Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility - Literature review Example

?There have been several attempts to define the concept of whistle blowing over the years. One of the most comprehensive of these is the definition provided by Peter Jubb, who defined whistle blowing as a voluntary disclose by an individual who possesses privileged access to certain information about the entity in question, which becomes is put under records (Jubb). This disclosure pertains to any significant and material act which is deemed as either illegal or immoral and which may be actual, suspected or anticipated in some way. Since time immemorial, there has been heated debate as to the ethical soundness and morality pertaining to whistle blowing. The morality comes into question when there is a conflict between the individual’s duty to staying loyal to the firm and the freedom to speak out against what is wrong. The dilemma is severe because of the fact that individuals/employees are legally and morally bound to show their loyalty to their employers as well as ascertain the fact that one does not, directly or indirectly, get involved in any wrongdoing (Beauchamp and Bowie). It has become a common practice to link whistle blowing to loyalty with ones employer, such that several literature surrounds topics such as “whistle blowing versus organizational loyalty” or “whistle blowing and loyalty” (Lindblom). In his book, Robert Duska offers an interesting insight- that loyalty to the firm is an impossible event. According to Duska, employees have a contractual obligation to perform their duties responsibly in return for the compensation that they get (Larmer). However, according to him, the concept of personal responsibility to the company is void and that no loyalty issues should arise when discussing the notion of whistle blowing. According to him, one must engage in whistle blowing only for the collective good of the society (Larmer). The conflict of whistle blowing with loyalty is more intricate than suggested. It not just involves loyalty to one’s employer, but also to one’s fellow workers (Bok). Hence, whistle blowing more often becomes a question of public interest on one hand, versus one’s responsibility towards fellow workers. Loyalty, in the context of whistle blowing, does not mean mere identification to the firm, but also adopting a “positive” aptitude towards the firm (Lindblom). Hence, in this context, loyalty would mean that the individual must show concern towards the potential harm and loss of reputation, goodwill, sales etc. that the organization would suffer as a result of him/her blowing the whistle. However, there is another view by Ronald Duska, which states that organizations should not be recipients of loyalty simply because only “humans” can be objects of loyalty and not the organization as an entity in itself (Lindblom). Also, according to Bok, whistle blowing almost always pertains to the personal level since it involves unveiling the wrongdoings of someone else. The whistle blower may face tremendous moral and ethical conflict when it comes to the same because of several reasons. One of the reasons is the uncertainty whether or not the act is going to result in the general welfare of the public. Furthermore, the whistle blower is faced with moral dilemma when he/she has to weigh his/her moral responsibility to protect the interests of his co-workers versus his/her responsibility to protect the interests of the public. In any case, the latter is considered more important. A final reason for the dilemma, according to Bok, is the potential threat of loss of job, social circle, reputation, or even violence that could result from blowing the whistle. On the contrary, however, whistle blowers often receive strong support and appreciation from the society since they perform a vital job. The job is indispensable because, if it weren’t for the whistle blower the truth of the moment would lay hidden from the public forever and would result in injustice. Furthermore, Bok has emphasized three main elements that lead to whistle blowing becoming a problem. First is dissent which is where the corruption and malpractices of organization are exposed in public limelight (Bok). This leads to the exposure of information which was previously not available. Second is the “breach” of loyalty which results in breach of trust of fellow workers, making the act more difficult for the whistle blower (Bok). Third is accusation which depicts the “personal” nature of whistle blowing which manifests itself in the identification of personal flaws of the other individual ( such as dishonesty, fraudulent practices etc.) (Bok). As a rule of thumb, whistle blowing is justified on the grounds that it exposes risk that is specific and immediate in nature and that its exposure results in some form of reaction from the public to avert it (Bok). It is, however, unjustified when it is done on personal grounds (to malign someone or some entity) and is done erroneously without complete knowledge of the context and details. It is recommended by Bok that exposure to the public should be the last resort. The costs of being a whistle blower are enormous; however, in recent years tremendous safety has been given to the same in the form of legal protection. Although the personal costs may be very high, often putting the individual’s job at risk, many employees do not fear blowing the whistle simply because they feel it is the only right thing to do. The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 is a landmark in terms of the protection it has provided to whistle blowers (Dwyer and Carney). This has seriously pressurized corporations who are now finding ways to curb whistle blowing by reframing their non-disclosure agreements and planning to fire such whistle blowers in a way that the reason does not become obvious (Dwyer and Carney). Corporations are, therefore, increasingly finding ways to cut down on whistle blowing activities. One such example is the case of the three employees who blew the whistle at BP’s Alaskan subsidiary. The company was planning on conducting oil drilling next to the site of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which would impose externalities of the environment (The Economist). However, in the events that followed, it became clear to the three individuals that whistle blowing was no easy task. They had to face bullying and harassment within the company. This, however, was a mild case. In many others, such as that of the whistle blower James Bingham (manager at Xerox) who blew the whistle against fraudulent accounting practices deployed by the company to enhance its earnings, the result has not been less than firing or layoff of the whistle blower (The Economist). Such a practice of fraudulent accounting is a natural outcome of pushing targets higher in the wake of even tougher times. Hence, it is not surprising that the dark history of the result of whistle blowing has deterred many good-minded individuals from raising their voice against wrong practices of the firm. In response to this, legislations in several developed countries, such as the U.S and Britain, are now being formulated to provide special protection to these whistle blowers from the state. In the U.S, however, the rights still remain less than those of prisoners according to a lawyer employed in the investigation team of BP Alaska case. In another article, examples of the courageous whistle blowers are cited, including Sherron of Enron who informed the chairman of the faulty accounting practices used by the firm (Lacayo and Ripley). Such individuals are praiseworthy of the outrageous guts they possess when it comes to blowing the whistle. Such individuals risk their employment, health, privacy as well as their survival for the welfare of the public. The ethical dilemma of whistle blowing can, to some extent is lessened, if seen in the light of Rawl’s theory of justice. Rawl’s theory explains the principles of distributive justice by arguing that people in the original position would prefer the principles of justice, which includes equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference principle (Poel and Royakkers). Thus, Rawls theory succeeds because it preserves the fundamental human and moral values. Furthermore, it supports the market system and the employment of minorities and disabled by ensuring equality of opportunities (Poel and Royakkers). Thus, this theory goes further beyond the Rights Ethics and can be viewed as an extension of the Rights Ethics theory because it condemns the immoral activities of bribery, nepotism, corruption. It goes beyond the traditional Utilitarian line of thinking by arguing that individual’s freedom to enter into contracts would be reduced if activities such as bribery and nepotism existed in the society. The principle of equal liberty works towards this end of reducing social evils such as bribery. Rawl’s theory of “justice as fairness” implies two things. Firstly, each individual is entitled to basic liberty and, secondly, the positions and offices are to be arranged in such a way so as to guarantee equal opportunity to all and to benefit the less privileged members of the society (Rawls). The notion of whistle blowing then can be seen as tied to Rawl’s principle of distributive justice, whereby one overlooks one’s immediate welfare for the general welfare of the society. To conclude, whistle blowing imposes various ethical and moral questions that cannot be denied and that require careful analysis. According to Rawls and De George, no moral issues arise when it comes to whistle blowing; hence, according to them whistle blowing and justified (George). The contractual duty to be loyal to one’s organizations is overridden by the right to free speech, which is one of the strongest arguments in favor of whistle blowing. However, even if this right is established (to blow the whistle), there exist other moral and ethical questions. If there is a moral duty to blow the whistle then it is the correlative duty of others not to interfere with this duty of the whistle blower which then translates to non-interference by organizations. However, in the real world (as seen in the examples) this is often not the case, and even though much liberty and protection has been granted to the whistle blowers, it shall remain a much feared and controversial phenomenon in times to come. References Beauchamp and Bowie. Ethical Theory and Business. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1988. Bok, Sissela. Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 2010. Dwyer, Paula and Dan Carney. "Year of the Whistleblower." 16 December 2002. Business Week Online. 14 April 2012 . George, De. Business Ethics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2006. Jubb, Peter. "Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation." Journal of Business Ethics (1999): 77-94. Lacayo, Richard and Amanda Ripley. "Persons of the Year." 30 December 2002. The Time Magazine U.S. 15 April 2012 . Larmer, Robert A. "Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty." Journal of Business Ethics (1992): 125-128. Lindblom, Lars. "Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistle blowing." Journal of Business Ethics (2007): 413–426. Poel, Ibo van de and Royakkers. Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Economist. "Peep and weep: As companies cut costs they cut corners too. Time to blow the whistle? ." 10 January 2002. The Economist: Business. 15 April 2012 . Read More