Page 1 of 8

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 08

July 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 360

Impact of Leadership Styles on Whistle-Blowing Intentions at

Malaysian Enforcement Agency

Wan Najwa Arifah W. Ahmad

Fais Ahmad Abdul Rahman Jaaffar School of Business and Management

College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia 06010 Sintok

Kedah Malaysia

wannajwaarifah86@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the relationship

between leadership styles and whistle- blowing intentions at Malaysian

Enforcement Agency. Data were collected

from a sample of 346 employees working at

Malaysian Enforcement Agency. A

proportionate stratified random sampling

method was applied to obtain an approriate

amount of respondents from each strata.

This study used correlation analysis to

determine the relationship between

leadership styles and whistle-blowing

intentions. The findings of the analysis

indicated that the dimension of leadership

styles (transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, and laissez-faire)

have positive impact on whistle-blowing

intentions. The implication of the findings

was also discussed accordingly.

Keywords: transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, laissez-faire,

whistle-blowing intentions, enforcement

agency.

INTRODUCTION

In Malaysia, whistle-blowing action is not a

popular way of reporting wrongdoing in

organizations (Ghani, Galbreath, & Evans,

2011). Global Corruption Barometer (GCB)

2013 reports that 45 percent of people say

they would not report the wrongdoing

because it would not make any difference,

showing lack of confidence in the existing

laws and their enforcement. This is the most

common reason given in 73 countries

including some of the countries, where the

majority of people would not be willing to

report the wrongdoing. However, the main

reason given in 32 countries, where the

majority of people in the country would not

report an incident of corruption because

people are most afraid of reprisals.

Furthermore, Malaysia Corruption

Barometer (MCB) 2014 found that the

willingness of citizens to report corruption

has decreased. Results from the interviews

indicated that only 51 percent of respondents

are willing to report an incident of

corruption, which decreased from last year

by 79 percent. Amongst those, 49 percent

are not willing to report an incident. The key

reason for not reporting is a fear of reprisal.

The rest are not aware of where to report or

feel that it would not make any difference.

Therefore, it is clear from these responses

that there is need to establish safe and

effective mechanisms to facilitate and

empower people to report incidences of

corruption.

Page 2 of 8

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 08

July 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 361

In response to the need for additional

research on the role of management in the

whistle-blowing process (Carcello,

Hermanson, & Ye, 2011), this study

investigated the role that the leadership

styles of a manager has on an employee’s

intent to blow the whistle, specifically on

corruption. It is because leaders would

encourage employees to disclose

information about wrongdoing. Therefore,

leadership styles viewed as a trigger to the

occurrence of whistle-blowing intentions in

the organization. The specific leadership

styles examined in this study are

transformational leadership, transactional

leadership, and laissez-faire.

LITERATURE

Leadership Styles

Transformational leaders engage the

emotional involvement of their employees to

establish higher level of commitment,

identification, and trust in the leader and the

leader’s mission (Jung & Avolio, 2000).

They also work to increase their employees’

confidence and expand their needs in line

with what they have established as the terms

of their group’s mission (Avolio & Bass,

1995). Transformational leaders typically

encourage and empower employees to make

their own decisions. This builds the

employees’ trust in their leader (Avolio &

Bass, 1995).

Transactional leaders tend to motivate

employees based on contingent

reinforcement and acquire what may be

termed “conditional trust” from employees

through reliable execution of contracts and

exchanges (Bass, 1985; Jung & Avolio,

2000; Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996).

Transactional leaders can be effective in

stable and predictable environments (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). However, the transactional

leadership does not involve a leader’s

commitment toward employees’ personal

development. It does not invlove a strong

emotional attachment to the leader (Jung &

Avolio, 2000).

Laissez-faire leaders gives authority to

employees. Departments or subordinates are

allowed to work as they choose with

minimal or no interference. This kind of

leadership has been consistently found to be

the least satisfying and least effective

management style (Bass, 1985; Limsila &

Ogunlana, 2008; Politis, 2001).

Whistle-blowing Intentions

Whistle-blowing has been defined as “the

disclosure by organization members (former

or current) of illegal, immoral, or

illegitimate practices under the control of

their employers to persons or organizations

who may be able to effect action” (Near &

Miceli, 1985). This definition has been

widely used in other studies (Brody, Coulter,

& Lin, 1999; Dekat & Miceli, 1995; Elias,

2008; Hwang, Staley, Chen, & Lan, 2008;

James, 1995; Ponnu, Naidu, & Zamri, 2008;

Uys, 2000). Although it seems to be hurtful

to organizational interests, but whistle- blowing may be managed to develop

organizations (Gokce, 2013).

Whistle-blowing plays a positive function in

enhancing accountability, transparency, and

Page 3 of 8

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 08

July 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 362

good governance in the organizations

(Mohamed, Ahmad, & Baig, 2015) because

it is widely accredited as one of the most

powerful method as a part of the internal

control system in the organization to detect

and prevent corruption, malpractices, and

wrongdoings (Meng & Fook, 2011;

Transparency International, 2009).

Basically, there are two types of whistle- blowing namely internal and external

reporting of wrongdoings (Dworkin &

Baucus, 1998; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009;

Zhang, Chiu, & Wei, 2009). If the

wrongdoing is reported to parties within the

organization, the whistle-blowing is internal,

while if the wrongdoing is reported to

parties outside of the organization, then the

whistle-blowing is considered as external.

According to Dworkin and Baucus (1998),

the decision to ‘blow the whistle’ either

internally or externally depends on the

reaction that will be taken by the

organization.

Internal whistle-blowing occurs when the

wrongdoing is reported to parties outside the

chain of command, but within the

organization. It include the board of

directors, the audit committee, and a senior

officer such as the chief executive officer or

designated complaint recipient inside the

organization (Finn, 1995). Reporting to co- workers (peer reporting) is not classified as

whistle-blowing (King, 1999). In contrast,

external whistle-blowing occurs when the

complaint recipient is outside of the

organization. It include law enforcement

agencies and regulators, professional bodies,

external “watch dog” organizations and

interest groups, and the media (Near &

Miceli, 1995).

King (1999), as well as Miceli and Near

(1992) argue that internal and external

whistle-blowing are conceptually similar.

However, Barnett (1992) and Casal (1994)

argue that they are different. Those who

proposed that they are similar argue that the

starting point of both is when an employees

perceive wrongdoing in the organization

(King, 1999). Both internal and external

whistle-blowing requires employees to take

an active part in reporting the wrongdoing

instead of a more insidious act like sabotage,

worse, or violence (Miceli & Near, 1992).

METHODOLOGY

In this study, respondents were employees of

enforcement agency in Malaysia.

Quantitative approach was used in this study

because it allows the relationship between

the variables identified and tested. This

study attempted to receive variety of

responses from a number of subjects

participated. Respondents who were

randomly selected from enforcement agency

in Malaysia for this study were 346

employees which were enforcement oficials.

Each of the respondents was given a set of

questionnaire and was asked to answer al the

questions appropriately. All of the 346

respondents responded to the survey.

Of the 346 respondents, 272 (78.6%) were

males while 74 (21.4%) were females. The

status of sample was 62 (17.9%) single, 275

(79.5%) married, 8 (2.3%) divorced, and 1

(0.3%) others. For level of education

background, 205 (59.2%) were SPM, 41

(11.8%) STPM, 18 (5.2%) certificate, 44