Upon an increasingly diverse workforce and broader opinion polarization in society, the workplace has seen some fundamental changes in the ways that employees expect, evaluate and respond to employers' corporate social advocacy (CSA) involvement. Online whistleblowing often occurs when employees feel employers have not done enough or have chosen the wrong side in socio-political issues. Accordingly, this paper aims to explore how companies should communicate CSA internally to reduce unmet expectations and online whistleblowing.
We conducted a between-subjects online experiment (internal CSA message strategy: clear vs. ambiguous vs. silent) on full-time employees (n = 120) from for-profit organizations in the United States.
Employees recognized varying degrees of ideological psychological contract (IPC) fulfillment in different CSA signals, regardless of issue stances. Online whistleblowing intentions increased when IPC was perceived as under-fulfilled. Employee issue stance moderated this effect: congruence with the employer amplified – while incongruence reduced – the impacts of CSA strategy on perceived IPC fulfillment and on whistleblowing intentions.
Findings underscore the need to understand and manage employee perceptions of CSA, as perceived IPC under-fulfillment heightens the risk of online whistleblowing. To mitigate this and balance opinion diversity, companies should carefully assess employee values to anticipate reactions to CSA, set expectations for corporate social involvement and be prudent to communicate CSA to employees with diverse views.
We originally proposed and tested an internal CSA communication framework integrating signaling theory and the ideological psychological contract perspective.
