The Opinions Of Education Employees In Relation To Reasons For Whistleblowing
Öz
Purpose: The aim of this research to determine the the reasons for the behavior of whistleblowing according to the educational stuff. Also within the scope of the study, the reasons for not whistleblowing were also determined.
Design & Methodology: The research was designed with a phenomenology approach of qualitative research. The Phenomenological approach examines phenomena known in any subject but not in detail. Twenty teachers, 12 administrators and 7 inspectors, who work in public and private elementary schools in Ankara, were interviewed. Data analysis were done through content analysis.
Findings: The results of the research indicate that some of the main reasons of whistleblowing are expectations, the necessity of work and the desire of conscientious relaxation, ensuring the rights, prevention of crime and whistleblowing seen as a citizenship duty. The causes of whistleblowing in the individual-psychological dimension, conscientious relaxation, anticipation and protective motivation; As well as expectations of social support, respectability, and personal communication enhancement. It is significant that whistleblowing is a necessity for the organizational reasons, that the organizational order is ensured and that the career in the organization is negatively affected. On the other hand the faith of interpersonal communication, various anxiety states and protection motives are on among the main reasons of ‘not whistleblowing’.
Conclusion & Suggestions: As a result of the study, it has been found that there is a wide range of ethical violations that cause training employees to whistleblowing. In this context, it is possible for the employees to participate in ethical education in order to reduce ethics violations and legal incompatibilities in schools and to increase the frequency of whistleblowing behavior. The creation of a transparent management philosophy, including in-house standards, norms, values, and a fair reward system, should be legitimized on organizations.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, 179–211.
- Alford, F.C. (2001). Whistleblowers, Broken Lives and Organizational Power. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
- Arastaman, G. (2013). Eğitim ve fen edebiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin öz-yeterlik inançları ve öğretmenlik mesleğine karşı tutumlarının incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2).
- Balcı, A., Baltacı, A., Fidan, T., Cereci, C., ve Acar, U. (2012). Örgütsel sosyalleşmenin, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve örgütsel vatandaşlıkla ilişkisi: İlköğretim okulu yöneticileri üzerinde bir araştırma. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 47-74.
- Baltaci, A., ve Balcı, A. (2017). Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(1), 30-58.
- Banja, J. D. (1985). Whistleblowing in physical therapy. Physical therapy,65(11), 1683-1686.
- Baynes, L. M. (2002). Just Pucker and Blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers, the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. . John's L. Rev., 76, 875.
- Becker, E. (2014). Calling Foul: Deficiencies in Approaches to Environmental Whistleblowers and Suggested Reforms. Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 6(1), 65.
- Beller, R. (2010). Whistleblower Protection Legislation of the East and West: Can It Really Reduce Corporate Fraud and Improve Corporate Governance-A Study of the Successes and Failures of Whistleblower Protection Legislation in the US and China. NYUJL & Bus., 7, 873.
- Bjørkelo, B., S. Einarsen ve S.B. Matthiesen, (2010), Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 371-394.