Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Are whistle-blowers heroes or traitors? Marcia Miceli and Janet Near point out that
people become whistle-blowers for different reasons. They suggest we ought to consider
their motives before we decide if they were acting morally [13]. While it is fair to say that
all whistle-blowers are trying to bring an end to wrongdoing, they may well have other
reasons for publicizing a problem. We can evaluate the morality of whistle-blowing by
considering whether the whistle-blower is motivated by a desire to help others or harm
others.
Consider a person who has known about a dangerous product for years but only
becomes a whistle-blower after he has been turned down for a raise or promotion. If
the disgruntled employee blows the whistle in order to exact revenge on an organization
that has let him down, the primary motivation is to hurt the company, not to help the
public. Another example of questionable whistle-blowing is the case of employees who
have been involved in a cover-up for some period of time, realize that they are about
to be caught, and then cooperate with the authorities to identify other guilty parties in
order to avoid punishment.
But suppose a person doesn't have ulterior motives for whistle-blowing and is doing
it simply to inform the public of a dangerous situation or a misappropriation of funds.
There are three general reactions to altruistic whistle-blowing [9].
WHISTLE-BLOWERS CAUSE HARM
The typical corporate response to whistle-blowing is to condemn it. Whistle-blowers are
disloyal to their companies. Through their actions they generate bad publicity, disrupt
the social fabric of an organization, and make it more difficult for everyone to work as
part of a team. In other words, their betrayal causes short-term and long-term damage to
the company. While it is the responsibility of engineers to point out technical problems,
the management of a company is ultimately responsible for the decisions being made,
both good and bad. If management makes a mistake, the public has recourse through
the legal system to seek damages from the company, and the board of directors or CEO
can replace the managers who have used bad judgment.
The weakness in this response is its cavalier and overly legalistic attitude toward
public harm. If people are hurt or killed, they or their heirs can always sue for damages.
Yet surely society is better off if people are not harmed in the first place. A monetary
settlement is a poor replacement for a human life.
WHISTLE-BLOWING IS A SIGN OF ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE
A second response to whistle-blowing is to view it as a symptom of an organizational
failure that results in harm all around [14]. The company suffers from bad publicity. The
careers of accused managers can be ruined. It makes people suspicious of one another,
eroding team spirit. Whistle-blowers typically suffer retaliation and become estranged
from their coworkers. Labeled as troublemakers, their long-term prospects with the
company are dim.
Since whistle-blowing is a sign of failure, organizations need to find a way to prevent
it from happening in the first place. Some suggest that organizations can eliminate
