Psychological and Hierarchical Closeness as Opposing Factors in Whistleblowing: A Meta-Analysis

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordData Availability: The data and code that support the findings of this study are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/f7aj4/?view_only=11eb7c401e2b4fcc9d0e15f8e1b4de42.Although employees are an important means of detecting and preventing misconducts through whistleblowing, many witnesses choose to remain silent. One reason to remain silent is the discomfort of reporting a colleague. Intuitively, employees should be less likely to report a close or trusted colleague, but a previous review suggests that the opposite may actually be true. However, later studies have shown mixed effects of social closeness on whistleblowing. To gain a better understanding of how social closeness affects whistleblowing, we meta-analyzed 22 experimental studies on intentions to blow the whistle. Overall, the studies show no effect of social closeness on whistleblowing intentions, d =  − 0.21, p = .05. However, when separating the studies by type of closeness, we find that psychological closeness has a negative effect, d =  − 0.46, p < .001, while hierarchical closeness has a positive effect, d = .34, p < .001 on whistleblowing intentions. This means that employees are most likely to report misconduct if the perpetrator is at the same hierarchical level in the organization and not a close or trusted friend. Since close psychological bonds are more likely to develop between employees at the same hierarchical level, the two types of closeness may counteract each other. This dilemma could be part of the explanation why so many witnesses choose to remain silent

Managing Asymmetries for Data Mobilization under Digital Transformation

This is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recordResource mobilization is a significant challenge for firms seeking survival and competitive advantage, especially in the context of digital transformation. Data has emerged as a vital resource, but its intangible nature adds complexity to the interactions between resource holders and seekers. This paper aims to address the gaps in understanding data resource mobilization by integrating perspectives on information, dependence, and orientation asymmetry using a social exchange perspective. The study focuses on the regulated animal healthcare industry, where a large established organization acts as the resource holder, universities act as intermediaries, and startups act as resource seekers. Through three years of data collection, the study finds that the context is rich in all three types of asymmetries and characterized by high uncertainty surrounding data as a resource. Actors engage in direct social exchanges to address information asymmetries and in generalized exchanges through intermediaries to deal with dependence and orientation asymmetries. The study contributes to theory by providing insights into the complex dynamics of resource mobilization in the context of digital transformation and proposes practical implications for managing multiple asymmetries and mobilizing data effectively for firm performance in regulated environments.Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC

Managing Asymmetries for Data Mobilization under Digital Transformation

Publication status: PublishedAbstractResource mobilization is a significant challenge for firms seeking survival and competitive advantage, especially in the context of digital transformation. Data has emerged as a vital resource, but its intangible nature adds complexity to the interactions between resource holders and seekers. This paper aims to address the gaps in understanding data resource mobilization by integrating perspectives on information, dependence, and orientation asymmetry using a social exchange perspective. The study focuses on the regulated animal healthcare industry, where a large established organization acts as the resource holder, universities act as intermediaries, and startups act as resource seekers. Through three years of data collection, the study finds that the context is rich in all three types of asymmetries and characterized by high uncertainty surrounding data as a resource. Actors engage in direct social exchanges to address information asymmetries and in generalized exchanges through intermediaries to deal with dependence and orientation asymmetries. The study contributes to theory by providing insights into the complex dynamics of resource mobilization in the context of digital transformation and proposes practical implications for managing multiple asymmetries and mobilizing data effectively for firm performance in regulated environments.</jats:p