From organizational silence to deontological anger : when the whistle is blown[Du silence organisationnel à la colère déontique : la prise de parole du whistleblower]

A whistleblower speaks up: he/she declares to have witnessed a breach of a rule in effect in his social setting and signals it to the competent regulatory authority, even at the risk of irritating the persons at fault. The literature explains the decision to alert authorities as a calculation that weighs the advantage of putting an end to the violation against the disadvantage of risking exposure by eventually breaking silence in the organization. It adds that the goal of alerting authorities is seldom reached and whistleblowers are often subject to retaliation (harassment, isolation or even dismissal). How can the advantage of seeing the violation come to an end or of any eventual personal advantage resulting from the alert outweigh the risk of major personal losses? This analysis of a biographical account of a whistleblower proposes the concept of "deontological anger", used for organizational behavior in lawsuits. Decision-making by one possible type of whistleblowers (those who, sensitive to values, have a prosocial orientation) is analyzed, namely: persons whose decision to appeal to authorities stems from an anger motivated by their sense of duty when they think they have witnessed a violation. In conclusion, a few recommendations are made: it would be worthwhile for research on whistleblowing to take account of emotional intelligence; and practitioners should understand the motives of the anger, justified or not, that moves certain employees to action.