Whistleblowing and Deviance - Essay Example

?Whistleblowing and Deviance Deviance Deviance is the type of behavior to which society may act negatively. Deviance can be understood as violation of a norm or country’s law, connoting such behavior that is unacceptable for the society. Deviance ranges from ‘not being nice’ to ‘being criminal’. However, deviance and its definition differ with cultures. For example, somebody going against culturally defined gender roles may be deviant in some cultures, but not in the United States. Types of Deviance The rule-breaking behavior can be understood in three forms: Good behavior. This is the type of deviance that may break the social norms but intends something good to happen. For example, Dr. David Kelly had talked to a few BBC journalists, off-the-record, about the issues between the Blair government and Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction, but his words were portrayed in a very wrong way, which resulted in such a critical situation that finally dragged him to commit suicide. He killed himself as a result of whistleblowing (Henderson, 2003) Odd behavior. Many behaviors are considered as not normal while they are also not criminal. Such odd behavior includes behaving awkwardly in public places, wearing outlandish dresses, piercing one’s eyes and lips, etcetera. Bad behavior. This is the criminal behavior that is apt to break the societal and country’s laws, and the behavior is totally unacceptable for the society. This behavior is more than eccentric and outlandish, and sees resistance, for example, violence in the form of terrorism. Criminal Behavior As mentioned above, criminal behavior is such a deviant behavior that is totally unacceptable for the society because it breaks rules and norms, and harms other people of the society in explicit or implicit ways. Rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, property frauds, bank frauds, e-commerce frauds, identity theft on the internet, human trafficking, theft, dacoit, and terrorism, are all examples of criminal behavior. Organizational Deviance Organizational deviance is generally such behavior that is not in accordance with the rules and regulation of the country. Such activities are considered as crime, and are generally referred to as white collar crime, a term brought forward in 1939 by Edwin Sutherland, a renowned criminologist and sociologist, during a speech when he was addressing the American Sociological Society (Schlegel & Weisburd, 1994, p.3). The organization itself is the actor in deviant behavior, where the white collar crime is committed by businessmen of the organization. In organizational deviance, the organization is responsible for the crime, and has to face penalties for it. According to Karri & Associates (2006), organizational deviance include crimes like bankruptcy fraud, computer crime, identity theft, pension fund crime, occupational crime, securities fraud, and medical fraud. However, organizational deviance is more inclined toward unethical behavior shown by its employees. When this deviance becomes a characteristic of the entire organization rather than of a single individual, it becomes a crime. In other words, when the deviant behavior is overlooked by employees, and is even supported by higher authorities, it becomes organizational deviance, or in other words, white collar crime. Case Study How Deviance Occurred? Individual deviance was being carried on by the employee, Bradley Birkenfeld; and, since it was supported by the whole organization, it became organizational deviance. Deviance occurred because the whole of the organization was working with an intention to help wealthy Americans evade taxes. Bradley Birkenfeld also found out that the organization was not in compliance with U.S. tax laws. When the organization’s authorities came to know about it, they fired him and did not issues him the financial statement for his dismissal, due to which he whistleblew to the IRS and SEC about UBS’s activities. This is how deviance occurred. Since Bradley Birkenfeld did not show his own complicity in the entire case, he was also proven guilty and was penalized. What Kind(s) of Deviance Occurred? It was organizational deviance rather than occupational deviance. The whole organization worked as an entity in supporting the criminal activity of helping wealthy citizens evade taxes, which was against U.S. tax laws. This was bad deviance. However, Bradley Birkenfeld tried to show good deviant behavior to the SEC and IRS when he whistleblew about UBS’s efforts in the tax evasion scheme. But since he had been a part of that scheme himself, his whistleblowing weighed heavily upon him, and he was put behind bars when his complicity was proven. Theoretical Perspective Kalichman and Plemmons (2009, para.2) write that, “Whistleblowers are protected under rulings from both state and federal governments. The first amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing free speech, gives whistleblowers legal protection from retaliation.” There is the Sarbanes-Oxley Law which provides protections for whistleblowers, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009, para. 1), which guarantees legal protection to a whistleblower. But in this case, we see that Bradley Birkenfeld did not receive any legal protection. When he had disclosed such a big secret, he should have given some concession in the penalty. Although his intentions behind whistleblowing were bad, that is, to harm the company, still he became the reason for the disclosure. Also, if there would be no protection given to a whistleblower, people will gradually become indifferent to any wrongdoing they will see around them, because they will remain silent out of fear of retribution. Miral (2006, section 7.3.1) says in an interview for RVR Center-Hills Governance Program's research project that, “Exercising the option of silence can also be an outcome of the lack of procedures for whistleblowing”. Whistleblowing takes place when an employee informs the employer about any danger, violation of law or any illegality that he senses in his surroundings which is apt to negatively affect the general public. Perhaps, Bradley Birkenfeld fulfilled this definition of whistleblowing, because of which he should have been given some compensation. In short, if there are laws for whistleblowers’ protection, then they should be acted upon as well, so that cases like that of Bradley Birkenfeld can be solved in a better way. Also, organizations must watch out for individual deviance, and must not get involved in organizational deviance, to save the integrity and reputation. References Henderson, G. (2003). The warning sounded to whistleblowers everywhere. Whistleblowing. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.work911.com/cgi-bin/links/jump.cgi?ID=4795 Kalichman, M., & Plemmons, D. (2009). Whistleblowing. Resourses for Research Ethics Education. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://research-ethics.net/topics/whistleblowing/#background Karri & Associates. (2006). White Collar Crime. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://karisable.com/crwc.htm Miral, R. (2006). Stakeholders' awareness, attitude and concerns regarding whistleblowing. Whistleblowing in the Philippines Awareness, Attitudes and Structures. Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://www.aim-hills.ph/projectpage/prs/research3_13_2.htm Schlegel, K., & Weisburd, D. (1994). White-Collar Crime Reconsidered. USA: UPNE. U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Whistleblower protections. United States Department of Labor. Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-whistleblower.htm Read More