Abstract

It takes courage and a strong resolve for employees to confront their company on issues of wrongful nature they have witnessed in the workplace, and which they expect the employers to address. In most cases, this act of courage on the part of the employee results in reprisals that ranges from intimidation to summarily dismissal. It is then understandable why most individuals would prefer to remain silent rather than speak out upon witnessing a wrongdoing in their workplace. In spite of these consequences that whistleblowing may bring about, its impact, over the years, in addressing unethical issues of serious nature cannot be overemphasised. On the whole it is fair to say that the act of whistleblowing bothers on professional morality; depending on the individuals ethical stance on issues happening in the workplace, an option of deciding whether or not there is an obligation for the public good to speak out.

Table of Contents

Contents:

Page

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology

1. Introduction:

In 1993, Jeffery Wigand, an employee with an American Company, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company, reported an issue of serious concern to his CEO which relates to public health concern; most importantly was the companys refusal to consider proposals to remove cancer-causing additives from tobacco. He was immediately sacked from his job and became a whistleblower (Johnson, 2003). His testimony in 1997 led to the settlement of a heavy penalty by the whole tobacco industry. Phillip Morris and five other American tobacco companies (Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company inclusive) reached a resolution with the attorneys general of nearly 40 states in United States in which the industry will pay out almost $400 billion over the next 25 years in compensation. Meanwhile, Jeffery Wigand was subjected to retaliatory lawsuits and professional harassment by his erstwhile employers. This is just one of many examples of consequences that befall individuals calling their institutions to account; and the reason why many individuals might prefer to be silent as against speaking out. What then is whistleblowing? Who is a whistleblower?

The act by which an employee brings information about a wrongdoing to the attention of their employers or a relevant organisation is known as whistleblowing. A whistle blower then is a person who discloses any wrongdoing that is occurring within an organization, a behaviour that leads some people to label them as snitches1 and traitorous violators of organizational loyalty norms. These tags further reinforce the resolve and willingness of individuals to remain silent instead of speaking out, at the face of being witness to a wrongful act in the workplace. This research proposal then is a thorough evaluation of the reasons why individuals would prefer to stay silent instead of speaking out when confronted by ethical issues of a wrongful nature in their workplace. To effectively carry out this research study, and because of the difficulty in gathering raw data and evidence from parties concerned, the qualitative research methods as a secondary source of evidence gathering will be employed in this regard.

1.2 Research Question:

Why do most employees choose to be silent in the face of a wrongdoing in the workplace?

Give information that compromises others.

To summon up the courage and confront an employer about a wrongdoing in a workplace is never an easy task. Employees often find themselves in a dilemma; on the one hand, feeling an obligation owed to the society to bring to the notice of the employer, unethical issue of a serious nature happening in the workplace, and on the other hand, the fear of workplace reprisal, the unwillingness of employees to be "snitches", harassment, alienation from peers and summarily dismissal, should the issued be reported. The employees might just decide to remain silent for peace to reign.

1.3 Significance of the study

This research study throws light into a contentious ethical issue regarding whistleblowing in a workplace and why employees would rather prefer to be silent rather than reporting any wrongdoing in the workplace. It also highlights the importance of whistleblowing and the fact that there is now an on-going re-think of the need for whistleblowing because the impact and cost of this silence is becoming too high for the society to bear.

2. Literature Review

Over the years, employees who have acted as whistle-blowers on their company for perceived wrongdoing had faced risks ranging from termination to less desirable assignments or exclusion from social invitations, or even, in extreme cases, the loss of lives; which has further re-enforces the resolve of most employees not to speak out.

2.1: When is Whistleblowing morally justified?

In 1974, Karen Silkwood was one of the earliest high profile whistle-blowers in the United States. She was a technician at the Kerr-McGee chemical plant in Oklahoma. She reported to the Atomic Energy Commission, serious health and safety violations going on in the chemical plant. Few months later, she began testing positive for plutonium contamination, which she believed was the malicious retribution for reporting the company. The same month, she was involved in a mysterious car accident that killed her when she was on her way to a meeting with a New York Times reporter. Another case of a whistle-blower was Michael Woodford, the Corporate President of Olympus Corporation who publicly reported that the company had transferred hundreds of million dollars to offshore firms. This revelation dealt a huge blow to the corporation. But is

tenure as the CEO, after his revelations only lasted for 14 days as he was summarily dismissed. In spite of the aforementioned incidents, there are situations or conditions where, according to Richard DeGeorge, it is morally justified to blow the whistle. In his book, Business Ethics, he enumerated the following conditions:

In the public interest, when the company, through its policies or products commits serious and substantial harm to the public (society), the employee should report the company. Upon the identification of a serious threat to those who may be harmed, the employee should report the incident and state his or her moral concern on the issue. When the employee reports the issue to his or her immediate superior, and no action is taken, the employee should make sure that all formal internal procedures and chain of command up to the board of directors relating to whistle-blowing have been exhausted. Documented and convincing evidence must have been made by the employee that would prove to a reasonable and impartial observer that his or her view of the situation is accurate and that the companies policies, products or practices, seriously threatens and puts in danger the public and/or products user(s). Lastly, the employee must also have valid reasons to believe that revealing the wrongdoing to the public will result in the necessary changes to remedy the situation. It is also of vital importance that the probability of necessary remedial changes succeeding must be equal to the risk and danger the employee takes to blow the whistle.

2.2: Why Whistleblowing does matters.

Before enumerating the reasons why whistleblowing matters or is important, the position and options open to the employee that has witnessed a wrongdoing or serious unethical issue he or she believes possess a threat to others in his or her workplace must first and foremost be made clear. The employee has four options; these include: To stay silent; To blow the whistle internally; To blow the whistle outside (The Press, Government Agencies);

To leak the information anonymously (The Press)

In the book Whistleblowing Around The World Law, Culture and Practice, as edited by Richard Calland and Guy Dehn, it was asserted that in most workplaces across the world, laws, cultures and practices somehow give a strong message for employees to turn a blind eye and not to raise concerns about any unethical issue or wrongdoing both internally or outside the workplace. This kind of culture has had the effect of discouraging decent and normal people from questioning serious unethical behaviour and wrongdoings witnessed by them in their various jobs. This is not only damaging, but also, in most cases, there is a spill over as it influences how these employees behaves outside their workplace, by making them to turn a blind eye anytime a wrongdoing or crime is witnessed in the community. The aforementioned effects are amongst the reasons why whistleblowing is of vital importance in the modern day society. To say that whistleblowing currently enjoys a negative reputation is not entirely untrue, as people often associate it with the act of going against the norms and culture of the workplace. They have failed to realize or even consider the positive effects of whistleblowing on the society or even the company concerned. A well thought-out whistleblowing can lead to the end of an unethical business practice or unearth and bring to light unethical practices that has been carried out. A good example is the famed case of Enron and WorldCom. At WorldCom, Cynthia Cooper, an employee and accountant in the Internal Audit Department reported the wrongful acts of the company to the Board of Directors and Audit Committee despite being told by the CFO to postpone her investigation. The same was also true of Enron's Sherron Watkins who outlined the company's problems in a memo to then CEO, Kenneth Lay. The acts of these women acknowledged the importance of internal whistle-blowers - employees who bring wrongdoing at their own organizations to the attention of superiors. If both women have been good soldiers of their various companies and preferred to remain silent instead of speaking out as they did, the whole incredible mess might have been concealed forever. There is also the case of Karen Silkwood, the Chemical Technician mentioned earlier on; one of the numerous cases where employees have come forward and made public, unethical acts performed by their companies which possess severe health hazards to the environment. When these people come out, instead of remaining silent, the pollution as well as the damage to the environment can be averted. Whistleblowing can also save lives. As doctors, nurses and other medical personnel are being entrusted with the lives of people, should there be any one of them that is behaving unethically or being negligent of his or her duties, someone needs to speak out, as these people have the capability to save lives; and if careless or negligent, they can also contribute to loss of lives.

2.3: Silence and Society:

Silence is normally the default option embraced by many employees that has witnessed a wrongdoing in their workplace. The reason for this is not far-fetched. According to Richard Calland and Guy Dehn, in societies where unions are scarce or their independence has been compromised, the employee will be left without guidance on who to approach and how. In organisations where labour relations are adversarial and whistleblowing is unwelcome, the employee will be expected to prove the wrongdoing, even though it clearly would be far better if those in charge investigated the matter In the light of the above, and the fear of workplace reprisal, which may come in any form, it is understandable that most employees prefer to remain silent. The cost of people preferring to remain silent is now so high that a total re-evaluation of whistleblowing has begun to gather momentum. These costs include:

Corrupt and unscrupulous employers and managers being given a reason to believe that anything goes. The stakeholders of the companies, with neither the necessary information nor opportunity to protect their interest, are put at severe risk.

3. Methodology:

The philosophical position taken by this research study is based on, and closely aligned with the ethical and moral beliefs of the society at large and the cognitive processes behind an individuals (employees) moral judgement and decision making in relation to ethical issues occurring in the workplace. The two aspect of moral behaviour associated with this research is namely: Egoism:

This is often referred to a self-centred behaviour or what is best for me. In this regard, an action or a decision is only taken if the decision maker freely decides in order to achieve his or her short-term desires or long-term interests (job security). The employee (egoist) will also do what appears to be right in the society (workplace) because it makes them (employers) feel better.

Utilitarianism:

This behaviour is often grounded on the idea of what is best for the greatest number or rather, in the public interest. It means an action or a decision is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the action or decision. Very important in decision making in the workplace as it embraces the economic value of actions.

http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/blog/2011/03/when-is-whistle-blowing-morallyjustified/

http://www.uib.no/rg/bbrg/nyheter/2009/02/whistleblowing-and-its-consequences DeGeorge, R. T.: 2005, Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, sixth Edition Bouville, M.: 2007, Codes of ethics and duties towards the population: Two kinds of professions. submitted to the Journal of Business Ethics (e-print: http: //mathieu.bouville.name/education-ethics/Bouville-code-ethics.pdf). Johnson, R. A. (2003) Whistleblowing: When It Works and Why, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snitches