.S. Intelligence Community whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study seeks to determine the motivators for an individual within U.S. national security, and more specifically within the IC, to whistleblow. Interviews with 12 whistleblowers or leakers were analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that were coded for include Intention, Education on Whistleblowing, Perceived Personal Cost (PPC), Public Service Motivation (PSM), and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The study finds that whistleblowers express higher levels of PPC, loyalty to institution, and loyalty to law than leakers, while leakers express higher levels of PSM, loyalty to public, and loyalty to self. The implications of these findings on policy within U.S. national security and Intelligence Community organizations are discussed and analyzed, resulting in multiple policy recommendations. This study was read and reviewed by Michael Warner and Anthony Lang. ##! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!#! TABLE OF CONTENTS!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!###! INTRODUCTION!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$! LITERATURE REVIEW!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%! METHODS AND DATA!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!&! CODE DEFINITIONS AND HYPOTHESES!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$'! FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$(! CONCLUSION!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%(! REFERENCES!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%&! ###! ! ! INTRODUCTION In general terms, whistleblowing occurs when an employee of an organization notices unethical or criminal behavior within the organization and proceeds to expose the wrongdoing, often by notifying an authority. Notifying authorities of an unethical activity can be a drastically different process depending on the organization or industry, however. For this research, and within the Intelligence Community, whistleblowing is defined as “the act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing.”1 Intelligence community (IC) whistleblowers are those employees or contractors working in any of the 17 elements of the IC who reasonably believe there has been a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety.2 Whistleblowers have existed in America for many decades and are an important part of American society. While whistleblower laws still need to be more clearly written and made more effective, there are existing mechanisms which intend to help an individual avoid retaliation for blowing the whistle on a government agency by reporting to an Inspector General’s office or the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.3 The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations for whistleblowing, and to compare them with the motivations for illegally leaking classified information. This research is important because there is little to no qualitative research on motivations for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! $!U.S. Congressional Research Service. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections (R45345; September 23, 1019), by Michael E. DeVine. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf 2 ibid. 3 See The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 https://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm ! $! ! whistleblowing within the Intelligence Community in America, and because of the consistent, inherent political importance of a national security whistleblower occurrence. Any discussion of prior research on whistleblowing must begin with a discussion of the definition of whistleblowing. While we have already established a definition, this discussion is still necessary both for a larger understanding of the cases that will be discussed and because only whistleblowers receive legal protections, not illegal leakers. For this study, the term “whistleblowing” will solely refer to whistleblowing within the United States government. This constraint is set due to the unique rules and regulations within the government, and the IC specifically, that allow for an individual to expose perceived unethical or illegal behavior. The legal process for a government employee to expose an agency’s wrongdoings is not extremely clear nor always effective, but there are mechanisms in place that are at least intended to enable a government employee to do exactly that. Individuals who choose to not even attempt to use those mechanisms, but rather steal documents or information and then illegally leak them to media or another entity, are classified as leakers, not whistleblowers. Interviews with twelve whistleblowers or leakers are analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that will be coded for include Education on Whistleblowing, Intent, Perceived Personal Cost, Public Service Motivation, and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The research attempts to answer the following question: what are the motivating factors of U.S. national security whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study intends to ! %! ! provide insight to intelligence officials and decision makers within the American government, and perhaps officials and decision makers in other democratic countries across the globe. One expected outcome of this research is a larger understanding of motivations for whistleblowing and conditions that lead to whistleblowing, which may inform policy makers of how to create the most trustworthy and ethical environment, encouraging individuals to report perceived wrongdoings internally within the system as opposed to leaking to the media. LITERATURE REVIEW Definitions and Theory In their seminal work, Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near (1985), leading scholars on whistleblowing, defined it as “an activity of disclosure by organizational members for illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations who may be able to effect action” (p. 4). A broader definition has been suggested by other scholars to include whistleblowing by former members of an organization (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). For this research, and within the Intelligence Community, whistleblowing is defined as “the act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing.”4 In order to fully understand what actions a whistleblower takes, as opposed to someone illegally leaking information, let us briefly look at Edward Snowden. Snowden is an example of a leaker, not a whistleblower, because he stole millions of documents from the NSA and illegally transferred them to a journalist. Although Snowden may not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4U.S. Congressional Research Service. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections (R45345; September 23, 1019), by Michael E. DeVine. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf ! &! ! have committed treason, he did illegally obtain and release classified government documents. If Edward Snowden’s true goal was just to make the American public aware of the NSA’s surveillance operations, he could have first tried to use the aforementioned mechanisms. He would have found at least some support in congress, where Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon had warned the American public in 2011, “when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”5 Nonetheless, Snowden showed no intention to work with congress, nor did he limit the documents he released to ones that deal specifically with NSA surveillance, or with programs that were illegal at all. Furthermore, he did not read all of the documents he stole and sent to journalists, therefore it is implausible that he knew all of the information he was releasing. There is no prior research that analyzes the factors effects on whistleblowers in relation to its effects on leakers. All prior research mentioned in this literature review is referring to both “leakers” and “whistleblowers”,