Ethics and Corporate Governance Issues - Coursework Example

Number Ethics and Corporate Governance Issues The aim of this paper is to provide a critical discussion of Vinten’s summation of the whistle-blowing that “For one thing the whistle-blowing path is not easy, and the bee-sting phenomenon may often apply. One has only one sting to use, and by using it, may well kill off one’s career.” In this assertion, Vinten is trying to associate the act/behaviour of whittle behaviour the bee-sting phenomenon. The bee-sting behaviour can only be used before the act jeopardises the whistle-blower’s career. The case depicts an apparent dilemma that is often faced by genuine whistle-blowers in the course of attempting to rectify possible wrongdoings within the organizations in which they work. Vinten summation has gained much attention among researchers with respect to earlier whistleblowing studies in the 1980s (Dozier & Miceli, 1985). One can agree with the importance of whistleblowing as a medium of preventing and deterring corporate wrongdoing according to Bhal and Dadhich (2011). In the case where this behaviour is hardly available in a given organization, the organization is bound to have some adverse cost implications according to Near and Miceli (1995). The actual motivations of the whistleblowing behaviour has not been made clear, and the need to establish the motives include other factors other than individual motives (Miceli, Near & Schwenk, 1991). Essentially, organizational factors like the ethical climate of an organization largely explain the reason as to why employees resort to the whistleblowing behaviour according to Barnett and Vaicys (2000). Organization’s ethical climate has been defined by Cullen et al. (1993, p.103) as ‘‘…the ethical dimensions of organization culture,’’ which is known to capture the organization’s ethical identity. The ethical climate of a given organization has the ability to influence its employees’ behaviour (Barnett & Vaicys, 2000). Typically, the aspect of whistleblowing is based on the perceived conflict between employees’ rights to free speech and their organization’s duty of loyalty (Lindblom, 2007). This conflict brings about the moral dilemma in the behaviour of whistleblowing. The need for political free speech could be justified given that it is central to liberal democracy. On the other hand, loyalty could be motivated to show considerations for employees’ associates. According to Lindblom (2007), “the political philosophy of John Rawls is applied to this dilemma, and it is shown that the requirement of loyalty, in the sense that is needed to create the moral dilemma of whistleblowing, is inconsistent with that theory.” From this case, it can be ascertained that the perceived moral dilemma regarding whistleblowing does not exist. In light of this assertion, the position is extreme because it considered the act of whistleblowing as always permitted morally. The rejection of loyalty in a given organisation is not likely to contribute to extreme positions and harms can be accounted for (Lindblom, 2007). In the attempt of alerting the authority regarding a wrongdoing, the result behaviour may be considered as immoral, especially when the information has not been made public. This is however not always the case. Some people would perceive such an act as good since it has saved some adverse outcomes form happening (Lindblom, 2007). Essentially, the act of alerting the authorities make the reporter a whistle-blower. If this happens within an organization in which an employee decides to report the organization to the authority regarding an adversely perceived wrongdoing to the society, the employee is seen as being guilt by his or her employer because of doing that with discharging the duty of being loyal to the employer. The employee in this regard would be considered guilty of imitating an activity that is hardly permitted morally by the organization (Lindblom, 2007). Whistleblowing might thus appear like an ethical problem that is rather peculiar. In this case, speech is mot morally permitted and therefore the whistleblowing moral dilemma arises in which there is a conflict between the free speech and the employee’s moral duty towards his or her workplace (Lindblom, 2007). The result of this case is similar to the bee-sting phenomenon in which one sting costs the employee’s career with the organization. Vinten’s summation is very true to a great extent. The whistleblowing path is hardly easy because the whistle blower has to adhere the possible outcomes, which are mostly adverse, even after a single attempt. The negative impact of whistleblowing is attributed to the issue of organizational loyalty according to Jubb (2000, p.92). The conflict is usually attributed to the possible existence of difference between the organizational values and personal values. The same case would arise due to the difference between being loyal to the organization and being loyal to the society (Tsahuridu & Vandekerckhove, 2008). Nevertheless, an employee may decide to blow the whistle to redress their individual malpractices within the organization although most of the cases of whistleblowing are attributed to the need of individuals to bring out unethical activities within the organization which could harm employees or the society. In either situation, the repercussions are often the same according to Dempster (1999), where the bee-sting phenomenon might apply. Speaking out and making the issue public is often the motive, and in most cases, the employee acting as the whistle-blower may have perceived the adverse effects of the organization’s malpractices and then decides to absorb the consequences of speaking against his or her employer. Given the bee-sting phenomenon, not all individuals would have the capacity to blow the whistle against their employers. There has to be certain individual characteristics or even personality types, which are more inclined to the whistleblowing behaviour against malpractices within their organizations. This could be the reason why Vinten considered the whistleblowing path as being difficult. Possibly, potential whistle-blowers within organizations may be recognized based on certain psychological or social characteristics. Organizations with this ability can utilize such opportunity to label them as such organization deviants. According to Seligman (1999), such characteristics self-interested malcontents or disgruntled to high achievers who are strong willed. They usually have universalistic values as well as high self-esteem levels according to Jos et al. (1989). Nevertheless, some studies depict that there are hardly any significant social or demographic aspects that could be used to distinguish whistle-blowers from those who are non-whistle-blowers. This assertion may imply that all people involved in whistle-blowers have a common motivation and that there are no distinct characteristics that encourage an individual to blow the whistle. Essentially, it turn out that all whistle-blowers understand the difficulties of taking the path, but they still go ahead even with a clear understanding of the painful results attributed to the employer’s reaction. Universality values among certain individuals may however have a higher capacity to report an organizational malpractices externally (Rothschild & Miethe 1999). Whistleblowing is usually against organizations’ values. To avoid the behaviour of whistleblowing among its employees, an organization would prefer employing workers who strongly value the ethical conduct required of them by the organization. Such employees are highly likely to practice the code of conduct dictated by the organization. In most of the documented case of whistleblowing, the employees involved are individuals within specific groups that are definitely ready to stand against a certain organizational issue. The whistle-blower from such a group usually has a great courage to speak out as compared to the rest. Other individuals within the same group even the superiors with the issue knowledge shy off for various reasons, which are all attributed to the difficult path of whistleblowing and the perceived bee-sting phenomenon. They thus decide to sacrifice their individual moral values against the societal moral values. The major reason is usually the protection of their careers, but the whistle-blower is ready to take the difficult path towards the bee-sting phenomenon (Dempster 1997). Voicing concerns may not constitute to dissent from an organizational practices, but it could be become dissent from such practices if an individual persists in the expression of disagreement because by then, such concern would have become a complaint matter (Jubb 2000, p.79). This case seems to side with the view of whistle-blowers as being dissenters instead of being upholders of the espoused values of an organization regarding malpractices. In light of this view, an employee may discover an unethical conduct or malpractice and voice concerns to a certain superior, but the superior fails to take any meaningful action to end the problems. The organization or employer will condone this voicing by the employee since it would be considered as a form of workplace practices that are micro-culturally acceptable, rather than being considered as an attempt to right such a wrong, which could be rectified by the organization. Such a dissent therefore turns out to be a problem for the organization to control. Usually, the behaviour of whistleblowing assumes that something bad is happening within the organization and blowing the whistle is the best option to end it given the whistle-blower’s expectation to gain support from others due to their concerns regarding the employee’s viewpoint. The whistle-blower may go through an even tougher experience especially if these expectations fail. Nevertheless, even with the adverse results such as facing humiliations, lack of support, and the termination of employment, the whistleblowing effort ends up contributing to some societal benefits. This is mainly true given that an employee may not decide to blow the whistle without any witnessed malpractices within the organization (Ahmada, et al., 2014). The employee usually understands that the path to whistleblowing is not easy even when his or her intentions are not good, but malicious. It thus comes out that whether the intentions of blowing the whistle are ethical or malicious, there must be some recognizable malpractices that have occurred before the whistleblowing. Most of them understand that there are other negative implications if the whistleblowing is attributed to false claims against the organization (Zipparo 1999). Vinten’s claims that whistleblowing path is not easy can also be evidenced in the case where malicious motives may lead to false claims against an organization. While malicious motives might provide useful information for investigating malpractices within a given organization, the implication to the whistle-blower could even be worse than when the motives are genuinely ethical. Malicious cases of whistleblowing can be a situation whereby a social security deal is brought out through the disclosure of some ex-partners as a result of a deteriorated relationship. While the whistle-blower ends up losing the relationship completely, justice is achieved when legal actions are taken against the participants. The whistle-blower, who has also been a part of the deal, also understands that he or she has to face the law just like the other partners. Even with such understanding, the individual is ready to take the difficult whistleblowing path including the readiness to face the bee-stung phenomenon. Similarly, an employee may be treated poorly by the management of a certain organization and decides to get back at his or her boss or the organization regarding such malpractice (Wortman, 2006). This employee may not complain about the poor treatment he or she is facing, but rather, any possible malpractice within the organization or by the boss (Ballantine 2000). The intentions of this employee are not good, but they ultimately contribute to the action of the law against such organization. The employee in this case may have a career with the organization get terminated or even face even worse treatment from the organization or the particular boss. In either situation, the whistle-blower’s career is adversely affected. Some of the individuals willing to blow the whistle based on malicious motives do so because they are protected by the law, although this is experienced in certain countries such as Australia because of a legislative that protects whistle-blowers (Near, 1985). In this case, the summation of Vinten seems to fail since an employee may decide to blow the whistle after discoing a malpractice in an organization and have his or her career protected. Although there could be some negative effects such as deterioration of his trust by the organization, the whistleblowing path would not be as tough as portrayed by Vinten. Besides, the bee-sting phenomenon may fail to apply in this case, since the legislation protects such employees (Zipparo, 1999). Even when malicious motives are involved as the catalysts of the whistleblowing act, protective legislative measures may ensure that the penalties for the false claims are relatively low (Zipparo, 1999). While whistleblowing behaviour threatens the career of those who initiate the practice, Crook (2000) points out that the practice makes organisations lose a turnover rate of between 2 and 5 per cent. These losses may not be directly attributed to the whistleblowing practices by some employees, but they rather result from fraud activities. Such malpractices are on the other hand associated with at least 25 per cent of the upwards working population within the organization, but they do so when opportunities arise (Crook, 2000). According to Crook (2000, p.327), over 80 per cent of such malpractices are caused by trusted staff who have served the respective organization for a long time. The assumption in this case of committing such frauds is that the high trust would disguise their malpractices at any given time. In this case, Crook seems to point out that the sacrifice of an employee to blow the whistle is worth since given the associated losses, the voicing out of these frauds would save not only the companies from losses from the economic and social impact of such malpractices to the society and the country as a whole. He thus points that “corporate fraud is both a serious and pervasive problem that unquestionably affects all organisations leading to enormous unrecorded losses” (Crook, 2000, p.327). Malpractices could typically occur in any organization and even at subgroups or section levels with the organization. In such a case, it may involve ways that are generally at odds with the organization’s operating procedures (De Maria & Jan. 1997). This assertion suggest that malpractices have gown to an extent of becoming institutional behaviour and organizations’ managements should envision ways of evading possible cases of whistleblowing from some courageous employees. These organization should do this not only for their wellbeing but also for the wellbeing of the employee, especially those who are willing to speak out. In the case of whistleblowing, both the employee and their employers/organizations are likely to face adverse consequences (Jennings, 2003). While the employee whistleblowing may lose their jobs or careers distorted, the organizations face the law among other negative impacts including the loss of good reputation. The two parties can rely on research to understand the emotional aspect of the entire mix-up (Blenkinsopp & Edwards, 2008). Employees in particular should understand summation of Vinten who seem to point out whistleblowing as a very risky strategy. The behaviour can lead to many forms of victimization in which the whistle-blower may destroy his or her career by having his or her job in the current organization terminated and even having his or her career reputation destroyed. This may cost the whistle-blower’s life as far as his career is concerned. Therefore, the summation of Vinten are true although they don’t fully apply where the whistleblowing individual are legally protected. Bibliography Ahmada, S. A., R. M. Y., Ahmadc, R. A. R. & Sanusi, Z. M., 2014. Whistleblowing Behaviour: The Influence of Ethical Climates Theory. International Conference on Accounting Studies (ICAS) 2014, pp. 1-6. Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of individuals perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical judgements and behavioural intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 351-362. Blenkinsopp, J. & Edwards, M. S., 2008. Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making-CHAPTER 8: ON NOT BLOWING THE WHISTLE: QUIESCENT SILENCE AS AN EMOTION EPISODE. Research on Emotion in Organizations, Volume 4, p. 181– 206. Bhal, K. T., & Dadhich, A. (2011). Impact of ethical leadership and leader–member exchange on whistle blowing: The moderating impact of the moral intensity of the issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 485-496. Crook, D., 2000. How to encourage whistleblowing", Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 8(4), pp. 326 - 332. Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667-674. De Maria, W., and Jan C. 1997. Eating its Own: The Whistle-blower’s Organization in Vendetta Mode. Australian Journal of Social Issues 32 (1): 37-59. Dempster, Q. 1997. Whistle-blowers. Sydney: ABC Books. Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behaviour perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823-836. Jennings, M. M. (2003). Ineffectual whistleblowing. Internal Auditing, 18(4), 18-27. Jos, P., M.E. Tompkins, and S.W. Hays. 1989. ‘Inpraise of difficult people: A portrait of the committed whistle-blower.’ Public Administration Review 49 (6):552-561. Jubb, P.B. 1999. ‘Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation.’ Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1): 77-94. Lindblom, L., 2007. Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 76, p. 413–426 . Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the whistle and why? Industrial & Labour Relations Review, 45(1), 113-130. Near, J. P., 1985. Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), pp. 1-16. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679-708. Seligman, D. 1999. ‘Blowing whistles, Blowing smoke.’ Forbes 164 (5): 158, 162. Tsahuridu, E. E., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2008). Organisational whistleblowing policies: Making employees responsible or liable? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 107-118. Wortman, J. S. (2006). Ethical decision-making: The effects of temporal immediacy, perspective-taking, moral courage and ethical work climate. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. Zipparo, L. 1999. ‘Encouraging Public Sector Employees to Report Workplace Corruption.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration 58 (2): 83-93. Read More