Whistle-Blowing: The Merits and Demerits to an Organization - Assignment Example

Whistle-Blowing: The Merits and Demerits to an Organization I. Definition and typical background to whistle-blowing Whistle blowing can be defined as the act of disclosing information about public or private organizations with the intention or revealing cases of corruption, unethical activity or any other negative action that is of immediate danger to the public. The word whistleblower is adapted from the tendency of police and umpires to blow a whistle when they witness an unlawful act. Contrary to popular assumption, whistle blowing has actually been practiced for centuries only using different methods from those commonly used today. Whistleblowers can be categorized in two types, internal and external whistleblowers. Internal whistle blowers are those that work in an organization and use their insider position and access to hidden information to inform the public (Rubinstein, 2008). On the other hand, external whistleblowers do it from outside by gathering evidence and in some cases collaborating with those on the inside. Once they have the information, they then release or “leak” it to the public through either mainstream or social media. II. Discuss the historical perspective (origin/emergence of whistleblowing) Concept of whistle blowing can be traced back to the notion of Qui tam, used as far back as the 13th century in England to enforce the queen’s law. This was a part of the common law where individuals that assisted in the uncovering and prosecution of corporate crime would be rewarded from the penalties imposed on the body in question. It was later used in the US system in the colonies and later embraced by the first U.S congress. After the false claims act was passed into laws in 1863, people who are not connected to government were allowed to file cases against government organizations and contractors. Notably, although the practice has been common for centuries, it has only enjoyed a resurgence of public support and recognition in recent monumental cases such as deep throat, pentagon papers and Kerr-McGee among others. III. Justification and how to promote effective internal whistleblowing Whistle blowing has been on several occasions being justified through ethical theories particularly Kantian ethics in which people are instructed to act in coordination with totally accepted rules. Telling the truth is the nexus of this theory and although one cannot have had any means of knowing the extent of self-sacrifice whistle blowers have to undergo, his theory essentially supports the notion of standing firm with the truth irrespective of the consequences (Lindblom, 2007). From a virtue theory point of view, whistle blowing calls for integrity and courage; for example, in a hospital scenario when one tells on their colleague’s, unethical actions that endanger patient life, the repercussions and victimization especially if the reported party is senior. From a consequentialism or utilities viewpoint, the ethical theory provides a robust justification for whistle blowing since it is seen as a way of maximizing human benefit and minimizing harm. However, sometimes it can be misused to spread misinformation and rumors, on the other hand whistleblowers are often victimized and are persecuted which makes many of them fear to come out in fear of personal danger. Therefore, in order to promote internal whistle blowing, organizations should create frameworks through which people can give sensitive information anonymously so they can be encouraged to whistle blow. In addition, organizations should communicate to their staff the intention investigate any claims objectively without victimizing anyone unless they find concrete evidence. Finally, there should be an external mechanism through which inside stories can be highlighted without revealing the identity of the source. One such example is WikiLeaks a website by Julius Assange through which people can leak stories with no risk of their being traced back to them. Jian, Pany & Reckers (2013) carried out a study and found out that in most cases, the whistle blowing hotlines with external administrators tends to be more effective than internal ones. This makes a case for the need to encourage objective handling of internal whistle blowers since it is evident they do not always get the desired results hence prefer external channels. IV. Advantages and disadvantages of internal verses external whistleblowing The main advantage of internal whistle blowing is that the whistleblower is strategically placed to gather information, which can prove their claims since they have direct contact with the issues they are talking about. In addition, one will be viewed as a credible source as insiders and their story is more likely to be believed. However on the down side, an internal whistle blower is more exposed to retaliatory action from the organisations, which essentially still has power over them. For example, when someone exposes their employer for unethical action, they could end up being fired or demoted and even sued. They can also be criticized and their evidence may be undermined on the basis that they may have personal vendetta with their employer. When the employer is the government like in the case of controversial contemporary whistleblower Edward Snowden, the consequences can be severe since the government has a lot of power and they can use it to exact retribution. On the other hand, the external whistleblower enjoys a degree of immunity since they will have little contact with the Organisation or individual whose information they are releasing. They cannot be fired demoted although they can be sued for slander, this will however often not be a serious issue since the burden of proof is with the accused that will have to prove the claims are false before they have grounds for legal actions. The disadvantage of the external whistleblower is that their testimony may be questioned since the informer does not have direct contact with the party about whom they are informing. V. What are the legislation on whistleblowing and the public interest in the subject For the best practice in whistleblowing irrespective of whether the whistleblower is internal or external, they should ensure that they give the right information rather than use the title of whistle blower to settle scores or personal gain (Jian, Pany & Reckers, 2013). After the enactment of the whistleblower protection act of 1989, whistleblowers working in the government are protected when they report agency misconduct and the agency involved is in violation of the whistle blowers act if the threaten to take retaliatory actions. They can also file complaints if they deem them a violation of law or gross mismanagement of funds and abuse of power. There are three offices dedicated to dealing with whistleblower complains; these are, the office of special counsel the merit systems protection boards and the court of appeal for federal circuits (Gilligan, 2014). However, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 made many changes in the whistleblower protection act and as a result of a series of decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, witness protection has significantly reduced (Lewis, 2013). VI. The future of whistleblowing In the present information age, whistle blowing is without doubt going to become a common and popular way for people to expose corporate and government immoral and unethical acts. However, whistle blowers do not get, as much protection from the government as they should especially if they state is the victim of their activities. In addition, whistle blowing that involved matters of national security has all but being criminalized creating a situation where whistleblowers are punished even if the information they released was indeed evidence of immoral acts. For example, Bradley Manning was one of those who leaked information relating to the atrocities of the US army in the Middle East. He was imprisoned and dishonorably discharged although the data he provided showed that the army had indeed been involved in extrajudicial killings. As a result, the field of whistleblowing appears to be gravitating towards, the online platform where it is easier to guarantee anonymity. Through websites such as anonymous and WikiLeaks, people can post data without risking personal reprisals (Seifert, Stammerjohan & Martin, 2014). In most cases, whistleblowers rarely get any rewards for their sacrifice and irrespective of whether they were right or not their lives change usually for the worse. They lose their jobs and many have to terminate contact with their families and friends for security reasons, this make a sturdy case for going the online way. This is because in addition to anonymity, it increases the number of people who will access the information significantly reducing the motivation to do the whistleblower harm for the sake of keeping the information private. VII. Conclusions and recommendations In conclusion, it is unequivocal that whistleblowing serves an invaluable role both for the sake of public interests and even the organisations, including governments. Whistle blowers create motivation for accountability and ethic actions by organisations since the people working in them are aware they could be reported for any irregular activity. Nevertheless, although in theory the government appears to support whistleblowers, it has been severally accused of interfering or not doing enough to have their claims investigated sufficiently especially when it has a stake in the matter. With the advent of technological methods of reporting it, organisations may be forced to accept the inevitability of whistleblowing and become more accountable. I would recommend that all organisations should be mandated to have a framework through which any employee can provide pertinent information so that and they should be protected from any reprisals. Additionally, all cases of whistleblowing should be thoroughly investigated and if they are found to be justified, the whistle blower should be compensated and protected if need be so they do not suffer for their heroism and acts of responsibility. References Gilligan, G. (2014). Whistleblowing protections and judicial activism in the US Supreme Court. Law & Financial Markets Review, 8(1), 4-7. doi:10.5235/17521440.8.1.4 Jian, Z., Pany, K., & Reckers, P. J. (2013). Under which conditions are whistleblowing "best practices" best?. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 171-181. doi:10.2308/ajpt-50451 Lewis, D. (2013). Resolving whistleblowing disputes in the public interest: is tribunal adjudication the best that can be offered?. Industrial Law Journal, 42(1), 35-53. Lindblom, L. (2007). Dissolving the moral dilemma of whistleblowing. Journal Of Business Ethics, 76(4), 413-426. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9291-2 Rubinstein, K. (2008). Internal whistleblowing and sarbanes-oxley section 806: balancing the interests of employee and employer. New York Law School Law Review, 52(4), 637-657. Seifert, D. L., Stammerjohan, W. W., & Martin, R. B. (2014). Trust, organizational justice, and whistleblowing: a research note. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 157-168. doi:10.2308/bria-50587 Read More