Emilie Hennequin
email: emilie.hennequin@univ-paris1.fr

What motivates internal whistleblowing? A typology adapted to the French context

Keywords: Whistleblowing, Whistleblower's motivation, Organizational dysfunction, Typology, France

Transparency and ethics are nowadays often cited as a way to remedy various difficulties faced by companies. However, whistleblowing employees who are an example of this are potentially confronted with silence or reprisals. The researchers have sought to apprehend the reasons pushing to whistleblow but the motivations are complex. Although some studies have tried to create profiles of whistleblowers, they have been led in cultural and legislative contexts where the whistleblower may be internal or external to the company, act out of revenge, or be financially rewarded for the information reported, none of which the Sapin II law in France permits. Using a qualitative method based on ten life narratives from French employees who have whistleblown, our article seeks to understand their primary motivations for taking this action. The research will first present the French definition of a whistleblower and the motivations identified in the Anglo-Saxon context from which most studies originate. Following the detailed presentation of the methodology, we will explain the typology of four profiles obtained from the analysis of our results and discuss similarities/differences with the Anglo-Saxon work. In a context where many organizations are promoting the establishment of a genuine ethical and democratic spirit, this typology will aim to identify the arguments that can be used upstream to encourage the process. It can also be used as a tool for training managers and employees to better understand whistleblowing, explaining to them that it is part of a predominantly positive approach, thereby limiting reprisals and stimulating the feedback on dysfunctions within the organization.

Introduction

In a context of business criticism where scandals have threatened the reputation and economic stability of certain organizations [START_REF] Cohn | Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry[END_REF], governance methods and the management of internal dysfunctions are a real managerial challenge. Cambridge Analytica, Danske Bank, and UBS, for example, have had their names associated with scandals revealed by employees. While companies want to be more "responsible", "ethical", or "civic-minded" [START_REF] Bazin | Les enjeux d'une démocratie organisationnelle: exigences, dérives et conséquences[END_REF], employees participating in the reporting of illegal or immoral acts at their management level become icons of corporate democracy, ensuring the good health of the organization by limiting dysfunctions and better managing potential disputes [START_REF] Stubben | Evidence on the use and efficacy of internal whistleblowing systems[END_REF].

The idea of a whistleblower (an individual raising the alarm to defend the public interest and justice) dates back to very ancient times and has been present in very different societies. In Confucian morality, "a noble man is one with virtue and courage, a man who speaks up for righteousness" (Park et al. 2005, p. 388). In ancient Greece, there was a protected position for those who told the truth or spoke without fear in order to protect the city. In the 13th century, the Qui Tam rule was adopted in England, allowing a citizen to act on behalf of the monarch when his/her interests were at stake. In the United States, a similar approach was adopted in 1863 during the Civil War through the False Claims Act.

In France, this approach was encouraged by several kings. In 1584, for example, Henri III encouraged the populace to denounce those benefitting from "misdeeds committed in our finances by our officers & others" in the name of "the public interest"; this approach was also adopted by various successive regimes [START_REF] Lemny | Essais de definition: Délation, dénonciation, délateur, dénonciateur dans les dictionnaires Français jusqu'à la revolution[END_REF]. During the French Revolution, a form of civic denunciation was encouraged that urged citizens to take advantage of their freedom to report problems to the authorities. To demonstrate the positive, altruistic nature of this act, it had to be free (no remuneration in exchange for information), disinterested (action taken in the name of the public interest only), and spontaneous (the reporting individual must not be a "professional whistleblower").

Although this approach was therefore pre-existing in very different societies and in many socio-political fields, it was not until the 1960s in the United States that a debate was initiated on the value of such warnings in private organizations.

For a long time, the company was considered as a "black box" where the employee had to be loyal to his/her employer. The classical management theory sees organization as a machine that must function through centralized authority, clear hierarchical lines, strong division of labour, rules, control, and standardization [START_REF] Celik | A theoretical approach to the science of management[END_REF]. This strict discipline prevents employees from disclosing to the public any dysfunction or misdeed they may observe in their work environment, even if they are aware of the potential risks to the company or the public interest. Loyalty to the organization is the expected norm, as employees should not disclose information that could harm their employer [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF].

Changes in the socio-economic environment and changes in managerial practices contributed to the advancement of labour standards and loyalty issues in the 1960s and 1970s. By moving towards greater autonomy, employees were expected to strengthen their involvement with the company, even if it meant challenging the administrative authority when teams or management were involved in selfish behaviour or behaviour detrimental to the public interest [START_REF] Perrow | The short and glorious history of organizational theory[END_REF]. It seemingly became possible, therefore, for employees to be disloyal to their organization in order to protect the public interest. The term "whistleblower" was first officially used in 1963 to describe the behaviour of a U.S. Department of Defense employee who allegedly leaked information about people he perceived as a risk to national security [START_REF] Peters | Blowing the whistle: Dissent in the public interest[END_REF]. The term was later popularized by lawyer Ralph Nader who defined it as "an act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity" (Nader et al. 1972, p. viii). Some organizations set up mechanisms in the 1980s to facilitate whistleblowing procedures (procedures that may be internal vs. external, formal vs. informal, anonymous vs. nominative). [START_REF] Near | Organizational dissidence: The case of whistleblowing[END_REF], leading authors on this subject, defined professional whistleblowing 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 that may be able to effect action" (p. 4).

In view of various financial scandals that have had an impact at the international level (e.g. Enron or WorldCom), the United States Government considered that this voluntary approach was ineffective and insufficient to stop criminal acts and adopted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002, which required companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange to set up a whistleblowing system. This law has impacted many countries because companies of different nationalities were listed in New York. This was the case in France with the adoption in 2016 of the Sapin II law, which deployed a specific system to legally define whistleblowers and the procedure to be followed. It was therefore only after a certain delay that France has engaged with the subject, since it was associated by many with "la délation" (delation) et "la dénonciation" (denunciation), which have cultural resonance with inglorious periods in French history. Debates were lively about the French translation of the term "whistleblower", with the press ironically proposing pejorative terms to explain the concept ["cafteur" (snitch), "corbeau" (crow), and "mouchard" (informer); see [START_REF] Raynaud | Quelle protection pour les salariés lanceurs d'alerte?[END_REF]]. In the end, the term now used was inspired by the sociologists [START_REF] Chateauraynaud | Les sombres précurseurs: Une sociologie pragmatique de l'alerte et du risqué[END_REF], who coined the term "lanceur d'alerte" (literally "alert issuer" or "alarm raiser" but most commonly translated in this context as "whistleblower") in reference to the scientific field where people will relay a problem they have detected related to health, food, or technological risks. At present, many scientific and managerial questions remain in France about whistleblowing management and in particular about the motivations for such actions.

Although this approach can be considered positive by drawing attention to harmful behaviour that threatens the company's future [START_REF] Miceli | Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions[END_REF], and even if protections have been put in place by the legislature, the whistleblower often encounters organizational silence or, worse, retaliation with a desire in both cases to "cover up" the case rather than stimulate this type of behaviour, which is perceived more as treason [START_REF] Uys | Resilience and whistleblowers: Coping with the consequences[END_REF]. Consequently, an employee who has detected a dysfunction is confronted with a moral dilemma between silence and speaking out (Charreire [START_REF] Petit | Parler ou se taire ou le dilemme du salarié whistleblower. Analyse critique à l'aune de sa liberté?[END_REF]. For companies wishing to develop their employees' ethical practices, it is important to know when and why they would be motivated to whistleblow, given the potentially serious consequences of an internal dysfunction not being revealed as quickly as possible. The motivations for internal whistleblowing are complex. As reported by a participant in a study by [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF], the views of whistleblowers vary widely, from the most positive to the most negative image: "20% are heroes, 20% are nuts, and I'm not sure of the other 60%" (p. 38). Some Anglo-Saxon studies have tried to define the main profiles of whistleblowers, but in different legislative contexts where the employee can take an internal or external approach, act out of revenge, or be financially rewarded for the information reported, none of which the Sapin II law permits in France.

Using a qualitative method based on ten life's narratives from French employees who have whistleblown, our study seeks to understand their primary motivations for taking this step. The article will first present the French definition of a whistleblower in the professional context and the motivations identified in the Anglo-Saxon context from which most studies originate. After the detailed presentation of the methodology, we will explain the typology obtained following the analysis of our results and discuss the similarities/differences with the Anglo-Saxon works. While traditional theories have developed the idea that whistleblowers are engaged in a rational process based on a costs-benefits ratio, they neglected the initial reasons leading to report the facts. If moral concerns have been studied, alone, they are insufficient to account for individual differences in motives and processing styles. This research extends theory by proposing how whistleblowing is a process generated by a dyad approach with an impulsion (law vs morality) and an orientation (organization vs society) impacting the conduct of employees and, most likely, how it is perceived by other internal members.

Theoretical background

Whistleblowing in the French context: a legally defined definition and approach

In France, although there was pre-existing reflection on the reporting of criminal practices, organizations and legislature had to reflect further following the implementation of SOX and its appropriation in the French context. There were many debates, from the translation of the term to the concrete legal protection of these employees [START_REF] Raynaud | Quelle protection pour les salariés lanceurs d'alerte?[END_REF]. In 2016, the French legislature adopted a broad definition of whistleblower (not limited to the professional context) by considering him/her as "an individual 2 who reveals or reports, in a disinterested manner and in good faith, a crime or misdemeanour, a serious and manifest violation of an international commitment duly ratified or approved by France, a unilateral act of an international organization taken on the basis of such an undertaking, law or regulation, or a serious threat or injury to the public interest, of which he/she has personal knowledge" (Article 6, Sapin II Law). In concrete terms, in France, an employee reporting a misdemeanour is not a priori a whistleblower but can be recognized as such "during the procedure he/she will initiate by respecting each of the elements contained in the reporting procedure in order to benefit from the related protections" (Chaltiel Terral, 2018); specifically:

the person issuing the alert must be an individual working, or having worked, for the organization concerned and have personal knowledge of the facts; -the alert must relate to misdemeanours or unethical behaviour that could be considered a violation of a law, rule, regulation, or a threat to the public interest; and it must be done in good faith, in a disinterested manner, and with no desire to harm the company or discredit a member of the organization with whom the individual has a poor relationship.

In addition to these criteria, Article 8 of the Sapin II law specifies the procedure to be followed for an employee wishing to issue an alert, or "whistleblow", applicable as of 1 January 2018 in organizations with at least 50 employees (Figure 1) 3 .

<INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE>

Initially, the process is carried out internally: the report is brought to the attention of a superior, direct or not, of the employee or a referent designated by the company (and who may be external to it). Although the employee must identify himself or herself, his/her identity must be treated confidentially. To support the alert, the employee must provide the facts, information, and/or documents at his/her disposal and facilitate exchanges with the addressee of the alert. However, if the danger is serious and imminent, or there is a risk of irreversible damage, it is possible to proceed directly to the second or third step. If, within a reasonable time, no action is taken, the whistleblower may turn to the administrative, judicial, or professional authorities. Communication of information to the public sphere (including through the media) should only be used as a last resort, no earlier than three months from the initial reporting date.

By following these steps, the employee can be considered as a whistleblower and should benefit from protective measures. The whistleblowing philosophy therefore varies between the French and Anglo-Saxon context (Table 1).

<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>

Unlike the Anglo-Saxon context, where the alert can be reported to anyone who is likely to take action [START_REF] Near | Organizational dissidence: The case of whistleblowing[END_REF] and therefore potentially lead to public denunciation, the French approach requires objective elements and the reporting of the problem through internal mechanism (unless there is a serious and imminent danger). This approach is intended to be confidential, anonymous, disinterested, in good faith, and voluntary. Indeed, while the law requires companies to provide a professional whistleblowing system, the employee remains free to whistleblow or not (Charreire [START_REF] Petit | Whistleblowing et résilience : Analyse d'une trajectoire individuelle[END_REF], which raises the question of loyalty towards the company and what may motivate the reporting of an internal dysfunction.

Whistleblowing within organizations: the result of a voice/loyalty dilemma

Numerous studies have examined the genesis of the whistleblower and his/her motivations [START_REF] Alford | Whistle-blower narratives: The experience of choiceless choice[END_REF][START_REF] Near | Whistleblowing: Myth and reality[END_REF][START_REF] Soeken | J'accuse[END_REF]. If employees witness dysfunctions or harmful practices in their work environment, they face a dilemma between protecting either the public interest or the organizational interest. For an employee, loyalty to the company, his/her superior or his/her team requires an obligation of discretion that may lead him/her not to report reprehensible acts committed within the organization. Whistleblowing can therefore be considered incompatible with loyalty and morally irrelevant in the professional environment unless it protects an overriding public interest [START_REF] Masaka | Whistleblowing in the context of Zimbabwe's economic crisis[END_REF]. The whistleblowing would be a violation of ethical principles (although the employee would be promoting morality) such as confidentiality, with clauses prohibiting the disclosure of information, and loyalty, because the whistleblowing involves a conflict of trust in the employer-employee and employee-colleague relationship [START_REF] Tavani | Trust, betrayal, and whistle-blowing: reflections on the Edward Snowden case[END_REF]. However, if whistleblowing may be unwelcome to current colleagues and managers, it can also be considered as a loyalty to shareholders and other stakeholders whether internal or external to the firm by avoiding scandal and improving corporate governance. By enhancing transparency and accountability, whistleblowing appears as one of the most effective mechanisms of governance to limit asymmetry of information among stakeholders (Butler et al., 2018).

These different arguments explain why, despite the disinterested nature of his/her action, the whistleblower's behaviour may be judged by some members of the organization as deviant and, by others, as loyalty to the company and the public interest.

The decision to whistleblow is therefore the result of a "moral paradox" [START_REF] Cailleba | The whistleblower as the personification of a moral and managerial paradox[END_REF] between the need for justice in the face of an act deemed by the employee to be immoral or illegal and his/her loyalty to the company. This approach, following [START_REF] Hirschman | Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states[END_REF], is a "'subjectively rational' 'voice'/'loyalty' decision-making process". Silence or "blue code" consists of keeping information from colleagues or superiors for emotional reasons or for fear of reprisals. In the first case, silence can be justified by the phenomenon of the "mum effect" (Miliken et al. 2003), where the employee refuses to report bad news or organizational dysfunctions in order not to be perceived as conveying bad news. The approach is emotional, as the organization is a contextual factor that favours silence and, paradoxically, is a potential "victim" of that silence [START_REF] Cailleba | Lanceur d'alerte et silence organisationnel[END_REF]. The second mechanism is the fear of social reprisals [START_REF] Dasgupta | Whistleblowing: A survey of literature[END_REF], with silence being a human construct created and maintained through learning and punishment within a group. Remaining silent is a response to the fear of being stigmatized and socially excluded [START_REF] Pershing | To snitch or not to snitch? Applying the concept of neutralization techniques to the enforcement of occupational misconduct[END_REF]. The employee may break this silence and violate the duty of loyalty when the company compromises a specific public policy or is involved in illegal or prohibited actions that could jeopardize public health, safety, or well-being. In the French context, where the approach must follow the internal system, the possibilities offered to the employee have been summarized by Charreire Petit and Surply (2012) (see Table 2).

<INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE>

However, the employee's behaviour is not always as rational as the traditional model seems to suggest. Classically, the decision to whistleblow would be the result of a costbenefit analysis (individual cost for the whistleblower vs. collective benefit in the terms of public/general interest; [START_REF] Miceli | Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions[END_REF] concerning loyalty and potential retaliation, but the reality is more complex. [START_REF] Nadisic | Pourquoi les entreprises ne recrutent-elles pas les lanceurs d'alerte ? Une approche par les cercles de justice[END_REF] considered that the decision to whistleblow should be interpreted within a double circle of justice, distinguishing what is fair in the organization from what is fair in society.

Different streams of research have tried to describe the thinking of whistleblowing employees, but the descriptions in the studies are as divided as they are among the general public. According to the current view that they are "saints" [START_REF] Watts | A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations[END_REF], the term whistleblower should only be applied to individuals whose decision to report a malfunction is motivated by moral reasons, discounting therefore any whistleblowing stimulated by a desire for revenge or financial incentives that distort its moral nature. The negative counterpart of the current view is that the whistleblower can be considered a "snitch" who puts the company at risk [START_REF] Jos | In praise of difficult people: A portrait of the committed[END_REF]. A third view, however, considers whistleblowers as a mixed category, i.e. some are motivated by moral reasons alone while others are motivated by morality as well as other interests (the "opportunist" takes the opportunity to gain a financial reward, the "retaliator" seeks revenge, and the "enforcer" is simply doing his/her job as prescribed; [START_REF] Watts | A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations[END_REF]. Despite the identification of push and pull factors facilitating or limiting speech (individual and contextual characteristics, specificities of the dysfunction/misdemeanour, and links with the person denounced), it emerges above all from the research that there are in reality no typical features and that whistleblowers form a very heterogeneous group [START_REF] Watts | A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations[END_REF]. Employees do not act identically when confronted with the same type of dysfunction; however, initial profiles have been specified, providing a better understanding of the motivations for whistleblowing.

Initial typologies of whistleblowers according to their motivation

To clarify the main motivation for whistleblowing, various authors have sought to develop a typology of employees that goes beyond the moral dilemma to report a dysfunction or misdemeanour. [START_REF] Glazer | Ten whistleblowers and how they fared[END_REF], the first, defined three types of whistleblowers, based on a literature review of ten cases:

1.

The unbending resistors warn of unethical or illegal behaviour they may have observed. They maintain a strict commitment to their moral principles, are immune to flattery or coercion. They usually start with internal whistleblowing but can progress to external whistleblowing if the matter remains unresolved.

2.

The implicated protestors expose the problem internally but fear the legal consequences. They are flexible in their approach and willing to give up if forced to do so. They sometimes find themselves drawn into the behaviour denounced and fear that their responsibility could be legally challenged.

3.

The reluctant collaborators are sometimes deeply involved in the behaviour they condemn in private. They may seek to remedy this through public or personal atonement after leaving the organization. As long as they work in the company, however, they remain silent.

While this typology has the merit of being the first to question the passage to action and to highlight the voice/loyalty debate, it only takes into account the unifactorial dimension of potential reprisals and adopts a rather traditional approach. [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF] more recently proposed another typology combining the personality of the whistleblower, his/her objectives and motivations, the cause of the whistleblowing, and the success of the approach. Five standard types emerged from their work:

-

The altruist sees wrongdoing, fiercely opposes it, and fights valiantly within and even outside the company for the good of justice and reparation. He/she acts as the conscience of the organization and hopes for nothing more for than to rectify the misdeed. He/she acts mainly for ethical reasons. Although he/she may sometimes be promoted, he/she may also be subject to strong reprisals. Morality is fundamental for such individuals. However, as there are many morals, their actions can be glorified by one part of the society and vilified by another.

-The avenger reports fraud, management problems, illegal activities, or personal claims in order to extract revenge on an individual, team, or organization that has offended or humiliated him/her. The reason is therefore associated with individual anger and dissatisfaction and is not based on a genuine interest in risk to the company even if the company may indirectly benefit from his/her information.

-The organization man [woman] describes an employee who is deeply imbued with the organizational culture and mission. He/she reports what he/she considers to be illegal or improper conduct due to a fear for the company. This employee considers his/her approach to be pure and protective of the company by pointing out the consequences of illegal or improper conduct. He/she acts in relation to what he/she perceives to be the organization's mission related to its technical, procedural, and ethical issues. He/she is often negatively described as a "know-it-all". Managers or senior management may see him/her as an obstacle to achieving their objectives or gaining support for their policies. They often consider such whistleblowing unwelcome as it is in opposition to their managerial prerogatives, which may explain some reprisals.

-The alarmist is an employee who constantly complains about the moral risks to the public sphere of one or more of the policies. Often not based on evidence, his/her statements are therefore unreliable, and he/she is almost always wrong. In the long term, he/she may lose all credibility because the acts denounced are neither illegal nor inappropriate and pose no threat to the public/general interest. In fact, no one usually takes any action to manage such whistleblowing, which is problematic if some of their information turns out to be correct.

-The bounty hunter is motivated mainly by the money he/she can obtain since, in some countries, there is financial compensation from governments to offset the risk to his/her career and exposing himself/herself to potential reprisals by disclosing illegal practices.

This typology, by combining different factors to identify profiles, is more complete and provides a "kaleidoscopic" approach [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF] for understanding whistleblowers. It highlights the debate between attachment to the company, professional ethics, and/or individual moral principles. It also focuses not only on the motivation for the alert, but also on the approach taken. However, it is founded on qualitative research based on nine interviews with professionals (employees, managers, lawyers), only two of whom had actually whistleblown. Moreover, not everything seems to be applicable to the French context. For example, anti-social whistleblowers who act with the intention of harming the company or their colleagues are not recognized as such in France, because there must be no intent to harm. The financial motivation is also incompatible with French law. Drawing on these initial studies, this article seeks to complete the analysis of the motivations for (internal) whistleblowing in the French context.

Methodology and results

Research Method

Data collection

To better understand the motivations that lead a French employee to whistleblow after observing a dysfunction, we implemented an exploratory qualitative approach. The choice of the chosen method was carefully considered, as studying the population of whistleblowing employees is a complex matter. Indeed, in general, research related to dysfunctions, misdeeds, or unethical behaviour within companies is difficult to conduct [START_REF] Chiu | Ethical judgment and whistleblowing intention: Examining the moderating role of locus of control[END_REF]. In addition, the population of employees who have whistleblown within their company is often hidden (there is no identification or quantification of these acts in France), difficult to access (especially for those excluded from their organization), or has received too much media coverage (making the researcher's objectivity problematic). Those who agree to testify may also fear for their anonymity or self-censorship, requiring specific precautions on the part of the researcher.

To counter these difficulties and study the motivations to alert, it is also possible to propose scenarios to employees or students to find out what decisions they would make in the event of a dysfunction within a company. However, since the behaviour and situation remain hypothetical and far from reality, the reported whistleblowing rates are often higher than in reality because the fear of reprisals is only fictitious [START_REF] Mesmer-Magnus | Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation[END_REF] and the link is weak between the intention to act and the actual behaviour, particularly for whistleblowing behaviour highly associated with subjective norms. To profile whistleblowers, we therefore preferred to start from real situations. We chose to utilize narrative stories, which are "discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for a definite audience and thus offer insights about the world and/or people's experiences of it" (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1997, p. 16). This method is particularly suitable for analysing a category of social situations encountered by individuals, facilitating their reflexivity and explaining their logic of action in context. "The value of narrative stories, if they are collected in this perspective, is that they constitute precisely a method that makes it possible to study action over time" (Bertaux, 2016, p. 8) and to obtain rich content, allowing movement from the particular case to the general case. While the method makes it possible to understand individuals' experiences and memories of events, it is not free of bias since the data obtained may contain omissions, distortions, self-justifications, and rationalization a posteriori [START_REF] Bah | Les récits de vie en sciences de gestion: orientations épistémologiques et méthodologiques[END_REF] but remains closer to the actual reality than the scenario method. The initial question asked was "Can you tell me about your career path since you discovered the fact for which you whistleblew?"

In the narrative method, sampling is a major step since each respondent is considered an expert. Diversity among the profiles is therefore sought to ensure theoretical development [START_REF] Yin | Case study research: Design and methods[END_REF]. To get in touch with the participants, we sent an email through an association of whistleblower employees to solicit volunteers to participate in a study while ensuring confidentiality. From among the replies, having followed a protocol similar to that adopted by the French legislature in order to recognize the status of whistleblowing employees, we sought respondents with different characteristics [sex, age, training (from bac+2 to bac+8), sector of activity, seniority in the company and position, and type of reported dysfunction]. The sample size was not determined a priori, but collection was stopped when we obtained a theoretical saturation, i.e. ten interviews [START_REF] Glaser | The discovery of grounded theory[END_REF]. Half of the respondents are women, the average age at the time of the alert was 44 years. The interviews were conducted between June and December 2018 and lasted between 1h and 3h with an average of 2h15 (see Table 3 for more information on the sample 4 ).

<INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE>

Data analysis

In addition to the interviews, secondary data were collected where possible on participants' whistleblowing, including newspaper articles, court judgments, diaries, CVs, etc. Telephone notes and recordings were transcribed. A thorough and detailed review of the interview material was required because, "for an exploratory study, the researcher carefully reads and rereads the data, looking for key words, trends, themes, or ideas in the data that will help outline the analysis before any analysis takes place" (Guest et al. 2011, p. 7-8). A systematic coding analysis was undertaken with descriptive coding (to categorize the text) and axial coding (to identify the links between categories; [START_REF] Miles | Analyse des données qualitatives[END_REF]. We then carried out a comparative analysis that allowed us to put the respondents' backgrounds into perspective and to find common or opposing features in order to be able to distinguish what was unique or similar regarding their backgrounds. We opted for a typological approach that, by "categorizing and clustering ideas and observations is used to offer a multidimensional take on a management or organizational subject" (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 6). We obtained standard types that allow us to consider many characteristics and multiple contingencies simultaneously. The principle of equifinality emerged, where different types (here profiles of employees) can achieve the same result (whistleblowing) by following different logics of action [START_REF] Drazin | Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory[END_REF].

Results

Results revealed that the traditional cost-benefit approach was not widely used, with employees referring to the issue of reprisals as an ex post facto element because, all having evidence in their possession that could serve as evidence for the whistleblowing, most of them thought that their organization would put an end to the dysfunction quickly and therefore did not foresee any possible sanctions.

However, during the analysis, two dimensions seemed particularly pertinent in terms of interpreting the action logics of employees before their decision to whistleblow:

1. Impulse: willingness of our respondents to whistleblow was associated with either respect for the law or respect for morality.

2. Orientation: the whistleblower could explain his/her choice through the desire to protect the organization or, more broadly, the societal interest. This dyad approach, opposing two qualitative states that can be identified as opposite, made it possible to develop a typology of whistleblowing employees by combining the two dimensions with two levels. Four standard types were therefore identified, as shown in Figure 2.

<INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE>

We will define each of the four profiles below and illustrate them using quotations from the life stories that are representative of the discourse of individuals constituting each type.

The loyalist

Employees in this category have a strong connection to their organization, an almost emotional investment, and seek to defend it ["I was very attached to my organization, I had made a lot of effort to get into it and wanted to represent it as well as possible to clients" (R10)]. Loyalists whistleblow to improve the organization's performance and protect it from potentially serious harm ["I was told that I was the conscience of the company" (R6)]. Employees act in the name of morality because unethical behaviour could harm the organization directly (embezzlement, managerial problems) or indirectly (impact on the image) ["My duty was to report malfunctions within my department for the company's reputation and CSR" (R6)].

As such, they want to avoid managerial problems or image problems ["I didn't want to remake the world, just to protect the organization from the consequences of this dysfunction that should never have happened and so alerting my hierarchy seemed to me to be entirely justified" (R10)]. In general, these employees believe in their company's willingness to correct the wrongdoing and therefore to act as soon as the alarm has been raised. When this is not the case, they report a strong disappointment and have difficulty accepting what they see as corruption or a business model based on dysfunction that they did not imagine ["I didn't understand all the ins and outs of what I had identified ... The system was stronger than me" (R10)].

The professional

This category includes employees who have whistleblown within their organization due to failure to comply with the rules governing their profession ["To whistleblow is just to want to ensure that a normal principle is given due respect ... This act is our responsibility. I have been a professional and I hope that people in their work behave professionally with regard to their responsibilities and prerogatives" (R3)]. Strongly attached to their profession ["I love my work and my profession" (R9)], they have integrated its ideals and regulations and consider that it is their job to alert their hierarchy if they observe a practice that goes against or threatens the values of this profession ["If I had to do it again, I would do it again because it is a professional obligation in the course of my work to prevent the organization from engaging in suspicious transactions" (R3)]. Even if these ideals are compromised by others, they will uphold these principles in the social context of the organization, thinking that it is their role to do so in order to protect the functioning of the organization ["We have obligations to the profession, we follow training and so it is my job to respect all this" (R4); "It was contrary to the ethical definition of my duties" (R9)].

Most in this category are horrified to discover the dysfunction because they cannot imagine that it could be done within their organization or by people in their profession ["It was a serious breach of my profession ... He was freeing himself from a lot of rules that I was careful to respect scrupulously" (R4)]. Failure to comply with the professional code may even make them feel partly responsible ["I didn't want to be told that I was responsible, that it came back to me for not having raised the alarm, it was also my duty" (R4)]. As such, they believe that the organization will listen to them and act to put an end to the dysfunction quickly since they are only following the rules of their profession ["I thought there would be a positive reaction to reporting illegal acts that I was supposed to detect in my job. That if I didn't say anything, it could adversely affect the organization" (R4)]. If this is not the case, they feel betrayed and used as a professional guarantor when, in reality, they were expected to engage in inappropriate behaviour in support of the organization ["For me, the whistleblowing was in the company's interest, its image as a company that takes things seriously, its professionalism, I thought it was part of the job to follow the rules ..." (R4)].

The parrhesiast

These employees, motivated by very strong moral and ethical personal values, are driven by the need to tell the truth about organizational abuses in order to protect the public interest ["I felt that if I didn't give myself the right to speak and say what I saw and experienced, it would be cowardice towards society and towards myself" (R2)]. This freedom of speech, of intrepid discourse, which refers to ancient Greece, makes it possible to clearly state the facts to ensure transparency following unethical behaviour observed within the organization ["It was unacceptable to me, I had to express my disagreement. Was the act legal or not? Who cares?! It was immoral and we had to denounce it, we can't work in such a system, it must be brought to someone's attention so that it can change!" (R8)]. They feel a moral obligation to help others ["There is a visceral need to express oneself and be heard. It was the need to be free, not to be chained to the fear and dishonesty of my employer that I had to denounce this in order to protect other employees. It was a question of fidelity to myself, to who I am, to what I deeply believe" (R7)].

It is therefore a personal choice to whistleblow beyond what the legal framework may impose ["I spoke for those who cannot speak or who have never wanted to speak. The truth is beginning to emerge about these illegal and unethical systems. I decided to whistleblow because of my conscience" (R2)]. They seek to make their interlocutors listen and understand the problem, make them reflect on the ethical issues of their activity and the drifts in certain practices, which can be complicated because it challenges the established order, or even the entire business model ["It is necessary to identify and correct dysfunctions otherwise it is a vicious circle that will encourage other unethical employers to continue and pervert the spirit of the law" (R7)]. The moral integrity of the "professional" can lead to trouble and he/she can be considered as an "impediment, just going in circles" (R7) ["I have clearly expressed these business and ethical issues. It was inconceivable to me that we could work in such an area without asking ourselves these questions in a thoughtful way and answering them clearly. We have an obligation to question the purpose of our activity and not in a system that selfproduces conformity" (R8)]. In undertaking his action, the employee therefore takes a risk in the same way as the parrhesiast, as defined by [START_REF] Foucault | Le courage de la vérité: Le gouvernement de soi et des autres II[END_REF], who may suffer possible reprisals but considers it necessary to expose the observed drift ["The cause is more important than my case" (R7)].

The legalist

These employees are motivated by compliance with the law, which prescribes what can and cannot be done within an organization and therefore feel obliged to whistleblow based on the protection of the public/general interest ["I did it because I knew that my employer's activities were completely illegal ... There can be no other approach because it affects the general interest and the interest of all French people" (R5)]. Faced with an irregularity, they consider that they must intervene to ensure that the legal framework applies by reporting the misdemeanour to their hierarchy ["I only pointed out illegalities ... some said I was a cop but that's law enforcement!" (R1)]. They believe that compliance with the law ensures equity between organizations and protects internal stakeholders (e.g. employees who are victims of harassment) or external stakeholders (e.g. customers with health issues or the state in the event of tax fraud) ["My sense of justice and duty makes me think more of the general interest than of my own interest ... I have thought of the public service, of denouncing this completely illegal social fraud" (R1)].

For these individuals, their whistleblowing is a form of loyalty to the Society in the broadest sense that there is more justice in organizational practices ["I am a straight man and I had no ulterior motive, I just wanted there to be social justice" (R1)]. If the law is not respected, they feel obliged to report it to their hierarchy, thinking that in the face of such facts, the company cannot fail to react ["Finally, I became a whistleblower because the law required me to do so" (R1)]. If the whistleblowing goes unaddressed, they often lose confidence in people and justice, as they consider that any illegal act must be punished ["I just reported an illegal act, I didn't understand what happened to me afterwards, it should have been judged very quickly after all ... but no, they got out of it ... they all cover themselves, so there is no justice possible" (R5)].

Discussion

This first typology, in the context of France, among employees who have whistleblown (with most of the work being based on documents or discussions with various representatives of the business world) confirms the different profiles of motivation for whistleblowing among employees who have had the opportunity to report a dysfunction. Two discriminating axes resulting from the interviews (impulse-moral vs. legal and orientationorganization vs. societal) made it possible to establish four standard types among whistleblowing employees.

We can already underline the fact that, unlike the Anglo-Saxon studies [START_REF] Glazer | Ten whistleblowers and how they fared[END_REF]), the question of potential reprisals is not considered by whistleblowers as a pull or push element in their decision to initiate the process. The ten participants state that, even knowing what would happen next, they would do the same thing again because they felt that "it was the only thing to do" (R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R10) even if their motivations were different. Unlike the typologies previously developed, the relationship to oneself (in terms of financial gain, egotism, or revenge-seeking) did not appear in any of the interviews, in line with what the French legislature recommends. Indeed, it is not legally possible to have a "bounty hunter" profile [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF] since whistleblowing cannot, legally, be financially rewarded; in cases when it is indirectly rewarded (by promotion for example), the research shows that the whistleblowing is followed more by reprisals than by positive recognition (all our respondents have lost their job after the whistleblowing either directly or in the long term). However, we could have expected that other hidden individualistic motivations would have emerged, but the whistleblowers we met all recalled that their approach could in no way be of personal interest because, in their cases, that could only mean delation or denunciation (obtaining revenge or making themselves clearly visible to the hierarchy). Everyone therefore thought of the whistleblowing in relation to others internally (employees, the proper functioning of the organizational structure, company image) or externally (customers, users, society, the state). However, morality would not be the only impetus, since the legal framework is also a second motivation for whistleblowing.

The typological analysis made it possible to facilitate the understanding of a complex reality from a specific angle, that of the motivations for whistleblowing. While the latter are multidimensional, the dyad approach provided an articulation that led to the identification of standard types by comparing respondents' discourses and results in a simple, concise, and readable framework that distinguished mutually exclusive groups. In the profiles we have seen emerge, two have an organizational orientation and two are societal. Here we find the idea that the whistleblowing often pits the economic interests of all companies against the collective interests of the one company [START_REF] Cailleba | Le lanceur d'alerte : entre loyauté et liberté. [Im]pertinences[END_REF].

Concerning the organizational dimension, the loyalist can be compared to the "organization man [woman]" [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF] in the Anglo-Saxon context. Very attached to the organization, this employee thinks of whistleblowing from a performative perspective: any dysfunction with regard to its policy and values must be reported to improve the company's practices or protect its image. This type can also be described as a "friend" of the organization [START_REF] Heumann | The world of whistleblowing: From the altruist to the avenger[END_REF], whose loyalty is reminiscent of the classic model, echoing [START_REF] Pfeffer | What's right -and still wrong -with business schools[END_REF] argument in favour of whistleblowing: leaders "can only make sound decisions and fix problems when they know the 'hard facts '" (p. 48). This profile of pro-social behaviour that can prevent or remedy organizational dysfunction [START_REF] Miceli | Who blows the whistle and why?[END_REF] or avoid organizational or managerial disaster would therefore be constructive for the organization and should even be researched and developed further. Therefore, protecting these employees or encouraging this profile can be "a good business" (Heumann et al. 2013, p. 36) because external stakeholders will not be informed of the dysfunction, so it will not harm the company's image, avoid legal costs, and promote a whistleblowing culture that allows dysfunctions to be detected quickly. In a context where ethical codes and charters are multiplying, it is important to support employees in this responsibility. Measures could therefore be taken by managers to present and encourage the whistleblowing process from the outset, as well as through training and the development of communication channels facilitating the exchange of information and the swift detection of dysfunctions [START_REF] Miceli | A word to the wise: How managers and policy-makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing[END_REF].

The professional also intervenes for the organization but rather out of passion and respect for his/her profession. This profile recalls the notion of professional integrity [START_REF] Banks | Integrity in professional life: Issues of conduct, commitment and capacity[END_REF] based on the individual's conduct and compliance with his or her professional code, guidelines, and the rules of the profession. Integrity is a criterion found in quite different sectors of activity [START_REF] Kenny | Mental health as a weapon: Whistleblower retaliation and normative violence[END_REF] and is reinforced in legally regulated professions (legal activities, chartered accountants, security/quality professions, banking, and finance in particular). The initial training of these employees, in developing an ethical culture, leads them to respect the code of conduct of their activity (business ethics) and any fraud observed or deviation from the norm is inconceivable for these employees. Companies should also consider these profiles positively and recruit this type of employee precisely for these types of qualities. Their whistleblowing is in fact the result of their professional ethics and they may be disappointed with the way it is managed by the company.

The other two profiles have a societal dimension aimed at protecting the general/public interest. The parrhesiast speaks up in the belief that, by reporting the truth to his/her hierarchy, the latter will act in the general interest. He/she seeks to encourage moral and ethical reflection and is often disappointed with practices that are more business-oriented and profit-oriented to the detriment of respect for morality and the protection of the company. The moral obligation to state the truth is central to this profile [START_REF] Fimiani | Foucault et Kant: Critique clinique éthique[END_REF]. He/she rejects the security of a life where truth remains unspoken in favour of a "truth teller" relationship through "a pact with himself [herself]" (Weiskopf and Tobias-Miersch, 2016, p. 58) by following his/her own sense of morality and the general interest. The process is ethical and political because he/she dares to tell the truth even if his/her position may lead to being the object of reprisals because he/she disrupts the status quo [START_REF] Weiskopf | Whistleblowing, parrhesia and the contestation of truth in the workplace[END_REF] because of his/her moral integrity. His/her journey is complex, and he/she needs courage to brave "the great risks involved in speaking truth to power" [START_REF] Munro | Whistle-blowing and the politics of truth: Mobilizing 'truth games' in the WikiLeaks case[END_REF]. By challenging the patterns and ethical standards within the organization, he/she can be considered a "hacker" of the company. His/her act may resemble a dissension, thus upsetting the relationship between this employee and his/her team and manager [START_REF] Hassink | A content analysis of whistleblowing policies of leading European companies[END_REF] and, as such, paving the way for reprisals [START_REF] Hersch | Whistleblowers-Heroes or traitors? Individual and collective responsibility for ethical behaviour[END_REF].

The legalist, meanwhile, bases his/her approach on the law in the name of respect for equity in society between organizations, employees, and citizens. Even if his/her training does not necessarily encourage taking this legal approach, he/she cannot bear that not everyone follows the same rules of the game in practice, or misuses them. By doing nothing, he/she would feel guilty too and finally make a "choice without choice" [START_REF] Alford | Whistle-blower narratives: The experience of choiceless choice[END_REF]. This profile can be justified in an organizational environment that increasingly values the use of formal policies and procedures and reflects the importance of due process and written formalization [START_REF] Sitkin | The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas[END_REF].

However, profiles oriented towards the societal interest are more problematic for companies to encourage because they can destabilize the business activity or organizational functioning because they do not think in terms of what is practised elsewhere (mainstream) but of what "must" be done (duty in the moral or legal sense).

From a theoretical point of view, our study has made it possible to better explain whistleblowing in the French context where no practical research had been conducted to date to reveal the motivations of employees' whistleblowing. First, it contributes to define the notion in France and to explain differences from other legal contexts (mainly from the "good faith" and the "internal procedure"). It aims to dispel confusions between whistleblowing and some related expressions such as delation, denunciation and other pejorative terms. Second, it confirms that whistleblowing in this country is also a complex and multidimensional process with several ''types'' of whistleblowers. More specifically, our typology offers two areas of reflection that can be specified in future research around the impulsion ("What drives the action?") and the orientation to whistleblow ("For whom is the action being taken?"). Depending on the answers to these questions and the related profile, it is already possible to envisage the difficulties or encouragement that employees may encounter by whistleblowing, the perceptions of others and all the associated consequences. This first typology therefore makes it possible to identify standard of types for which the motivation will impact the approach taken, including the way in which affected stakeholders should react, particularly in terms of support, post-whistleblowing management, or potential reprisals, depending on the legitimacy, credibility, or scepticism generated by the whistleblowing. It also makes it possible to identify whistleblowing that can be considered as pro-social behaviour and, as such, encouraged within organizations in order to develop an understanding of the best approach to take, including post-whistleblowing management.

Our research has also practical implications, this typology being particularly intended for managers, who are the first point of contact in these situations. Managers listening during whistleblowing will show the reporting employee and his/her colleagues that they are open to being challenged and wish to be informed of any problems in the future before they escalate. By being informed, managers can fix the dysfunction or report it to more senior management if the problem is not within their competence [START_REF] Miceli | A word to the wise: How managers and policy-makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing[END_REF]. Their reaction will also influence the way the whistleblowing develops, i.e. whether the whistleblowing is dealt with successfully internally or whether it progresses to external legal and/or media channels. This typology can thus be used during training courses on whistleblowing in the professional context to raise awareness of differentiated motivations and move away from prejudices considering the whistleblower as a dissatisfied employee seeking merely to spread negative rumours about the organization. The majority of employees who observe a dysfunction will only whistleblow if they consider it sufficiently serious, the notion of severity varying according to the profiles. The proposed types can thus be explored through actual cases to generate discussion. The validity of the typology is based on the coherence of each identified type, which differs from the other types.

However, our study is not without limitations that must be taken into account. First, the analysis is based on an a posteriori discourse by whistleblowers and involves a form of rationalization. There may therefore be justification bias. In addition, the sample of employees we met was composed of volunteers, all affiliated to an associative group helping employees in the same situation and, therefore, perhaps more motivated to contribute and share their visions and experiences, which could have biased the sampling. Moreover, as with any typological work, there is always an area of ambiguity, with respondents sometimes expressing one or two ideas that could potentially lead to another type or profile; however, we were always able to draw out a predominant profile for each employee, which we submitted to them for validation. In the future, it would be interesting to refine the approach by conducting sectoral research (particularly in sectors where the professions are highly regulated, e.g. finance) or by carrying out case studies with whistleblowing employees within the same company to assess the impact of the values of the organization, its ethics, and the profession as a whole on the profiles present within it, ideally carried out as a longitudinal study, which has only been done so far in therapeutic psychological support sessions for whistleblowers [START_REF] Soeken | J'accuse[END_REF]. In addition, international comparisons could be made to better understand the impact of the context on the motivation to whistleblow, as our research has already revealed the impact of the legal dimension on the profiles that may exist. It will even be possible to study the impact of legislative changes on the incentives to whistleblow in the French context in the near future with the adoption of the Directive 2019/1937 of the European parliament and of the Council on 23 October 2019. In fact, this new Directive aims to improve the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe. It expands the scope of reporting people beyond current or past workers. and explains that they "qualify for protection under this Directive provided that:(a)they had reasonable grounds to believe that the information on breaches reported was true at the time of reporting and that such information fell within the scope of this Directive; and (b) they reported either internally […] or […] or made a public […]" 4 . In France, the text will be transposed by 2021 and will therefore lead to changes not only in the definition (for example, good faith will no longer be a requirement for protection) but also in the procedure (with the possibility to alert internally or externally without following the current steps). It will then be interesting to study whether the same explanatory axes and the different types remain.

Conclusion

While whistleblowing regarding possible wrongdoing or dysfunction within the organization is encouraged, in practice many employees are unsure how to proceed. Fearing accusations of disloyalty or threats of retaliation, they face a real dilemma in deciding whether to keep quiet or to speak out. In France, with a very recent legal framework, the motivations for whistleblowing were still largely unknown. We wanted to profile the employees who had whistleblown to better understand what had led them to undertake the process. Neither "saints" nor "snitches", the reality is more complex, and the profiles are multiple. Our study identifies two axes of analysis around impulse and orientation. It stresses that alerts, often referred to as ethical, are in fact justified by moral or legal arguments and that the notion of loyalty, frequently denied to the whistleblower, is in reality applied to two different sources: the organization; and the society. Our work indicates the value for the company and for managers in better understanding the motivation for whistleblowers in order to be able to better manage them. It also indicates the value in training employees in order to raise their awareness, develop a positive approach to whistleblowing that limits reprisals, and stimulate feedback on potential dysfunctions, thus encouraging constructive approaches that, while protecting the company's interest, will indirectly protect the various stakeholders (and ultimately the general interest). This research highlights the need to continue working to better understand the alert process not only from the point of view of whistleblowing employees themselves, but also from the point of view of their managers and colleagues, in order to understand the dynamic that is at play between loyalty and mistrust. Notes 1. Citizen, public official, or employee.

2. Other provisions are in place for companies with more than 500 and more than 5,000 employees.

3. Job details and diploma level are not communicated to keep the profiles confidential, as some sectors have only rarely been affected by whistleblowing. 4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L1937 Face-to-face (notes taken)

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Procedure to be followed for a whistleblowing employee in France.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Typology of whistleblowing employees according to their motivations.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards :

Ethical approval : All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the authors' institutional ethical committees.