The Concept of Whistle Blowing - Essay Example

The concept of whistle blowing can be traced back to early 1970s. An American consumer Advocate Ralph Nader as has defined whistle blowing: “an act of a man or women 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.” (Cited by Dr. Wim Vandekerckhove). Today a whistle blower is defined as someone (frequently a government employee) who discloses significant acts of waste, fraud, mismanagement, law-breaking or abuse of authority by government officials or in government programs which threaten the public good (Jacqueline P. Taylor). Whistle blowing is seen as a breach of organizational loyalty and amounts to disclosure of information. It also amounts to pressure tactics by the employees as seen by some theorists. It is basically a conflict between the organization and the society. What kind of whistle blowing is the society and organization looking or hoping for? What is its place in the society? What are the meaning and justifications of the whistle blowing policies? Does whistle blowing resolve the conflict between the organization and the society? Why has whistle blowing been legitimized? Whistle blowing involves three categories of people - the individual, the organization and the society. Whistle blowing is done by an individual against an organization for the protection of the society. Whistle blowing policies are set of procedures and norms aimed at those individuals who disclose information about the organizational malpractices of the organization with which they are attached. Whistle blowers are given protection against dismissal, demotion or retaliation. If retaliation takes place by the organization, they are even provided compensation packages. Whistle blowing has perhaps always existed without this terminology but laws were passed to protect the courageous blowers. Kaplan & Kleiner (2000) emphasize whistle blowing occurs when employee and management relationship lacks professionalism. Issues, which can be handled as a part of the daily routine, remain neglected. When it develops into a significant situation, employees may bring it to the notice of the seniors, there by being named as whistle blowers. The practice of whistle blowing is necessary for professional organizations to maintain professional ethics and protect the public. Whistle blowing can be both good and bad for the society. William De Maria (2005) comments that whistle blowing can be a complex social phenomenon. It is good because it exposes corruption and malpractices, which could harm the society; it is bad because it amounts to breach of trust. Moreover, at the time of employment, the employees also have to sign a ‘non-disclosure agreement’. At the same time, freedom of expression is a basic human right. This freedom of expression has to be substantiated with evidence. Taylor cites with personal experience that whistle blowers are termed as sinners. They are supposed to be the dissatisfied employees, with little or no talent, who seek special privileges or attention and hence resort to such practices. The hostility against the whistle blower commensurate with the charges levelled against the organization. Whistleblowers on the other hand, justify their actions. According to Taylor, they are the most talented lot, honest, hard working and upwardly mobile individuals. They even risk termination in the larger interest of the society. They desire honesty in government and want to end the violations of law. It can be termed as selfless service to the society. They are not interested in either money or fame. They just want to improve the work place environment. They merely want the offenders to be punished and correction of the problems. Whistle blowers should bear in mind the professional ethics and the ‘non-disclosure agreement’ signed at the time of taking up the employment. Public interest demands that a professional person must be an ethical person (Lala Camerer). Corruption exists at all levels in varying degrees in most professions and organizations. Whistle blowing would amount to disloyalty and morally wrong deed. People who wish to resort to whistle blowing reel under the agony of indecision. They may be doing so in the interest of their colleagues and the society but in common parlance they are called rats or sneaks. Fear of such allegations often makes them ignore the malpractices around them. The natural instinct of a person at seeing wrongdoing is to report it to someone in authority. What holds the person back is the fear – the consequences that may arise out of reporting such action. Rocha & Kleiner (2005) cite Sissela Bok, a philosopher and social critic, who determines there are three elements in deciding whether to whistle blow or not: dissent, loyalty and accusation. The whistle blower does not usually analyze or weigh the risks. Whistle blowing should be done in a way that it causes the least damage to the government or to the organization. It should first be informed to the seniors within the organization before taking stronger action. It always has to be supported with evidence. The most important factor is that the motive behind whistle blowing should not be malicious or vested with personal interests. Organizations should have internal reporting mechanisms. When this is not available, employees blow the whistle to outsiders. Another question that haunts is whether the confidentiality and loyalty towards the organization is more important than the duty towards the society. Logically no law can bind a person to keep silent against offenders. Employers’ loyalty stops when public harm becomes an issue (Qusqus & Kleiner). According to them, an employee has a higher responsibility towards the society. For example, a nurse has a moral responsibility to report against her boss if he is bent on conducting a surgery, which can be avoided. For this act of whistle blowing, the nurse might suffer termination of her job but because of whistle blowing, she might have saved the life of an individual who otherwise may have become a victim of the surgery. A whistle blower may face the harassment of finding another job. They are immediately put on blacklist. One of the reasons that whistle blowers face difficulty in finding a job is because they tend to have a special position where they worked and which is not available in the other organizations within the same industry. One who had been fired for whistle blowing on a senator, would not be hired by any other senator. When a stockbroker complained of illegal conduct that the brokers used the clients’ accounts without their authorisation, most security firms would not hire him. He made public the information, which should have remained within the company. The action is seen as a breach of loyalty. Since the whistle blower is usually experienced and old, the age factor also prevents him from finding another suitable job. Some whistle blowers waste valuable time and energy in fighting back against the past employers who had fired them. This too is one of the reasons, which prevents them for finding a job. The disclosure of gross mismanagement, illegal or unethical acts, fraud or conduct that puts the life or health of individuals or the safety of property or the environment at risk, is probably appropriate (Lala Camerer). Camerer says without damaging the law of confidence, in the larger interest of the public and the society, complaints should be paid heed to. In US and the UK legal services and protection are available to whistle blowers. The employees can thus disclose the fraudulent acts without fear of reprisal or victimization. Depending upon the culture of the organization whistleblower may face hostility and negative reaction from colleagues. To address various problems concerning whistle blowing a charity known as Public Concern at Work has been established in Britain. They have developed a checklist, which is being adopted by increasing number of organizations who wish to channel whistle blowing in their own interest (Vinten, 2000). The employees should be encouraged to speak up. Serious malpractices should be dealt with openly. Management sets the practices and standards for the employees to follow. It should be clearly stressed that management is committed to tackle fraud and abuse. The staff unions should back and support this approach. The concerned employees should feel comfortable and supported. This gesture has to be shown by the company. The management and staff should also be warned that deterring an employee from disclosing information amounts to disciplinary offence. Retaliation within an organization may often takes different forms. The whistle blower is singled out, a cloud created around the issue so that the focus shifts from the issue to the whistle blower. It may also become a basis for his termination and employers start collecting data against him. He is branded as a chronic problem employee (Kaplan) thus reducing his credibility. He may also be threatened into silence. Other pressure tactics include loading him an unmanageable amount of work. Another common practice is to layoff the whistle blower even as the company hires new people for similar positions. The company might even ‘deep freeze’ their careers and block promotions. They may even go to the extent of giving him duties much below his dignity or qualifications. Vinten suggests code of ethics for whistle blowing. It serves to protect both the management as well as the whistleblowers. According to him, experts in corporate culture feel that storytellers and spies are essential to the cohesiveness of an organization. The ideal requirements according to Bowie (cited by Vinten) are that the motive behind whistle blowing should be neither personal nor malicious in nature. According to Peter Drucker (cited by Vinten, 2000), whistle blowing is another word for ‘informing’. To Drucker, under whistle blowing, no mutual trust, no interdependencies, and no ethics are possible. Vinten (1999), is his article on educational management, refers to the problems outlined by Alan Westin. Not all whistleblowers are correct in their allegations, according to Westin. Inadequately performing employees may whistle blow to avoid facing justified sanctions. Some whistle blowers may not be protesting against malpractices or fraud but against the social practices that the company follows. The Government too has been promoting whistle blowing because it believes that people of conscience work within these large, complex organizations, and would normally take action against wrongdoing except for fear of losing their jobs or other forms of retaliation (Terry Morehead Dworkin). Rocha and Kleiner (2005) observe that majority of the allegations were from government employees against overspending. The government could save billions if this could be stopped. The government immediately revised the whistle blowing laws and realized that besides protecting the whistle blowers from retaliation, monetary incentives could urge them to come forward with important disclosures. Laws had been created since the 70s but they were revised to include new and relevant situations and cases. The Whistleblower Protection Act has been amended thrice since it was first formulated in 1978. The revision in 1989 eliminated the need for employees to prove the employers’ retaliatory motives and allowed the employee to change the job if he/she wished to do so. The third revision in 1994 improved the procedures and plugged the holes, thereby offering more protection to the whistle blowers. When they receive adequate protection, they will definitely come forward against the wrongdoing that plagues the society silently. Regular whistle blowing could even reduce malpractices in the organizations. The WPA has also been of help in educating the employers how to avoid the need for whistle blowers (Rocha). Whistle blowing can have far reaching consequences. A person has to be strong and decisive before making public statements, despite all laws that have been formulated. Laws can be misinterpreted or interpreted to suit the convenience. Good and bad will always be prevalent in any society at any point of time. He decision has to be judiciously taken. The whistle blower should have the courage to face the consequences. At the same time whistle blowers should be regarded more positively (Vinten, 1999). The objective should be to encourage the type of whistle blowing that is in the larger interest of the society. Be it an educational institution or a corporate house, each unit should formulate their own code of practice. A culture of constructive whistle blowing would help the society as well as the organization. References: Camerer L, Ethics and the Professions: Blowing the Whistle on Crime1, < http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/5No6/Camerer.html> 19 February 2006 Dworkin M T, Whistle-blowing, < http://www.caslon.com.au/censorshipguide21.htm> 19 February 2006 Kaplan B & Kleiner B H (2000), New Developments Concerning Discrimination for Whistle Blowing, Equal Opportunities International; Volume: 19 Issue: 6/7; 2000 Maria De W, Whistle-blowing, < http://www.caslon.com.au/censorshipguide21.htm> 19 February 2006 Rocha E & Kleiner B H (2005), To Blow or not to Blow? That is the Question, Management Research News; Volume: 28 Issue: 11/12; 2005 Qusqas F & Kleiner B H (2001), The Difficulties of Whistleblowers finding employment, Management Research News; Volume: 24 Issue: 3/4; 2001 Vandekerckhove Dr. Wim, The Ethics of Whistleblwoing Policies, < www.flwi.ugent.be/cevi/docwebi/Vandekerckhovesummary.doc> 19 February 2006 Vinten G (2000), Whistle Blowing towards Quality, The TQM Magazine, Volume 12 . Number 3 . 2000 . pp. 166-171 Vinten G (1999), A Whistle Blowing Code for Educational Institutions, International Journal of Educational Management; Volume: 13 Issue: 3; Vinten G (2000), Whistle Blowing towards Disaster Prevention and Management, Disaster Prevention and Management; Volume: 9 Issue: 1; Taylor P J (2005), The World of Whistleblowers, < http://www.womenof.com/Articles/le020298.asp> 19 February 2006 Read More