Whistle blowing in its most general form

involves calling (public) attention to wrong

doing, typically in order to avert harm.

Whistle blowing is an attempt by a member or
former member of an organization to
disclose wrong doing in or by the
organization.

Kinds of Whistle blowing:

Internal Whistle blowing is made to
someone within the organization.

Personal Whistle blowing is blowing the
whistle on the offender, here the charge is
not against the organization or system but
against one individual.

The impersonal, External Whistle Blowing.
A situation in which a member discloses
questionable practices to persons or organizations
who may be able to act on them. Traditionally
viewed as involving dissent, breach of loyalty, and
accusation of wrongdoing.

7 Stages of Whistleblowing
Discovery of abuse
Reflection on what action to take
Confrontation with superiors
Response of complaint recipient & organization
(often one of retaliation)
Whistleblowers response (often legal action)
Termination of the case
Going on to a new life
According to Richard T De George there
are three conditions that must hold for
whistle-blowing to be morally
permissible, and two additional
conditions that must hold for it to be
morally obligatory. The three conditions
that must hold for it to be morally
permissible are:
The firm through its product or policy will do
serious and considerable harm to the public,
whether in the person of the user of its
product, an innocent bystander, or the
general public.

Once an employee identifies a serious threat
to the user of a product or to the general
public, he or she should report it to his or
her immediate superior and make his or her
moral concern known. Unless he or she does
so, the act of Whistle blowing is not
justifiable.
If one's immediate superior does nothing
effective about the concern or complaint,
the employee should exhaust the internal
procedures and possibilities within the
firm. This usually will involve taking the
matter up the managerial ladder, and if
necessary and possible to the board of
directors.



The two additional conditions for Whistle
blowing to be morally obligatory:

Whistleblower must have accessible
documented evidence that would
convince a reasonable, impartial observer
that one's view of the situation is correct,
and that the company's product or
practice posses a serious and likely
danger to the public or to the user of the
product.
The employee must have good reason to
believe that by going public the necessary
changes will be brought about. The chance of
being successful must be worth the risk one
takes and danger to which one is exposed.

George further believes that situation
which involve serious body harm or death
are so different from non-physical harm,
such as financial harm as a result of
fraud. He says non physical harm is not as
serious an injury as suffering physical
harm.




IDEALISTIC
Honesty
Efficiency, Correctness
Support for Victim (of fraud)

DEFENSIVE.
Against being associated with an illegal act

NEGATIVE.
Dislike of supervisor
Paranoia
Loud Mouth
To avoid censure


AND POSSIBLY SEVERAL REASONS MIXED TOGETHER


The whistleblower, in other words, should have
supporting reasons for claiming that the procedures
or activities of the agency or company are wrong,
or that it is pursuing the wrong objectives, other
than that the whistleblower believes that they are
wrong.


ACTIVITIES THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER BELIEVES

ARE INCOMPETENTLY MANAGED, or

THAT THE ORGANISATION SHOULD BE PURSUING,

Unless a breach of clearly agreed objectives or documented
procedures are evident.
IT IS NOT

WHISTLEBLOWING GENERATES CONSIDERABLE
HOSTILITY from the people targetted by the
whistleblower and by the organisation generally.

REASONS FOR HOSTILITY:

A BELIEF THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS DISLOYAL,
is

Acting against basic instincts of solidarity and
mutual protection (tribal instincts),
Destroying security (jobs & income) of colleagues,
Stealing information (unfortunately necessary to
prove accusations)
Dissent - Must speak out against others
in organization
Breach of Loyalty - Perceived as one
who violates confidentiality and loyalty
Accusation - Singles out specific
individuals as threats to organization
or the public
Fired
Blacklisted
Transferred to undesirable locations
Lifestyles AND mental stability
questioned
Physical abuse and murder possible
Severe problems for society or
organization

Can be implicated as an accessory
before or after the fact
In charge of Quality Control
Company makes parts for automobile brakes
Find defect in brake part
Could cause failure in brakes
Failure not certain
May take many years to develop
Go to VP of Production, your boss
He tells you to overlook defect - company may
loose too much money

What would you do?

1. Make sure situation involves an
imminent threat to society or to the
business
2. Document all allegations
3. Examine internal whistleblowing first
4. Should you remain anonymous?
5. Get another job first!!!
Corporate
Employer Loyalty
Obedience
Confidentiality
Employee
Traditional
(Has certain rights)
Public Employee
Corporate
Employer
Whistle blowing
Responsibility Responsibility
(Has certain
rights)
(Has certain
rights)
Emerging
Whistle-blowing has been praised by many
as courageous actions taken by a few
good people with a moral conscience who
risk everything to call public attention to
illegitimate business practices and illegal
and immoral actions
Whistle-blowing is morally
problematic because employees are
seen to have a prima facie duty of
loyalty to their employers
Prima facie (first face) at first sight
accepted as correct until proven
otherwise
Why does it make sense to say that
employees owe loyalty to their
employers?

People have a moral obligation to
prevent serious harm to others if
they can do so with little cost to
themselves

Paradox of Burden Whistle-blowers
generally act at considerable risk to
themselves
Paradox of Missing Harm Merely
seeking to prevent falsification of the
record does not constitute a case of
serious and considerable harm
Paradox of Failure Whistle-blowers
are rarely successful at preventing
serious and considerable harm
Whistle-blowing is permissible when:
The organization that the whistle-blower belongs to
will, through product or policy, do serious and
considerable harm
The whistleblower has reported the threat of harm
to her superiors and it is obvious that her superiors
will do nothing effective
The whistle-blower has exhausted all additional
internal procedures
The whistle-blower has evidence that would
convince a reasonable, impartial observer that
shes correct
The whistle-blower has good reason to believe
that blowing the whistle will prevent the harm at
a reasonable cost


What you reveal derives from your work at the
organization
You are a voluntary member of that organization
You believe that the organization is engaged in
serious moral wrongdoing
You believe that your work will contribute to the
wrongdoing if you do not reveal it publicly
You are justified in your beliefs regarding
PREVIOUS TWO POINTS
The two points referred to in previous point are
true
Ronald Duska
Whistleblowing and Employee
Loyalty
Whistle-blowing requires a moral
justification.
Concludes that companies are not
something that can legitimately demand
loyalty.
If employees do not owe loyalty to their
employers then there is no need to morally
justify whistle-blowing.
I.e., whistle-blowing is permissible
Especially when a company is harming society.
Loyalty is a wholehearted devotion to
another person
Loyalty entails self-sacrifice without the
expectation of reward
We can have loyalty to groups that are
bound by mutual fulfillment and support
But, companies are not such groups
because they are solely bound by division of
labor and the generation of profit

Whistle-blowing is often seen as disloyal
because it is analogous to calling a foul on your own
team
Duska says this is a bad analogy
Business has no end with clear winners or losers such
as in a game
The game of business affects all stakeholders, not
just the players who actually work in the firm.
Thus, there is no duty of loyalty owed to an employer
Since employees do not owe a duty of loyalty to their
employers there is no need for a moral justification
for whistle-blowing

An employee is an agent of his or her employer. An
agent is a person engaged to act in the interest of
another person, who is known as the principal.
Employees are legally agents of their employers.
As agents, they are obligated to work as directed,
to protect confidential information, and, in
general, to act in the principals best interest.
Although the whistle-blower might appear to be a
disloyal agent, the obligations of an agents loyalty
has limits. Whistle-blowing, therefore, is not
incompatible with being a loyal agent. Two limits
on the obligation of agents are especially
important.
An agent has an obligation to obey only
reasonable directives of the principal,
and so an agent cannot be required to do
anything illegal or immoral.
The obligations of an agent are confined
to the needs of the relationship. Thus,
an employee is not obligated to do
anything that falls outside the scope of
his or her employment.


If loyalty is viewed as a commitment to the true
interests or goals of an organization, rather than
merely the following of orders, then many whistle-
blowers are loyal employees.
Sociological studies have shown that whistle-blowers
are often loyal employees who choose to expose
wrongdoing in the belief that they are doing their
job and acting in the best interest of the company.
In the book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Albert O.
Hirschman holds that speaking out (voice) and
leaving (exit) are the main options for dissatisfied
organization members and that those who exercise
the voice option are generally more loyal than those
who decide to exit.