Later Published as Edwards, M., Ashkanasy, N. M. and Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or to remain silent following observed wrongdoing: The role of discrete emotions and climate of silence. In Greenberg, J. and Edwards, M. (Ed.), Voice and Silence in Organizations Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing(pp. 83-109)

DECIDING TO SPEAK UP OR TO REMAIN SILENT FOLLOWING OBSERVED WRONGDOING: THE ROLE OF DISCRETE EMOTIONS AND CLIMATE OF

SILENCE

Marissa S. Edwards, Neal M. Ashkanasy and John Gardner

Abstract

Employees who observe wrongdoing in the workplace must decide whether to speak up or

remain silent. Despite the prevalence of wrongdoing in organizations, little is known about

the decision-making of employees in this context and, in particular, the role of emotions in

this process. We fill this void by proposing a model that specifies how discrete emotions

influence employees’ decisions to engage in silence and whistle-blowing. Drawing on

theoretical models of emotion and decision-making, we argue that employees’ emotional

reactions to perceived wrongdoing involve a complex decision-making process involving

experienced emotions, anticipatory emotions, and anticipated emotions. Specifically, we

analyze the potential role of five discrete emotions in this process, arguing that anger and guilt

predict whistle-blowing, whereas anticipatory fear and shame predict decisions to remain

silent. We also discuss the role of anticipated regret in driving silence and whistle-blowing.

Further, we suggest that an organizational climate of silence moderates the way employees

respond emotionally and behaviorally following an episode of perceived wrongdoing. Finally,

we conclude by discussing limitations, future directions, and implications for research.

A wealth of research indicates that employee wrongdoing is prevalent in the

contemporary workplace (for a review, see Kidwell & Martin, 2005). Examples include

interpersonal mistreatment such as bullying, incivility, sexual harassment, and physical

violence, as well as episodes of employee fraud, theft, and sabotage. Although these types of

behaviors and their consequences for individuals and organizations have been well-

documented (e.g., Fox & Spector, 2005; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), we know relatively

less about the experiences of employees who observe these acts of deviance, and how they

decide how to respond to these events. Specifically, why do some observers of wrongdoing

speak up to their employers about wrongdoing, whereas others choose to remain silent?

Although empirical studies on whistle-blowing have provided rich information about the

organizational and individual variables that influence reporting behavior (for a review, see

Miceli & Near, 2005), little is known about how employees’ emotions influence their choices.

We address this shortcoming in this chapter.

Recent theoretical work suggests that how people evaluate and respond emotionally to

episodes of wrongdoing play an important role in determining whether they choose to engage

in whistle-blowing. In their model of observers’ responses to sexual harassment, for example,

Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly (2005) suggested that observers’ decisions about whether

or not to take action immediately or after some delay is influenced by their emotional

reactions to the event. Specifically, they proposed that the more negatively observers react to

an episode of harassment, the less likely they will be to wait before taking action. As we

discuss later, both Henik (2007) and Gundlach, Douglas, and Martinko (2003) have proposed

that appraisals and attributions, respectively, influence employees’ affective responses to

wrongdoing, and that their discrete emotions, in turn, determine whether they engage in

whistle-blowing. In a related area, Sekerka and Bagozzi (2007) have suggested that emotions

influence employees’ desires to act with moral courage following an ethical challenge in the

workplace, and also affect the decision itself. Overall, there is a strong conceptual basis for

examining the role of emotion in the context of wrongdoing in organizational settings.

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the growing literature on the

psychological processes underlying whistle-blowing (e.g., Gundlach et al., 2003; Henik,

2007) and employee silence (e.g., Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003), and to discuss the

role of emotions in employee decision-making following wrongdoing. In line with Brief and

Weiss’s (2002) call to investigate the effects of discrete emotions on employee behavior

rather than simply positive and negative affect, we consider specifically the role of five

discrete emotions as predictors of silence and whistle-blowing. Additionally, based on

Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) conceptualization of a climate of silence, we consider how

organizational climate influences employees’ emotional reactions to events and their

subsequent behaviors. Our approach builds on previous work by specifying the antecedents of

emotion following an episode of wrongdoing, extending the range of discrete emotions

involved in decision-making, and considers how emotions and climate may interact in this

context. In keeping with the theme of this book, however, we limit our discussion to the

emotions associated with the decision to remain silent or to engage in whistleblowing, rather

than other potential responses to wrongdoing (e.g., confrontation).

We begin our analysis by defining our major constructs and reviewing selected studies

that have implicated emotion in people’s decisions to speak up or remain silent about

workplace issues. Following this, we summarize the theoretical frameworks underlying our

approach. Specifically, we consider the decision-making process in the context of Affective

Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and

Zhang’s (2007) feedback theory of emotion.

Here, we argue that emotions can arise from at least three sources following observed

wrongdoing: (1) observation of the event itself (and its effects on others), (2) retrospective

appraisal of one’s response to the situation and its outcome(s), and (3) anticipation of the

emotions associated with certain behaviors and their consequences (e.g., silence or whistle-

blowing).

In particular, we offer a comprehensive model of decision-making and develop a set of

five pairs of propositions regarding the effect of two basic emotions (anger and fear), two

self-conscious emotions (guilt and shame), and anticipated regret on employees’ propensities

to engage in silence or whistle-blowing. We argue further that organizational climate

moderates how employees respond behaviorally following wrongdoing. Finally, we conclude

with a discussion of the limitations and implications of our approach and offer some

potentially fruitful directions for future research.

DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONSTRUCTS

Prior to introducing our theoretical approach, we define each of our key constructs:

employee wrongdoing, employee silence, and whistle-blowing. Since employee silence and

whistle-blowing are defined in several other chapters in this volume, we describe them only

briefly here.

Employee Wrongdoing

A wide range of deviant behaviors can occur in organizational settings, including acts

of aggression, violence, employee theft, bullying, and organizational sabotage (for a review,

see Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Consistent with this broad scope, a variety of constructs

and definitions have been advanced by researchers to classify such actions, making it difficult

to identify exactly what constitutes employee wrongdoing. Griffin and Lopez (2005) note this

lack of conceptual clarity in their review of ‘bad behavior’ in organizations, commenting that

many different terms have been used to describe inappropriate conduct in the workplace,

including workplace deviance, counterproductive work behavior (Fox & Spector, 2005),

antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999),

and organizational misbehavior (Vardi & Wiener, 1996). Griffin and Lopez (2005) posit

further that, “In many cases, however, the distinctions between these constructs are

ambiguous or unspecified… [this] may result in contradictory and/or incongruent theoretical

arguments and empirical conclusions” (p. 989).

For the purposes of this chapter, we define employee wrongdoing as employee

behavior that is perceived to be illegal, immoral, or illegitimate in an organization. This

definition is consistent with Near and Miceli’s (1985) definition of whistle-blowing. It is also

necessary to state here that we are interested in the decision-making of employees who are not

implicated in the employee wrongdoing — that is, individuals who have not participated in

the wrongdoing themselves. Further, we are concerned primarily with those behaviors that are

so sufficiently severe that, upon discovery, some type of punitive response from management

would be expected, ranging from a reprimand to dismissal.

Following an episode of wrongdoing, an observer must decide how to respond.

Specifically, employees are faced with behavioral options that include remaining in the

organization and staying silent, discussing the matter with colleagues, confronting the

perpetrator(s), engaging in internal and/or external whistle-blowing, or exiting the

organization (Edwards, Ashkanasy, & Gardner, 2006). Frequently, employees may engage in

more than one of these behaviors over a period of time. In the following section, we discuss

the role of emotion in employee decision-making following observed wrongdoing. In

particular, we focus on the decision-making process preceding two potential responses to

wrongdoing, namely employee silence and whistle-blowing.

Employee Silence

Milliken, Morrison, and Hewlin (2003) drew attention to the fact that employees

frequently choose not to speak up about problems and concerns in the workplace. They

describe this as employee silence (see also Morrison & Milliken, 2003; Pinder & Harlos,

2001). Despite its prevalence, little theoretical and empirical research has been conducted into

employee silence, largely because of the conceptual and methodological challenges inherent

in studying this behavior (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). More recently, however, employee silence

has gained recognition as an important area of study, especially in view of its (mostly

negative) implications for organizational learning, decision-making, error detection, and

misconduct (Milliken et al., 2003; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2005).

Whistle-Blowing

As detailed in the opening chapter of this volume, whistle-blowing — defined as the

reporting of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate behavior by employers to individuals considered

able to engage in reparative action (Near & Miceli, 1985) — began to attract the attention of

researchers during the mid-1980s. In a recent review of the field, Miceli and Near (2005)

reported that the best predictors of whether an individual will engage in whistle-blowing are

the severity of the deviant behavior and the belief that speaking up will initiate effective

change. As we will discuss later, however, few researchers have examined the psychological

processes underlying whistle-blowing. We contend that this represents a gap in our

understanding of this behavior and argue that it also is important to understand why people

choose not to speak up. Next, we review the limited work that has been conducted to date on

the role of emotions in employees’ decision-making after having observed instances of

deviant or unethical behavior in the workplace.

EMOTIONS AND DECISION-MAKING FOLLOWING WRONGDOING

Because most of the research conducted on employees’ responses to wrongdoing has

focused on whistle-blowing, and these studies have concentrated on individual and

organizational predictors, we know relatively little about the perceptions, appraisals, and

emotions that shape employees’ decisions after observing wrongdoing. Early theoretical

models (e.g., Dozier & Miceli, 1985) seeking to explain why employees choose to blow the

whistle or not to do so drew on bystander intervention research.

In this respect, Dozier and Miceli conceptualized the decision-making process as a

series of rational steps, involving assessments of personal responsibility for speaking up,

alternative courses of action, and an evaluation of the costs and benefits of engaging in the

behavior. Although it constituted a reasonable first step, this approach does not tell the whole

story. More recently, and consistent with the so-called “affective revolution” in the

organizational sciences (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003, p. 3), researchers began considering

how emotions influence decisions about how to respond to wrongdoing.

For example, Gundlach et al.’s (2003) social information processing model of whistle-

blowing suggests that the emotions of fear, anger, and resentment will affect the decision-

making of potential whistle-blowers. In particular, Gundlach et al. contend that individuals’

attributions about the causes of perceived wrongdoing (e.g., perpetrators’ intentions to

commit the behavior) and the degree to which they believe perpetrators are responsible for the

behavior will drive their emotional reactions and influence their decisions to speak up.

Further, Henik (2007) has proposed that anger predicts whistle-blowing and fear of retaliation

predicts inactive observation. In line with cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1982, 1984)

she postulates that individuals’ cognitive appraisals of events influence their subsequent

emotional reactions. Henik also proposed that value conflict and the associated integrative

complexity of potential whistle-blowers’ thinking will influence the extent to which these

emotions predict each behavior. With respect to employee silence, Milliken et al. (2003)

concluded that fear plays a key role in employees’ decisions not to speak up about problems

and concerns in organizations. Additionally, Pinder and Harlos (2001) have argued that at

least two types of silence exist in organizations — quiescence silence and acquiescent silence

— and that each type of silence involves different emotions. Specifically, they suggest that

while quiescent silence is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, cynicism, and

despair, acquiescent silence is characterized by feelings of resignation. To date, however,

none of their claims have been tested empirically.

The work of these authors has added theoretical depth to our understanding of the

emotions that may underlie employees’ decision-making following a wrongdoing, but we

suggest that there is much more to be considered. In particular, researchers to date have not

included the effect of discrete emotions other than anger, resentment, and fear in their

theoretical models. And nor have any researchers looked at how anticipated emotions may

influence employee behavior. Finally, current models have failed to incorporate the effect of

organizational climate on people’s emotional reactions to wrongdoing and their subsequent

behavior. However, there is good reason to believe that these considerations are important,

prompting us to examine them here.

Relevant Theoretical Frameworks

Before introducing the theoretical frameworks bearing on our model, we note that our

conceptualization of the role of emotions in decision-making following wrongdoing differs

from previous approaches to this topic. Specifically, rather than considering only how

emotions might affect employees’ decisions immediately after one distinct episode of

wrongdoing, we consider how emotions may arise and influence decision-making over an

extended period of time. In addition to affective responses that arise from observing an

episode of deviance, we claim that the majority of employees engage in processes of

reflection and appraisal of the situation and consider their own behavioral responses to it, and

that these evaluations, in turn, trigger emotions. With this approach in mind, we suggest that

the emotions that shape observers’ decision-making can arise from three sources: (1) their

observations of the event itself (and its effects on others); (2) the outcome of their initial

responses to the situation (i.e., silence or speaking up), and their retrospective evaluations of

their behavior; and (3) their anticipation of the emotions and consequences associated with

certain behaviors (e.g., in this case, silence or whistle-blowing).

In the sections that follow, we use AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and Baumeister

et al.’s (2007) theory of emotion as a feedback system to explain how emotions arise and

shape decision-making following observed wrongdoing in the workplace. First, AET provides

a rationale for how employees’ emotions arising from observing the event itself will affect

decision-making. Second, feedback theory explains how employees’ retrospective appraisals

of their own behavior, as well as anticipated emotions about the outcomes of silence or

whistle-blowing, will affect how employees decide how to respond to wrongdoings.

Affective Events Theory (AET)

AET is arguably the most influential theory to date regarding the effects of affect,

emotion, and mood on employees’ attitudes and behavior (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2005;

Weiss & Beal, 2005), and has received support in empirical studies (e.g., Judge, Scott, &

Ilies, 2006; Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West, & Dawson, 2006). According to Weiss and

Cropanzano (1996), stable characteristics of the work environment (e.g., job stress, role

expectations) determine the occurrence of discrete affective events that lead to affective states

such as emotions and moods (see also Ashkanasy, Ashton-James, & Jordan, 2004). Over time,

the cumulative effects of workplace events and their corresponding affective states can

influence work-related attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and behaviors related to them, such as

turnover. In line with cognitive appraisal theorists (e.g., Frijda, 1986), Weiss and Cropanzano

(1996) suggest that individuals evaluate situations using a two-stage appraisal process

involving primary appraisal and secondary appraisal. Primary appraisal involves assessing an

event with respect to its relevance to personal wellbeing (harm vs. benefits), whereas

secondary appraisal is more complex and involves making attributions about the event and the

individual’s capacity to cope with it. It is these secondary appraisals that elicit discrete

emotions, which lead ultimately to affect-driven behavior or judgment-driven behavior.

At the next stage of AET, affect-driven behaviors are influenced primarily by

instantaneous emotional reactions to an event. Judgment-driven behaviors, however, occur

following a cognitive evaluation of the situation, and are driven by enduring attitudes about

the job or organization. These involve both cognition and emotion (see also Weiss & Beal,

2005). In the current context, we propose that observing an episode of wrongdoing constitutes

an affective event that, following appraisal, elicits a negative emotional reaction in an

employee (e.g., sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust). In turn, these negative emotions

arising from the event influence decision-making about how to respond behaviorally to the

wrongdoing.

Currently, however, and despite some interesting preliminary studies that have

implicated emotion in the decision-making process (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003), it is unclear to

what extent silence and whistle-blowing are driven by affect or judgments. Although we are

unaware of any research to date that has examined the nature of employees’ decision-making

in the context of wrongdoing, it seems likely (as we noted earlier) that most people evaluate

such situations for at least some time before deciding how to respond. For example, Edwards

and Gardner (2007) found in an interview study that virtually all employees who had

observed or experienced serious wrongdoings had deliberated for days or weeks about how to

respond. Furthermore, respondents’ deliberations included emotional content and took into

account issues such as their job security, job responsibilities, and job satisfaction. Based on

this, it seems reasonable to consider silence and whistle-blowing as examples of judgment-

driven behavior. We note, however, that our discussion in this chapter concerns prosocial

whistle-blowing (i.e., genuine cases of whistle-blowing designed to bring about positive

change). In this respect, we acknowledge that instances of antisocial whistle-blowing (e.g.,

false accusations of wrongdoing, or whistle-blowing as a means of revenge; Miceli & Near,

1997), for example, might be almost entirely affect-driven.

Feedback Theory

In addition to AET, we posit that Baumeister et al.’s (2007) theory of emotion as a

feedback system provides a relevant framework for understanding the role of emotions in

employees’ decision-making following observed wrongdoing (see also Blenkinsopp &

Edwards, 2008). In their initial discussion, Baumeister et al. distinguish between automatic

affect and conscious emotion. In contrast to traditional theories of emotion as an immediate

antecedent of behavior, they propose that conscious emotions motivate cognitive processing

and encourage careful contemplation of one’s behavior following an event. Specifically,

Baumeister and his associates argue that emotions facilitate learning, adaptation, and

retrospective assessments of one’s behavioral response(s) to a situation and identify lessons to

guide future decision-making. The authors note that automatic affective reactions also

influence behavior by maintaining these lessons from past events.

Additionally, Baumeister et al. (2007) suggest that anticipation of the emotional

outcomes of behavior can influence people’s choices about whether to engage in certain

behaviors. Indeed, a great deal of evidence suggests that people anticipate how they are likely

to feel about future events and use these emotional reactions to guide their decisions (see also

Bagozzi, Baumgartner, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2000; Mellers & McGraw, 2001). As Bagozzi,

Dholakia, and Basuroy (2003) observe, “Anticipated emotions represent an important way in

which emotions determine what decision makers choose, and how they choose it” (p. 278).

Anderson (2003) has proposed in addition that anticipated regret influences people’s

tendencies to avoid making decisions, and March and Shapira (1987) found that expectations

of both positive and negative emotions affected managers’ willingness to take risks. Research

by Milliken et al. (2003) and by Edwards and Gardner (2007) revealed that, when faced with

the decision to speak up or to remain silent about organizational problems, people

contemplated how they could respond, anticipating the events (e.g., retaliation vs. support

from management) and the emotional outcomes associated with each response.

As well as anticipated emotions (emotions that people expect to experience at some

point in the future), we suggest that anticipatory emotions are likely to influence employees’

decisions about whether to engage in silence or whistle-blowing. Lowenstein, Weber, Hsee,

and Welch (2001) define anticipatory emotions as “immediate visceral reactions (e.g., fear,

anxiety, dread) to risks and uncertainties” (p. 267), and note that they are emotions about

future events that are experienced in real-time (see also Lowenstein & Lerner, 2003). In the

current context, we suggest that anticipatory fear will influence employees’ decisions about

whether to engage in reporting behavior.

Putting this into the context of observed wrongdoing, imagine that an employee

observes a co-worker being bullied by a senior manager for the first time. The observer may

recognize the behavior as bullying and feel upset that it has happened, but she or he may

decide, for a variety of reasons, that it is inappropriate to report the wrongdoing at this time.

For example, the individual may decide to wait for confirmation in the future (e.g., “If this

happens again, then I will tell someone about it.”). If she or he witnesses further incidents, the

individual may experience negative emotional reactions that increase in intensity and

frequency, may begin to evaluate the utility of their current behavior (i.e., silence), and feel

guilty and ashamed, signaling that some type of action is required to alleviate the negative

emotions.

These conscious emotions and the affective residue from previous episodes indicate to

the observer that remaining silent (their current course of action) will not only fail to solve the

problem, but may indeed make the situation worse. We contend that these negative emotions

will lead employees to begin cognitively to evaluate their potential responses to the situation

(e.g., silence, confronting the perpetrator, whistle-blowing, quitting), which then should lead

to a behavioral response.

This approach is consistent with Baumeister et al.’s (2007) contention that people are

often motivated to engage in behavior designed to alleviate their own distressing affective

states. We note that this decision-making process will be shaped by individual and contextual

factors as well (see Harvey, Martinko, & Douglas, Chapter 3, this volume). This example is

consistent with the pathway to judgment-driven behavior specified in AET, which involves

both cognition and emotion as precursors of behavior. It also is consistent with previous

research suggesting that individual and situational factors, such as personal power and

perceptions about the safety and utility of speaking up influence decisions about how to

respond to wrongdoing (Miceli & Near, 2005; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Integrating the

perspectives of AET and feedback theory, we contend that observers’ experienced emotions

and anticipated emotions play important roles in their decisions to remain silent or to engage

in whistleblowing. Having established this background, we now introduce our model of

employee decision-making and discuss the discrete emotions that are likely to be relevant to

whistle-blowing and silence.

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCRETE

EMOTIONS, SILENCE, AND WHISTLE-BLOWING

In their recent discussion of the role of emotions in decision-making, Zeelenberg,

Nelissen, Breugelmans, and Pieters (2008) observe that researchers have proposed that

discrete emotions can influence behavior in at least two ways. First, emotions prioritize goals

and motivate people to behave in ways that will help achieve them, termed the “feeling-is-for-

doing” approach. Second, information-based perspectives suggest that emotions provide

feedback about goal progress and emphasize how emotions influence the way people appraise

and make inferences about situations. Although we already have argued strongly for the

importance of recognizing emotional feedback in the context of observed wrongdoing, we

recognize that the “feeling-is-for-doing” approach is also highly relevant in this context. Since

the nature of observers’ decision-making and indeed the role of emotions is yet to be

examined empirically, we draw on evidence from both perspectives to argue for why certain

discrete emotions are likely to be associated with silence and whistle-blowing.

Our comprehensive model linking discrete emotions, silence, and whistle-blowing is

presented in Figure 1. In line with our previous argument, we distinguish between three

sources of emotions: (1) emotions arising from observing the wrongdoing itself, as

experienced in real-time (labeled experienced emotions); (2) emotions generated from

retrospective appraisals of previous events and outcomes, also experienced in real-time; and

(3) emotions about future outcomes (divided into anticipated emotions and anticipatory

emotions).

Basic Emotions

Many researchers, most notably Ekman (1992, 1994), have argued for the existence of

what they describe as “basic emotions.” Ekman has proposed that at least five basic emotions

exist: anger, fear, surprise, sadness, and disgust. He argues that these can be distinguished on

the basis of several key characteristics, including presence in other primates, characteristic

physiology, rapid onset, and brief duration. Here, we discuss the relevancy of two basic

emotions — anger and fear — to employees’ decision-making following observed

wrongdoing.

Anger

According to Rozin, Lowery, Imada, and Haidt (1999), the emotion of anger has been

conceptualized in a variety of ways, ranging from a primordial reaction to frustration and goal

obstruction, to a physiologically powerful motivator of behavior, and a principally moral

emotion elicited in response to ethical transgressions and violations of appropriate conduct. In

a study of anger-eliciting events in the workplace, Fitness (2000), for example, found that

many different events gave rise to anger among employees, with the most commonly reported

cause being unjust treatment (44%), followed by morally reprehensible behavior (23%), job

incompetence (15%), disrespect (11%), and public humiliation (7%). In close interpersonal

relationships, individuals cite issues such as betrayal of trust, unwarranted criticism, and lack

of consideration as precursors of anger (Fehr, Baldwin, Collins, Patterson, & Benditt, 1999).

On the basis of this work and others linking anger with specific events involving injustice and

ethical violations (e.g., Mikula, Scherer, & Athenstaedt, 1998; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005), we

propose that observing wrongdoing itself will elicit anger. We note, of course, that

retrospective appraisals of one’s own behavior also can give rise to feelings of anger (i.e.,

self-directed anger), which in turn can influence employees’ decisions about how to respond

to the anger-inducing episode.

But how and why might the experience of anger be associated with whistleblowing?

As noted previously, anger has not been examined specifically as a predictor of whistle-

blowing in any empirical studies to date. Furthermore, we note that researchers have found

that anger can shape behavior in different ways depending on the situational context (e.g.,

Kuppens, Van Mechelen, & Meulders, 2004). At the same time, however, we note that

FIGURE 1. A model of the relationship between emotions, silence and whistle-blowing.

Observed wrongdoing and its effects on others

Retrospective appraisals of the decision to remain silent

Anticipated emotions about future outcomes

Anticipatory emotions about future outcomes

Anger

Guilt

Fear

Shame

Whistle - blowing

Silence

P1a P1b

P2a

P2b

P3a P3b

P6

Climate of Silence

Episode of Observed

Wrongdoing

P4a

Regret remaining silent

P5a P4b

P5c

P5b

Regret whistle - blowing

Discrete Emotions Sources of emotion

research by Haidt (2003) has found that anger can motivate behavior and often

encourages individuals to retaliate against an offender or to redress injustice, as suggested by

equity theory (Adams, 1963). The social information processing model of whistle-blowing

proposed by Gundlach et al. (2003) also identifies anger as an emotion that will influence the

decision to speak up or not. Likewise, Henik (2007) has also implicated anger as an

antecedent of speaking-up behavior, suggesting that this emotion will predict whistle-blowing

rather than inactive observation.

We also draw on Lerner and Tiedens’ (2006) argument that anger can be a positive

and potentially rewarding experience when people are contemplating how they might respond

to a situation. They point to studies showing that anger is associated with optimistic

judgments about future events as well as increased feelings of control over situations and to

the ability to influence outcomes. We suggest that these appraisals are particularly relevant to

potential whistle-blowers and that anger will influence individuals’ perceptions to the extent

that they are more likely to engage in whistleblowing than silence. On the basis of this work,

we propose as follows:

Proposition 1a. Observed employee wrongdoing followed by a process of appraisal

is likely to result in the experience of anger.

Proposition 1b. Anger is more likely to lead to whistle-blowing than to silence.

Fear

Fear is one of the most primal human emotions (Ortony & Turner, 1990). It is an

aversive emotional state characterized by a high level of arousal, and is induced by a stimulus

that is perceived to be significant in magnitude and personally threatening. Although extreme

fear can be debilitating (e.g., in the case of panic attacks), and in certain situations can lead to

temporary paralysis or freezing known as “tonic immobility” (see Marx, Forsyth, Gallup,

Fuse´ , & Lexington, 2008), researchers have proposed that less intense fear can serve a

motivational purpose by helping people make choices quickly under time pressure (Pfister &

Bohm, 2008). Fear also influences how people interpret events and evaluate future outcomes.

In three separate studies investigating how discrete emotions affect perceptions of risk, Lerner

and Keltner (2001) found that angry people and fearful people made very different judgments

about risks and positive and negative events. Specifically, they observed that whereas angry

people were optimistic in their judgments of risky situations, fearful people made pessimistic

judgments, and these evaluations were consistent across a range of situations.

Two empirical studies indicate that fear plays an important role in many employees’

decisions to withhold information or concerns from their employers. In their interview study,

Milliken et al. (2003) found that four anticipated fears increased the likelihood that employees

will remain silent about important work issues: (1) fear of being labeled or viewed negatively,

(2) fear of damaging a relationship, (3) fear of retaliation or punishment, and (4) fear that

speaking up will have a negative impact on others. Similarly, in their qualitative study of

upward communication in organizations, Detert and Edmondson (2006) reported that fear was

clearly the most prevalent emotion employees expressed when discussing episodes in which

they felt unable to express information, opinions, or concerns. Specifically, informants feared

that if they spoke up they would lose the acceptance or support of superiors and colleagues

along with opportunities to progress in their careers or their jobs.

We contend that following an episode(s) of wrongdoing, employees will engage in a

decision-making process in which they consider various ways of responding to the event (e.g.,

confronting the perpetrator, whistle-blowing, remaining silent, etc.), and the costs and benefits

of engaging in each option (see Gundlach et al., 2003). As we have noted already, negative

emotions arising from observing the wrongdoing and retrospective appraisals help elicit this

decision-making. We suggest that this decision-making process is likely to result in

anticipatory fear, and that this fear is more likely to lead to silence than to whistle-blowing.

Note, in particular, that unlike anger, it is fear of the consequences of speaking up

experienced in real-time that is the operative emotion here. Although anger also is

experienced in real-time, it arises as a consequence of observed wrongdoing. In contrast, we

suggest that observers do not necessarily feel fearful following the episode of wrongdoing,

but rather, that they are likely to experience this emotion as they are contemplating their

responses to the situation. This leads to our next pair of propositions:

Proposition 2a. Observed employee wrongdoing and the subsequent decisionmaking process

is likely to result in anticipatory fear of retaliation or of being labeled or

viewed negatively by others.

Proposition 2b. Anticipatory fear of retaliation or of being labeled or viewed negatively by

others is more likely to lead to silence than to whistle-blowing.

Self-Conscious Emotions

Tracy and Robins (2004) note that self-conscious emotions differ from basic emotions

in that the former require self-awareness and self-representations whereas the latter do not

(see also Fischer & Tangney, 1995). To experience a self-conscious emotion, therefore, an

individual must be able to form stable self-representations, to engage in self-reflection based

on that representation, and to collate the information required to engage in self-evaluation.

Tracy and Robins (2004) note further that self-conscious emotions also differ from basic

emotions in that they appear to fulfill different goals. Specifically, whereas basic emotions are

associated with “survival goals” (i.e., fear is associated with goals pertaining to survival and

reproduction), self-conscious emotions generally are associated with “social goals” (i.e.,

behaving in accordance with social norms and expectations and maintaining interpersonal

relationships). Thus, self-conscious emotions motivate individuals to behave in socially

valued ways (i.e., in an ethical manner, helping others in need), which are internalized as

actual and ideal self-representations.

Based on the literature we have reviewed here, it would seem that self-conscious

emotions are particularly germane to the study of decision-making following wrongdoing.

Although rarely identified in the organizational behavior literature, these emotions should also

play a role in silence and speaking-up behavior. For instance, outside of organizations,

researchers have found that victims of violent interpersonal behavior, such as sexual assault or

domestic violence, frequently remain silent because of shame and embarrassment (e.g., Sable,

Danis, Mauzy, & Gallagher, 2006). Simultaneously, victims may feel guilty about not

speaking up, particularly if others are exposed to harm as well. As such, the emotions become

self-reinforcing. With this in mind, we propose that although guilt is likely to be associated

with whistle-blowing, shame is likely to be associated with silence. We introduce these

propositions in more detail later.

Guilt

According to Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007), shame and guilt, although

conceptualized similarly, differ in terms of the focus of their negative evaluative cognitions.

Specifically, whereas the cognitions underlying shame tend to be self-directed (“I am

responsible for this terrible event”), the primary concern when experiencing guilt is the

behavior itself (“I have done a terrible thing”). Tangney and her associates report that shame

and guilt have different motivational properties, and therefore they also have different

consequences for interpersonal relationships. Rather than focusing on the self, guilt elicits an

other-oriented perspective, thereby leading to feelings of empathy that motivate individuals to

behave in caring and socially responsible ways. Indeed, Barrett (1995) argues that guilt “often

moves the individual to tell others about the wrongdoing” (p. 41), whereas shame encourages

withdrawal and silence. Furthermore, in a study of interpersonal relationships, Baumeister,

Stillwell, and Heatherton (1995) reported that feelings of guilt were associated with high rates

of learning lessons, changing subsequent behavior, apologizing, and confessing

transgressions.

More recent work by Amodio, Devine, and Harmon-Jones (2007) has revealed that the

behavioral effects of guilt following an individual transgression appear to unfold across two

stages. First, people generally try to avoid the distressing situation and display increased

attention to transgression-related cues. Second, following the opportunity for reparation,

people tend to engage in behavior aimed at repairing the damage caused by their actions. The

authors argue that the initial experience of guilt may disrupt current behavior “in order to halt

a transgression, survey the damage, and learn from mistakes. The function of guilt then

transforms to promote approach responses toward reparatory behaviors, aimed at making up

for past transgressions and behaving more appropriately in future situations” (p. 525). In

other words, guilty people tend to withdraw from a situation in the initial stage following a

mistake or indiscretion, but guilt also motivates people to resolve a situation if they feel that

they will be able to make amends for their behavior.

In the case of employees who initially elected to remain silent after observing

wrongdoing on the job, we suggest that feelings of guilt will prompt them to evaluate their

silence and to consider whether it is the best course of action. We note that this response is

particularly likely when the perceived wrongdoing is believed to be detrimental for other

individuals or the organization in question. Again, we note that the event itself will not elicit

feelings of guilt directly. Rather, it is during the resulting process of reflection and appraisal

of one’s response to the situation and the associated outcome that employees will experience

guilt. Additionally, we note that if employees consider the possibility of not reporting the

behavior in the future and imagine the associated adverse consequences of doing so, this can

give rise to anticipated guilt. This idea is consistent with Baumeister et al.’s (2007) contention

that emotions help individuals evaluate the effectiveness of their previous behavioral

responses to events and assess the viability of future responses. We therefore propose as

follows:

Proposition 3a. Observed employee wrongdoing and the subsequent appraisal of

one’s decision to remain silent is likely to lead to guilt.

Proposition 3b. Guilt about remaining silent is more likely to lead to whistleblowing

than silence.

Shame

Although researchers have not explicitly examined shame in the context of speaking-

up, recent conceptualizations suggest that shame may predict employee silence. Shame is

negatively valenced, associated with feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness, and

characterized by negative scrutiny about oneself as a person (Tangney & Salovey, 1999).

Indeed, Tangney and Dearing (2002) argue that the self-focused cognitions associated with

shame are so strong that they can “short-circuit” any feelings of empathy and concern for

others, leading ashamed individuals to engage in behavior that conceals their past

transgressions and actively circumvent future situations that may induce further shame.

Nathanson (1992), furthermore, has proposed that people cope with the experience of shame

in different ways, which in turn, influences how this emotion affects their behavior. These

responses include withdrawal, self-directed anger and criticism, externalized anger, and

avoidance. Although empirical evidence for the effects of shame is limited, a recent study by

De Hooge, Zeelenberg, and Breugelmans (2007) revealed that guilt motivated cooperative

behavior in everyday social situations, whereas shame had no effect on cooperation. The

authors argued that these results support the idea that shame is associated with withdrawal and

avoidance behavior rather than reparation and prosocial behavior.

In the context of observed wrongdoing, we argue that an employee who decides to

remain silent about an issue initially may be comfortable with that choice, but may become

increasingly ashamed of this decision as time progresses. For employees who are strongly

committed to challenging unethical behavior but feel unable to do so because of the potential

costs of speaking up, their shame may be immediate and devastating. In one study of the

effects of silence in the context of prejudice, women who failed to confront the perpetrators

who treated them prejudicially reported experiencing such self-directed negative emotions

such as shame, guilt, and high levels of distress (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006).

We argue that the shame associated with people’s decisions to remain silent will be

particularly strong if negative consequences (e.g., harm to others or their organizations) arise

as a result of their failures to speak up.

Additionally, we contend that the longer one remains silent, the harder it is to speak up

because the consequences of doing so are greater and rationalizations to remain silent are

stronger. This represents a process of escalating commitment to the decision to remain silent

(see Brockner, 1992). We note that other emotions will be relevant here too, particularly guilt,

and we suggest that the potential effects of experiencing multiple emotions is an important

area for future study. In the case of shame, however, we suggest that people experiencing this

emotion after reflecting on their behavior will have their negative cognitions about themselves

reinforced along with their decision to remain silent. This, in turn, will reduce the likelihood

that they will speak up in the future. As such, we propose as follows:

Proposition 4a. Observed employee wrongdoing and the subsequent appraisal of one’s

decision to remain silent is likely to lead to experienced shame.

Proposition 4b. Shame is more likely to lead to silence than to whistle-blowing.

Anticipated Regret

The emotion of regret arises when “realizing or imagining that our present situation

would have been better, had we decided differently” (Zeelenberg, 1999, p. 94) and is often

experienced following losses, transgressions, mistakes, and failures. Based on research

demonstrating that this emotion is pivotal to decision-making, we contend that anticipated

regret is likely to play an important role in how observers respond to wrongdoing in their

workplace. As we have noted already, anticipated emotions involve imagining the future

emotional outcomes of decisions and these can have powerful effects on decision-making.

Indeed, studies have shown that anticipated emotions increase people’s intentions,

expectations, and desires to engage in action, even when taking into account other variables

that influence their behavior (e.g., attitudes, norms, and behavioral control) (Baumgartner,

Pieters, & Bagozzi, 2008). From a motivational perspective, Sheeran and Orbell (1999) argue

that since regret is such an unpleasant and pervasive emotion, anticipated regret should lead

people to engage in behavior designed to circumvent or minimize this emotional experience.

In keeping with this, Zeelenberg (1999) notes that people are generally regret-averse, and thus

tend to engage in what he describes as “regret-minimizing choices.”

Based on a review of the literature, Zeelenberg (1999) argued that several factors

influence the extent to which people will anticipate experiencing regret following a decision.

Specifically, he suggests that regret will be anticipated and will have a greater effect on

decisions in situations in which: (1) the most preferred alternative is not necessarily better

than another behavioral option, (2) the potential negative outcomes of a decision have an

immediate impact as opposed to a delayed impact, (3) significant members of the decision-

maker’s social networks view the decision as important and expect the decision-maker to

adhere to it, (4) new information concerning potential gains and losses can be obtained, and

(5) significant members of the decision-maker’s social networks encourage the decision-

maker to evaluate his or her options carefully and postpone making a decision until all options

have been considered. Zeelenberg argued further that the greater the importance and

irreversibility of a decision, the more people will take into account the potential for regret.

In the case of employees who have observed wrongdoing, we suggest that anticipated

regret will influence employees’ decision-making because they are considering the behavioral

options available to them once an episode of wrongdoing has occurred. In this sense, it will

emerge in the decision-making process at a similar stage as anticipatory fear rather than as a

consequence of observing the wrongdoing (resulting in anger) or reappraisal of their own

behavior (resulting in guilt and shame). With respect to this emotion, we recognize that

employees can anticipate experiencing regret when they contemplate engaging in whistle-

blowing and when they consider remaining silent. This paradox captures neatly the cognitive

dissonance and conflict faced by those who observe wrongdoing in the workplace as they ask

themselves if it is worth taking the risk of engaging in whistle-blowing even if doing so

threatens to damage their career and reputation, or if it is better to remain silent and live with

the consequences of not reporting the behavior. Ultimately, we contend that the relative

anticipated regret associated with each potential response will help determine how people

respond to the situation. Thus, we propose as follows:

Proposition 5a. Observed employee wrongdoing and the subsequent decision-making process

will lead employees to anticipate the regret associated with silence as

opposed to whistle-blowing.

Proposition 5b. When employees anticipate experiencing greater regret if they remain silent

than if they speak up, anticipated regret is more likely to lead to whistle-

blowing than to silence.

Proposition 5c. When employees anticipate experiencing greater regret by blowing the

whistle than by remaining silent, anticipated regret is more likely to lead to

silence than to whistle-blowing.

To summarize, we have drawn on both conceptual and empirical work to suggest that

anger and guilt will predict whistle-blowing more strongly than silence, and that anticipatory

fear and shame will predict silence more strongly than whistleblowing. We have also argued

that anticipated regret — depending on the focus of the emotion — can lead employees to

engage in silence or whistle-blowing.

We now consider how one contextual variable — organizational climate — may

influence employees’ emotional reactions to observed wrongdoing and their subsequent

behavior. Organizational climate refers to collective and stable perceptions of psychologically

important elements of an organizational environment (Ashforth, 1985). So far as we can

ascertain, no empirical research to date has examined the relationship between emotion and

climate specifically. Nonetheless, we contend that climate is an important variable to consider

in future studies of silence and whistle-blowing. We now endeavor to explain its relevance in

this connection.

The Moderating Effect of Organizational Climate

Before explaining how climate is likely to affect how employees respond to

wrongdoing, we seek to avoid confusion by distinguishing between organizational climate

and culture. Denison (1996) defines organizational culture as “the deep structure of

organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational

members” (p. 624). In contrast, he suggests that climate is “relatively temporary, subject to

direct control, and largely limited to those aspects of the social environment that are

consciously perceived by organizational members” (p. 624). Research suggests that multiple

sources contribute to the development of organizational climate, including organizational

events, processes, and communication (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). The shared perceptions

and meanings that arise from employees’ interactions with one another, in particular, are a

key element of climate. With respect to emotion, Ashkanasy and Nicholson (2003) proposed

that emotional displays in organizations can lead to shared perceptions of emotion among

employees, or an “emotional climate.” While we recognize that both culture and climate

shape how people respond to wrongdoing, previous research has demonstrated that

employees’ perceptions about the safety and utility of speaking up are important influences on

decision-making (Detert & Edmondson, 2006), and we focus on climate as a moderating

variable in this context.

Miceli and Near (1985) were the first to examine specifically the potential influence of

organizational climate on whistle-blowing. They suggested that if there is a high level of

dubious activity in an organization and evidence that dissent will attract punishment, then

employees are likely to develop perceptions that the organization is tolerant of wrongdoing,

making it risky to speak up about it. Miceli and Near argued that these perceptions could lead

to the development of a climate in which internal whistle-blowing is discouraged. In

accordance with their predictions, they found in a survey of over 8,000 employees that when

employees perceived that their organization was tolerant of the wrongdoing and that they

would experience retaliation for speaking up, they were unlikely to report wrongdoing to

management but likely to approach outside authorities with their concerns.

In a seminal paper, Morrison and Milliken (2000) proposed the concept of

organizational silence, a collective-level phenomenon characterized by the widespread

withholding of information by employees about organizational problems or concerns. They

argue that a climate of silence helps to facilitate the development of organizational silence,

and that it is characterized by two key perceptions: (1) that speaking up about problems in the

organization is not worth the effort and (2) that voicing opinions and concerns is dangerous.

Morrison and Milliken proposed that such a climate develops through a process of collective

sensemaking, through which employees gain shared understandings about their workplaces

(Weick, 1995). Interestingly, Morrison and Milliken’s concept of a climate of silence shares

similarities with Ashkanasy and Nicholson’s (2003) climate of fear, defined as a generalized

experience of apprehension in the workplace. Although Morrison and Milliken’s model seeks

to explain why employees will choose to remain silent en masse, we are interested here in the

effects of such a climate on individual-level behavior.

Effect of a Climate of Silence on Emotional Reactions and Behavioral Outcomes

We believe it is important to acknowledge that organizational climate can affect the

decision-making process at multiple points. For example, climate may shape employees’

initial appraisals of events in ways that influence their subsequent emotional reactions. For

example, in climates in which wrongdoing is normative and acceptable, employees may feel

less self-responsibility for speaking up and may even fail to recognize instances of deviant

behavior. Given our interest in the link between emotions and behavior, however, we ask:

How might climate affect the relationship between anger, guilt, and whistle-blowing?

We argue that, in a strong climate of silence, the decision-making process still will

involve feelings of guilt and anger, but the effects of these emotions will be reduced. We

believe that employees’ rationalizations and emotion-regulation processes may play a key role

here. After all, why should you get angry about the injustice of a situation if you are

powerless to change it? What is the point of feeling guilty about not reporting a wrongdoing

when you know that no action will be taken against the perpetrator? Indeed, rather than

feeling guilty, it is likely that employees will be more concerned about protecting themselves

and minimizing the possibility of becoming a target of retaliation, thereby reducing their

capacities for empathy. Thus, we propose that a climate of silence — specifically, the

perceptions that characterize such a climate — will suppress the effect of anger and guilt on

speaking-up behavior such that employees will be more likely to remain silent about

wrongdoing than risk retaliation by blowing the whistle.

Additionally, we argue that climate will exert an important effect on the extent to

which employees will anticipate experiencing regret if they speak up as opposed to if they

remain silent. In a climate in which employees are encouraged to report adverse incidents and

whistle-blowers are protected from retaliation, it is likely that observers will anticipate

experiencing greater regret and self-blame if they remain silent than if they speak up. In

contrast, in an organization in which employees perceive that it is dangerous to speak up and

that voicing their concerns is unlikely to lead to reparative action, we suggest that employees

will believe that the potential for regret is greater if they take the risk and blow the whistle

than if they withhold their concerns. Although the introduction of whistle-blower protection

laws in many countries (e.g., the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom) has led to

increased legal protection for workers who choose to report adverse events, it is clear that

whistle-blowing is still an extremely risky activity in many organizations (Earle & Madek,

2007). Overall, we argue that perceptions about the safety and utility of speaking up will

affect observers’ anticipated regret about the options available to them and this, in turn, will

influence their behavioral responses to wrongdoing. As such, we propose the following:

Proposition 6. A climate of silence will attenuate the effects of anger, guilt and anticipated

regret about remaining silent on employees’ propensities to engage in whistle-

blowing.

In summary, we have used AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and the feedback theory

(Baumeister et al., 2007) to describe how observers may make decisions about how to act

following an observed wrongdoing. Specifically, we have argued that at least five discrete

emotions — anger, anticipatory fear, guilt, shame, and anticipated regret — influence

people’s decisions to engage in silence or whistle-blowing. To date, little empirical research

has been conducted to determine the role of discrete emotions in decision-making in this

context. However, we hope that our conceptualization will help to facilitate future research in

this area.

LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

We acknowledge that our conceptual model of decision-making and emotion has

several limitations. First, we have not addressed all possible responses in which an employee

may engage following the observation of wrongdoing. For example, instead of remaining

silent or engaging in whistle-blowing, employees may confront the perpetrator(s) themselves,

they may exit the organization, or they may speak to friends, family, and colleagues about the

wrongdoing. Indeed these behaviors may occur independently of or in conjunction with the

ones on which we are focused.

Second, we focused primarily on the role of emotion in the decision-making process,

while paying little attention to other potential influences. This should not be taken as an

indication of their insignificance, however. Instead, considering researchers’ traditional focus

on the organizational and individual predictors of whistle-blowing, we contend that

examining the nature of the decision-making process and the associated emotions is an

important way of advancing the field. We acknowledge also that discrete emotions can arise

at several stages during the decision-making process, and that some of the stages and

emotions specified in our model are not mutually exclusive. For example, although we have

included anger as an emotion arising directly from observing wrongdoing, anger also can

arise following a reappraisal of one’s own behavior and as an anticipatory emotion (e.g., if

people imagine that they will be treated poorly if they speak up). In this respect, we hope that

our research will stimulate empirical investigation of both the discrete emotions involved in

silence and whistle-blowing, as well as their antecedents and consequences at various stages

of the decision process.

As we have noted already, our model is limited to the influence of only one contextual

variable — organizational climate. However, researchers have demonstrated that many other

contextual factors influence the decision to engage in whistleblowing (for a review, see Miceli

& Near, 2005). For example, national culture is likely to affect how people respond to

instances of wrongdoing in the workplace. In this connection, Tavakoli, Keenan, and Crnjak-

Karanovic (2003) suggested that Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions of individualism,

power-distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity may shape how people perceive

ethical events and the likelihood of whistle-blowing. In their survey of American and Croatian

managers’ propensities to report wrongdoing, results generally supported their hypotheses,

suggesting that national culture exerts an influence on individual behavior in this context.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our model has important implications for

researchers. Theoretically, our work integrates some of the most recent research in the area of

employee silence (e.g., Morrison & Milliken, 2003), whistle-blowing (Henik, 2007), and self-

conscious emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004) to consider how emotions may influence

decision-making by employees following observed wrongdoing in the workplace. Further, we

have suggested that, in accordance with AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and the feedback

theory (Baumeister et al., 2007), emotions represent a crucial component of employee

decision-making, and offered specific propositions considering the relationship between

discrete emotions and behavioral outcomes, as well as the moderating effect of climate. In

doing so, we have emphasized that decisions about how to respond to wrongdoing are shaped

by both affect and cognition, in addition to various individual and contextual factors. Overall,

we contend that understanding how emotions operate in this context can provide us with a

deeper comprehension of what it means to speak up or to remain silent, and why people

engage in these behaviors.

Our chapter shares some similarities with previous work (e.g., Gundlach et al., 2003;

Henik, 2007), but differs from it and extends previous research in three important ways. First,

in line with AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and Baumeister et al.’s (2007) theory of

emotion as a feedback system, we suggest that the emotions arise from at least three sources

following wrongdoing: (1) observing the event itself; (2) retrospective evaluations of one’s

responses to previous episodes of wrongdoing, and the outcome of these behaviors; and (3)

emotions that employees expect to experience in the future if they engage in silence or engage

in whistle-blowing. Thus, compared to early models of whistle-blowing, we argue that

emotion plays a far more important role in the decision-making process than initially

theorized. Second, we have extended the list of discrete emotions that may be involved in

decision-making to include self-conscious emotions and anticipated regret. We believe that

this represents a crucial area for further study. Third, we have adopted Morrison and

Milliken’s (2000) proposed concept of a “climate of silence” to consider how climate may

moderate employees’ emotional reactions and their subsequent responses. Again, we feel that

this is an area deserving of further exploration. Currently, the most pressing need is to

conduct empirical tests of our comprehensive model in order to assess the validity of the

proposed relationships and processes. Doing so, we believe, will require using both

qualitative and quantitative techniques.

Also, and as we have mentioned already, the effect of emotion on decision-making

following wrongdoing has not been explored comprehensively by organizational researchers.

As such, the field is rich with opportunities for future research. For example, future studies

could build on the preliminary findings established about the potential discrete emotions

involved in the decision-making process. Here, we suggest that diary studies (e.g., Grandey,

Tam, & Brauburger, 2002) and even experimental approaches could be used to obtain real-

time measures of employees’ emotions. Field studies could allow researchers to examine

multiple episodes of wrongdoing that unfold over days or weeks, and the extent to which

individuals’ appraisals and emotions change over time. Another interesting question concerns

how individuals decide how to respond when they experience multiple negative emotions

with different appraisal tendencies, such as anger (characterized by increased certainty and

confidence) and fear (characterized by apprehension and uncertainty). Finally, we suggest that

it would be useful to investigate the role of positive emotions in this process, given that

researchers have found that positive emotions facilitate successful coping behavior (for a

review, see Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). In this respect, the role of anticipated relief, pride,

and hope appear to be especially worthy of exploration.

CONCLUSION

Given the prevalence of wrongdoing in the contemporary workplace along with

increasing recognition of whistle-blowing as an important prosocial behavior (Miceli & Near,

2005), we contend that understanding the process through which employees go through in

deciding whether or not to speak up — and particularly the role of emotions as predictors of

their decisions — is an important departure from more traditional research in the field of

whistle-blowing. Overall, we submit that our work contributes to the growing literature

recognizing the emotional experiences of observers of deviant behavior (e.g., Gundlach et al.,

2003), and makes an important contribution to understanding the psychological processes

underlying employee decision-making in the workplace. We hope that the propositions

offered in this chapter will provide a starting point for empirical studies in this area,

particularly those focusing on the effects of discrete emotions and how emotions interact with

contextual factors to shape employees’ behavior.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequality. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67, 422–436.

Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A dynamic model of guilt:

Implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice.

Psychological Science, 18, 524–530.

Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result

from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 139–167.

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

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management

Review, 10, 837–847.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Ashton-James, C. E., & Jordan, P. J. (2004). Performance impacts of

appraisal and coping with stress in workplace settings: The role of affect and

emotional intelligence. In: P. Perrewe´ & D. Ganster (Eds), Research in occupational

stress and wellbeing (Vol. 3, pp. 1–34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Climate of fear in organizational settings:

Construct definition, measurement and a test of theory. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 55, 24–29.

Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). What lies beneath? A process analysis of

affective events theory. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds),

Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 23–50). San Diego, CA:

Elsevier/JAI Press.

Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2000). The role of emotions

in goal-directed behavior. In: S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick & C. Huffman (Eds), The

why of consumption: Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and

desires (pp. 36–58). New York: Routledge.

Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get enacted:

The motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated emotions. Journal

of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 273–295.

Barrett, K. (1995). A functionalist approach to shame and guilt. In: J. P. Tangney & K. W.

Fischer (Eds), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,

embarrassment, and pride (pp. 25–63). New York: Guilford.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in

organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In: J. Greenberg (Ed.),

Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Interpersonal aspects of guilt:

Evidence from narrative studies. In: J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds), Self-

conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp.

115–139). New York: Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes

behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167–203.

Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions:

Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,

685–696.

Blenkinsopp, J., & Edwards, M. S. (2008). On not blowing the whistle: Quiescent silence as

an emotion episode. In: W. J. Zerbe, C. E. J. Hartel & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds),

Research on emotion in organizations: Emotions, ethics, and decision-making (Vol.

4). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.

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

sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288–306.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.

Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.

Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment towards a failing course of action:

Towards theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17, 39–61.

De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and

cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21,

1025–1042.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.

Academy of Management Review, 21, 619–654.

Detert, J., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Everyday failures in organizational learning: Explaining

the high threshold for speaking up at work. Working Paper no. 06-024. Harvard

Business School, Cambridge, MA.

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

behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10, 823–836.

Earle, B. H., & Madek, G. A. (2007). The mirage of whistleblower protection under Sarbanes-

Oxley: A proposal for change. American Business Law Journal, 44, 1–54.

Edwards, M. S., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Gardner, J. (2006). Emotional antecedents and

consequences of employee decision-making following wrongdoing. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, August, Atlanta, GA.

Edwards, M. S., & Gardner, J. (2007). The role of emotions in employees’ decisions to report

or remain silent about serious wrongdoing. In: J. Greenberg & M.S. Edwards

(Chairs), The role of emotion in individual decision-making. Symposium presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, August, Philadelphia, PA.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169–200.

Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In: P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds), The nature of

emotions: Fundamental questions (pp. 15–19). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fehr, B., Baldwin, M. W., Collins, L., Patterson, S., & Benditt, R. (1999). Anger in close

relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin,25, 299–312.

Fischer, K. W., & Tangney, J. P. (1995). Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution:

Framework and overview. In: J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds), Self-conscious

emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 3–22). New

York: Guilford Press.

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes

between workers and their subordinates, co-workers and superiors. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 147–162.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping.

American Psychologist, 55, 647–654.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors

and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Giacalone, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the

workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26,

31–55.

Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and

typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 988–1005.

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

A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28,

107–123.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In: R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith

(Eds), Handbook of affective science (pp. 852–870). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Henik, E. (2007). Mad as hell or scared stiff? The effects of value conflict and emotions on

potential whistle-blowers. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 111–119.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance:

Test of a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.

Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. (2005). The prevalence (and ambiguity) of deviant behavior at

work. In: R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds), Managing organizational deviance (pp.

1–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., & Meulders, M. (2004). Every cloud has a silver lining:

Interpersonal and individual differences determinants of anger-related behaviors.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1550–1564.

Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American

Psychologist, 37, 1019–1024.

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 222–223.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.

Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal

tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision

Making, 19, 115–137.

Lowenstein, G., & Lerner, J. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In: R. Davidson,

K. Scherr & H. Goldsmith (Eds), Handbook of affective studies (pp. 619–642). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Lowenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 267–286.

March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking.

Management Science, 33, 1404–1418.

Marx, B. P., Forsyth, J. P., Gallup, G. G., Fuse´ , T., & Lexington, J. M. (2008). Tonic

immobility as an evolved predator defense: Implications for sexual assault survivors.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15, 74–90.

Mellers, B. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 210–214.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived

wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 525–544.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1997). Whistle-blowing as antisocial behavior. In: J. Greenberg

& R. Giacalone (Eds), Antisocial behavior in the workplace (pp. 130–149). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Standing up or standing by: What predicts blowing the

whistle on organizational wrongdoing? In: J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel

and human resources management (Vol. 24, pp. 95–136). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of

differential emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769–783.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee

silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of

Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and

development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Editor’s introduction: Speaking up, remaining

silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management

Studies, 40, 1353–1358.

Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex and the birth of the self. New York:

Norton.

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

Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.

Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological

Review, 97, 315–331.

Pfister, H. R., & Bohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional

functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 5–17.

Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as

responses to perceived injustice. In: K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds), Research in

personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331–369). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions,

determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In: C. L. Cooper &

D. M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New

York: Wiley.

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping

between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes

(community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,

574–586.

Sable, M. R., Danis, F. S., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to reporting

sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of

American College Health, 55, 157–162.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology,

36, 19–39.

Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from

the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16, 132–149.

Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Roles for

anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,

2107–2142.

Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Hill, D. M. (2006). Silence is not golden:

Intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. In: S. Levin & C. Van Laar

(Eds), Social stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 65–

82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2005). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A

justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 185–231.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2005). Speaking up in critical workplace situations. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Academy of Management, March,

Chicago, IL.

Tangney, J., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. (2007). Moral emotions, moral cognitions, and moral

behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford.

Tangney, J. P., & Salovey, P. (1999). Problematic social emotions: Shame, guilt, jealousy,

and envy. In: R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds), The social psychology of

emotional and behavioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp.

167–195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J. P., & Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing:

An empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 49–64.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A

theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.

Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework.

Organizational Science, 7, 151–165.

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, K. G., West, M., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic

assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journal of

Management, 17, 237–254.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. In: N. M.

Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. Hartel (Eds), Research on emotions in organizations:

The effect of affect in organizational settings (Vol. 1, pp. 1–21). San Diego, CA:

Elsevier.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In: B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–

74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision

making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 93–106.

Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R., Breugelmans, S. M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion

specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision

Making, 3, 18–27.