Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on whistle blowing effectiveness
Whistleblowing ethics
Whistleblowing ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on whistle blowing effectiveness
When people saw a thief in the shopping mall to steal products from the shelves, based on morality, those people who saw would report to the shop manager. However if the situation happened in organizations, the reaction may not the same. On the first sight on the situation, it seems employees should blow the whistle to top managers or public for what they seen they thought there was wrong doing. However, for the second thought, if the organization caught by wrongdoing, it may wine up and let workers lose their jobs. Furthermore, if the manager is expert in manage the company and is a major character in company development, once the company lose this employee, it will be a great loss to company.
According to the above consideration, it is hard to tell when the best time is for employee to blow whistle. Therefore this essay is focus on when the proper time to be a whistleblower is and whether blow the whistle is the ethical behaviour.
Definition of whistle blowing
Without looking for when is the best moment to be a whistle blower, it is possible to get a deeper insight on the views on whistle blowing. According to Shaw et al, (2013), whistle blowing is an action of a worker to reveal the wrongdoing procedure to top manager (internal) or media (external). Generally, internal whistle blowing causes fewer scenes to damage company. It is because the issue will only known by the employees in the organization. On the other hand, external whistle blowing will cause company with a huge mess. It is because the issue will public to the world which means everyone beside employees in the organization will know the negative side of company.
Discussion on when to be a whistle blower
In ideal condition without concern any negative outcomes, ...
... middle of paper ...
...s who do not measure issue in a high moral value, they may not be a whistle blowers. Therefore, when doing as a whistle blower, the morality already into their mind.
Conclusion
Overall, if the damage will cause a huge mass to the public environment, it is morally to whistle blowing. Furthermore, employees should consider blow the whistle is part of their duty. It is because if they want to work in a fair workplace. They should be the participants to move the company operating in the right track.
Moreover, the company should understand the purpose on blow the whistle is not a betrayal act. Additional, they should know the reason on whistle blowers report to external instead of internal is lack of trust on company policy. Therefore, if company wants to encourage the internal whistle blowing, it should improve their code of ethics and organizational environment.
However, it may not be the best solution to be used first when dealing with unethical corporate practices. From more of a Utilitarian approach one should seek to do the greatest good. An approach that gives the company a chance to change its unethical behavior internally would follow this idea. Having the ability to change practices internally before outside intervention can have many positive effects. The company is able to make the changes, reestablish its integrity, maintain business, and retain employees. The whistleblowing option brings in outside forces that could lead to repercussions for the company which may include restitution or even being closed down. If the business is closed it effects more than just the corporate entity, all of the employees are also negatively impacted by this as well when they would lose their jobs. Sometimes however, when the company is unwilling to change its practices and do business in a more ethical manner people are left with little choice but to report to outside sources what is occurring within the business. Many see whistleblowing as law-breaking when employees are contractually obligated to
First I will be telling you about the pressure of being a “whistleblower”. In Fahrenheit 451 the pressure of being a “whistleblower” is so real, everyone is told to rat out everyone who has a book in their household, if they find out they have a book in the home it is burned to the ground. This is related to our society because we are pressured to do what is right, and part of my belief system is to do what is right and to point out what is wrong. For example if someone were to gossip behind their back I would try to stand up and tell them it is wrong and tell the person what the others said
The company has a culture of unquestioning when something wrong surfaced in the company. Take for example the Lockheed documents incident, where the 25000 documents were seen in the company for nearly 3 years before someone voiced his concerns regarding it. This unhealthy culture not only allows unethical practices to prevail, it also hinders company’s growth.
Bouville (2008) describes whistleblowing as an act for an employee of revealing what he believes to be unethical or described as an illegal behaviour to a higher management (internal whistleblowing) or to an external authority or the public (external whistleblowing). Whistle-blowers are often seen as traitors to an organisation as they are considered to have violated the loyalty terms of that organisation while some are described as heroes that defend the values and ethics of humanity rather than loyalty to their company. In the medical community, it is the duty of a practitioner aware of patient care being threatened to make it known to those in charge and for those in charge to address the issues and act on it. The General Medical Council (GMC) stipulated this act of raising concern as a doctor’s duty in its Good medical practice guide. This paper will be based on the analysis of the experience of whistle blowers, reasons why they chose or chose not to take such actions and personal opinions on whistleblowing in the medical community.
Whistle blowing is a controversial topic in the professional industry. Whistle blowing is the act of speaking out against a fellow colleague or even a friend that has done something non-ethical or illegal in the workplace. A whistleblower raises concerns about the wrongdoing inside of the workplace. Employees hesitate to become a whistleblower because of the idea of becoming a snitch on fellow employees and having a bad rep around the office. This concern was lowered in 1989 with a law called the Whistleblower Protection Act that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring at a government organization (whistleblowers.gov).
The term Whistleblower means “An employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. When information is classified or otherwise restricted by Congress or Executive Order, disclosures only are protected as whistleblowing if made through designated, secure channels. (What is a Whistleblower?)” The idea behind whistleblowers is that they believe trying to inform the public of illegal acts within their businesses has the potential to protect the public from wrongdoing. The following studies analyze scholar’s findings on different factors related to whistle blowing as
Within a company, illegal practices can be seen by many as the “in thing” and the people working within that environment may not see what they are doing as morally wrong. The issue of the lack of media coverage of these types of crimes must also not be overlooked.
“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius Quotes, 2012). The person who does her duty, at great risk to her own interest, when most others would defy from fear is considered a hero (Schafer, 2004). Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a hero who blew the whistle on Apotex, University of Toronto (U of T) and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC); and fought for her academic rights till the end. Whistle-blowing refers to actions of an employee that breach her loyalty to the organization but serves the public interest. When other constraints proved to be ineffective, whistle-blowing acts as a check on authority of the organization. Whistle-blowers expose severe forms of corruption, waste, and abuse of power within their organization and put the organization in a position where it is answerable to the public, thus enhancing its accountability (Cooper, 2006, pg. 198-205).
Corruption is a persistent problem that plagues the world and it knows no boundaries. Transparency International defines it as the “abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (2013). For the purposes of this thread, ‘corruption’ is defined as any individual, collective, or structural act or process that permits the use of public authority or position for private gain. This definition captures the broad and many ways individuals and institutions abuse power and the public trust. In regard to whistleblowing, much conflict stems from the context in which the whistleblower is viewed.
Many other businesses may not want to do business as the company was involved with immoral behavior. The unethical business practices of the company will also gain exposure in the media and to the public (Nicol, 2015, n.p). Employees no longer keep unethical activities of the company to themselves. As a whistleblower, they may be perceived as a traitor, but in this case the senior executives are being traitors. They are taking money from immoral behavior and tarnishing the name of the company (Nicol, 2015, n.p).
Whistleblowers often make their way into the public eye, but what is a whistle blower exactly? What are the criteria? Whistle blowing is "raising the alarm in public about a wrong being committed in private" (Vickers, 2002, p.42). By definition, a whistle blower can only "blow the whistle" on an organization of which he is a member (Vickers, 2002). That point is rather obvious. After all, the concept of being a whistleblower is providing inside information. Also, it brings up a significant problem. People are reluctant to "blow the whistle" because they can lose everything they worked for. It seems almost unfair. The person in this predicament will have to decide whether or not to keep his job as is, or to do the right thing and tel...
On November 29th, Mary Inman gave us a talk on the topic whistleblowing, which let me know more about the whistleblower activities and the whistleblower protection. According to the definition given by the website whistleblowers international, whistleblowing is someone who reveal the unethical or illegal activities within the company. The person can be current or past employee, or an outside individual who is familiar with the unethical activity. This whistleblower does not need to be U.S. citizen.
Ultimately, the entire business can be brought down by one poor ethical choice. Good employees see others not following ethical guidelines and it causes them to lose faith in their coworkers. Bad employees see the same thing, then believe they can get away with it. Both scenarios can cause horrible things to happen very quickly. It is even worse when employees see management taking the wrong path.
Ethics is the responsibility of each individual person, but starts with the CEO and the Board of Directors, setting the right tone at the top and moves down through the organization, including setting the tone in the middle. A company’s culture and ethic standards start at the top, not from the bottom. Employees will almost always behave in the manner that they think management expects them, and it is foolish for management to pretend otherwise (Scudder). One of the CEO’s most important jobs is to create, foster, and communicate the culture of the organization. Wrongdoings or improper behavior rarely occurs in a void, leaders typically know when someone is compromising the company
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.