By: Prabeen Ghadia

2011B3A4382P

A Study Report on Whistle-blowing

and its ethical solution
Whistle-blowing is a situation that employees face in their day-to-day life. This situation
becomes inevitable for the employees, and not getting a proper solution out of this
problem, many suffer. They lose their job due to this. Personally I took the course of
Professional Ethics to learn more about the right conduct in professional world so that it
helps me to work properly. I wanted to learn as much as possible and with this thought I
figured it out that whistle-blowing will be the most difficult situation that I may face in the
future. So with this reason I selected this topic from our book, so as to learn more about
whistle-blowing.

What is Whistle-blowing?
Whistle- blowing is the voluntary release of non-public information, as a moral protest, by a
member or former member of an organisation outside the normal channels of
communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and/or immoral conduct in the
organisation that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest. There are six
different characteristics of whistle-blowing, they are

The whistle should be blown by a member of the organisation itself or a former

member. Normally there should be an obligation on the person who is blowing the
whistle. Like when a reporter uncovers some illegal practice of a corporation in the
public that cant be a case of whistle blowing as there is no obligation on the
reporter.

The whistle-blowing should have some unknown non-public information that must
be given to the public for their greater interests. Just revealing already known
information to the public in order to arouse concern among them is not whistleblowing. Alarming people is not the same as blowing the whistle.

The information that the whistle blower opens should have something about the
illegal misconduct of an organisation or crime. Sometimes the information is about a

legal activity but stopping that would lead to public welfare. Like waste and
mismanagement in government procurement or threats to the environment are
information whose revelation would lead to new regulation but this cant be
categorised under whistle-blowing.

The information must be released outside normal channels of communication. It

doesnt mean the whistle blower has to always go the public to release his
information. It can be both internal and external whistle-blowing. The employee just
needs to go outside the established procedures for reporting wrongdoing. In both
internal and external whistle-blowing the information must be revealed in ways that
can reasonably be expected to bring about a desired change.

The whistle blowing should be a voluntary reaction without any force. It should not
be that the employee is legally required to open that information in the public.

The whole process of whistle blowing should be a moral protest and not to seek
revenge or personal advancement. The whistle blowers should have a clear motive
to go against the wrongdoing.

Is whistle-blowing justified?
Any situation regarding whistle-blowing is nothing but question of loyalty. The whistle
blower faces a dilemma between being loyal to the colleagues and employer and being loyal
to the public. The employee needs to take difficult decision of whom to be loyal. Definitely
the employee has an obligation towards the public to safeguard their interests, but the
loyalty of another employee to the organisation is somewhat complex in nature. To study
the nature of loyalty of employee to the organisation, the loyal agent argument says a few
points,

The argument says that the employee as an agent has an obligation to work as
directed, to protect confidential information, and, above all, to be loyal. All these are
violated when an employee blows the whistle.

Agents are employed to carry out tasks that principals are not willing or able to carry
out for themselves. And this argument receives considerable support from the law.

The main obligation of an agent is to act in the best interests of the principal. As
mentioned in the Second Restatement of Agency, an agent is subject to a duty to his

principal to act solely for the benefit of the principal in all matters concerned with
his agency.
This initial argument may seem to prove that whistle blowers are completely disloyal
employers. But there are some features of the loyal agent argument that needs to be
specified here,

First the employee has only an obligation to act to reasonable directives of the
principal. An employee has no obligation as agents to do anything illegal or immoral,
even if specifically instructed by a superior to do so.

Second, the obligations of an agent are confined to the needs of the relationship.
The more strong the relationship the more is the loyalty that it demands from the
agent. So the lawyer has to be much more loyal to his employer than an ordinary
employee of a Company.

So the obligations of an employee according to the loyal agent argument are of great moral
importance but they have some limits. The employees are not obligated to engage in illegal
or immoral activities just because their boss says them so.
In the context of this discussion we should know what is the true meaning of

loyalty.
The main question here is that to whom the employee should be loyal to. If the loyalty to
the relationship with colleagues and superiors is more important then whistle blowers are
completely disloyal employees. But working in the company just to follow orders doesnt
make any sense of working. If an employee knows that there is illegal work going on in the
company then it is ethically incorrect to remain silent, it makes you a culprit even if you
have not indulged into any crime.
The second type of loyalty from the employee comes towards the organisation. In this
context the whistle blowers can be considered to be very loyal as from within they want to
protect the goodwill of the organisation. They are in fact very much responsible to the
status quo of the company, much more than their superiors. Even if their colleagues are a
part of the organisation, they care less about them and work only for the interests and goals

of the organisation. The immediate consequence after the whistle blowing may lead to the
defamation of the company but that was because some other employees were indulged in
illegal work and there is no reason to make the whistle blower responsible for it.
The third type of loyalty from the employee comes towards the society. It should be that the
interests of the colleagues should coincide with the interests of the organisation and the
interests of the organisation should coincide with the interests of the society and then
nation, world and planet. This way the whole planet works ethically in the right direction.
And within this model if in one of the relations dont coincide then the whistle blowers have
no fault in their conduct. We cant question the true loyalty of the employees if it is toward
the society/nation/world. The figure below gives the hierarchy of loyalty with the increase
of loyalty from top to bottom.
Colleagues
Organisation
Society

Nation
World

The act of whistle blowing often takes place at a huge personal risk. It has been found that
in 95% of cases the act of whistle blowing goes out into the air with no results. Sometimes
when the whistle blowing is done within the channels of the organisation, then the whistle
blowers are at great risk of losing their job. Sometimes the companies even blacklist the
employee and he/she is not able to get a job in that industry. So all his experience and
knowledge goes wasted only because he had wanted to do something good. Even if the final
result comes in favour of the whistle blower the whole process behind this would have
taken a lot from him. They are normally under great internal pressure and are always alone
in their stand. So it is important to discuss some of the conditions that should be present
for justified whistle blowing. They are

The whistle blower should judge the moral importance of the situation before he/she blows
the whistle. If the loss due the illegal work/defects of the system is not much compared to
the benefits that the customers gain from it then it would be wrong situation to blow the
whistle. The whistle blower should also see that the defects are already present in the
system or is sure to happen in the future; otherwise he/she may fall into great risk
afterwards.

Strong evidence against the case is a must for the whistle blower before he puts the
charges on his colleagues. Whistle-blowing usually involves very serious charges that
can cause irreparable harm if they turn out to be unfounded or misinterpreted. So
the whistle blowers should have as much documentation and other corroboration as
possible. Because once blown the case will end up in the court where you need very
strong evidence to prove your case. Also the cases are normally against the big
companies or superiors who have very high power and good reach, so without
proper evidence the whistle blower has a big chance of losing the case.

The whistle blowing should only be done when all other internal channels has been
exhausted. Since it involves a lot of personal risk, it has to be the last resort. Also
courts dont accept the complaints unless all other ways within the organisation has
been exhausted. But when situation demands the employee to respond quickly, it is
advised that the employee blows the whistle.

Before deciding to go public, the whistle blower should know exactly where to
report, who will be responsible to his grievances, how much information should he
reveal, should he reveal his identity and stuffs like this. One of the best ways to
blow the whistle is to leave the organisation and join another before doing it. That
way you dont face that much torture. Basically the whistle blower has to plan out
his whole process of whistle blowing. Sometimes the organisation tries to decrease
the credibility of the person by picturing them as disgruntled misfits or crazy radicals.

The whistle blowing becomes more justified when the person doing it is at a higher
position or had the responsibility of that particular department where the illegal
work was being done. It depends a lot on the role the person holds in that particular
organisation.

Also for getting the results the whistle blower should be aware of the organisations
power and reach. Sometimes even if the person has the right will to do it and the
proper evidence against them, they dont succeed because of the organisations
power. He should analyse his chances of success and then put the charges against
them.

Right to blow the whistle

Against Whistle-blower protection: A right to blow the whistle may bring many
disgruntled employees to protest without any real cause. The management of any
organisation faces a lot of layers of rules and guidelines and this right will increase
the difficulty of the working of the organisation. Dismissed employees may take
revenge against the company.

For Whistle-blower Protection: The argument for whistle-blower protection takes

the utilitarian principle into consideration. It says that by blowing the whistle the
employee may damage the reputation of the company but will definitely benefit the
society. The whistle blowers risk a lot in the process and without any protection they
wont do it. Also protection will protect the right of freedom of speech of the
employees.

So for the overall happiness of the society, there should be a policy within the organisation
to protect the whistle-blowers. Through that the employees would not go outside the
company to complain and that would not decrease the reputation of the company. It would
also create a feeling of trust within the employees towards the organisation It creates an
ethical corporate climate. The components of an effective whistle-blowing policy

are:

Effectively communicated statement of responsibility: The employees through this

will understand their responsibility towards whistle-blowing in the internal channels
of the company.

Clearly defined procedure for reporting: The policy should inform the employees
about the right procedure of reporting and whom to report in a confidential manner.

Well-Trained personnel to receive and investigate reports: The officer chosen to

receive and investigate the case should be unbiased in his conduct. He should be
highly confidential and skilled in doing his work.

Commitment to take appropriate action: The best policy can only be made when
there is assurance given to the employees that their reports will be investigated and
proper action will be taken after that. The result of the investigation should be
reported to the employees.

Guarantee against Retaliation: This part is only possible if the top managers have a
lot of faith on the policy and believe in working ethically. It should be assured to the
employees that there will be no retaliation against them due to their report.

Conclusion
Whistle-blowers face a very difficult situation in their life. That one event completely
changes their life and their familys future. In reality, they are the most loyal employees or
most loyal citizens as they seek to strive for the overall interests and goals of the society.
But in this process, they face a lot of embarrassing situations along with great internal
pressure. Everyone is aware how risky the situation becomes for the whistle-blowers like
they can get dismissed unjustly, blacklisted to prevent them from joining another company,
huge personal loss. Again whistle-blowing is a very healthy act for the happiness of the
whole society and country. And we cant expect the employees to come forward to do this
good deed at such a huge risk. So there should be a solution to it, either the government
makes a right for protection of whistle-blowers or the organisation makes a policy within
their rules/guidelines to support the employees who are ready to open such illegal
misconduct within the company and not in public. So there is nothing like disloyalty in the
act of whistle-blowing and hence there should be enough policies and rights made in the
country to protect them. Finally I would like to mention one line why Whistle-blowing is
important for mankind. This was a quotation handed over by Martin Luther King, Jr., to all
Enron employees after their collapse:

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about

things that matter.