A

mong the tools for detecting and preventing corruption, whistle-blowing is considered the most effective means compared to internal control and professional audits. Various surveys from auditing firms such as
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) in 2006 and PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2008 confirm this.

Although many believe that whistle-blowing is key to detecting and identifying fraud, the 2008 Australian public sector research by AJ Brown of Griffith University indicated that whistle-blowers risked retaliation. Moreover, Lennane reported in 2012 that 90 percent of whistle-blowers claimed they had lost their jobs or were demoted afterward.

Unfortunately, relevant information on the lives of Indonesian whistle-blowers is hard to find, obviously because whistle-blowing is considered a clandestine activity. Thus, my 2016 study resorted to investigating individual intentions behind whistle-blowing based on attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (PBC).

This study discovered that the PBC of an organization’s negative image was the most important determinant for respondents in disclosing bribery. As well, my study did not find any differences among the intentions of whistle-blowers, bystanders or non-observers.

Altogether, the findings indicated that deciding to unveil bribery is a complicated process strongly moderated by PBCs of an organization’s positive image, negative image and incentives as well as cultural norms.

The result explained in the very pragmatic approach taken as a result of traditional cultural values — high power distance, collectivist, ewuh-pakewuh (uneasiness), nrima (submissiveness), conformity, peasant mentality and hypocrisy — may lead to calculating cost and benefit before employees decide whether or not to engage in whistle-blowing.

In general, according to Geert Hofstede’s 2005 survey, Indonesians are classified as having high power distance and collectivist culture dimensions. Absolute obedience to authority figures like corporate bosses and older people, lack of critical thinking and reticence in expressing opinions or disagreeing with conventional beliefs may all lead many Indonesians into believing that their individual thoughts or opinions are unimportant.

As the anthropologist Koentjaraningrat identified in 1988, this attitude may be rooted in an old cultural value that shaped the “inferiority” mindset of Indonesians. He maintained that these characteristics persisted as a result of Indonesia’s long history of colonialism.

In addition, Indonesians tend to be conformist and possess a peasant mentality, and as a result, tend to avoid conflict.

Thus, although many individuals might agree that whistle-blowing was necessary, they tend to believe that their attitudes, thoughts and opinions are not important.

As Koentjaraningrat indicated, the peasant mentality of civil servants in the workplace is deeply rooted in their survival instinct to regard work as means to achieve a position.

Hofstede also found that Indonesians generally opted to be pragmatic. As a society with a pragmatic orientation, Indonesians tended to believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time.

Thus, many Indonesians considered adaptability to a situation, context and time was a strategy crucial to achieving one’s goals.

Consequently, although they might disagree with something, Indonesians were likely to accept or at least ignore a situation as long as they were able to achieve what is necessary to survive. Moreover, the whistle-blower’s consideration of costs and benefits explains the insignificance of the relationship.

Moreover, as a collectivist society, individuals were expected to conform to the ideals of the society and the in-groups to which they belonged.

Many respondents in my research seemed ready to sacrifice their careers to maintain family harmony. Thus, family loyalty is a crucial value in Indonesian society.

“Family” in the Indonesian concept goes beyond the nuclear family to also incorporate the extended family, including but not limited to parents, grandparents, siblings and often their parents’ relatives. Children are expected to take care of their parents and support them in their old age, as their parents are committed to their developmental years.

This gives Indonesians a deep sense of security because they establish a place within their extended family and the surrounding community. In the future, they expect their children and extended family to support them in their old age.

To sum up, the government can consider moving whistle-blowers to their hometowns as an extrinsic reward, simply because many Indonesians prioritize family unity.

In addition, as the literature appears to suggest, people often have other motives (intrinsic or extrinsic) beyond mere altruism for the greater public when they engage in whistle-blowing. For instance, individuals may be motivated to disclose wrongdoings, given the opportunity it presents in gaining financial and other personal benefits.
______________________________