Whistle-Blowing the Question of the Responsibility and/or

Whistle-Blowing

The question of the responsibility and/or ethical duty of an employee to blow the whistle on an employer have been the subject of much discussion. Some would argue that there is an ethical duty to respond and 'blow the whistle' when an employee becomes aware of apparent unlawful behavior on the part of his or her employer. One definition of whistle blowing as posited by Dandekar, 1991 is the motivation or desire to prevent unnecessary harm to others. Garde (1992) identified characteristics of whistle blowers, determined in scholarly research to be altruistically motivated and intend for their actions to benefit those that have been wronged; are utilitarian; possessing an increased level of moral development and are driven by a sense of social responsibility and integrity. This definition and the characteristics that follow seem to be in line with the utilitarianism that "requires a decision maker to maximize utility for society as a whole" (Ashford, 96).

If an employee subscribes to the tenants of utilitarianism and possesses the characteristics that posit increased altruistic motivation, then the answer to whether there is an ethical responsibility to report is yes. However, one study showed that organizational wrongdoing was reported by less than 1/3 of the Federal employees who witnessed it (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1984). These statistics suggest that even though people bear witness to wrongdoing the probability or likelihood to report can be very low.

There are ethical obligations and duties that come into conflict in situations such as this. Working on behalf of the greater good can potentially compromise the employment status of coworkers. Whistle blowing can also adversely affect primary stakeholders and their investments in the company. Moreover, public trust is always affected when a corporation is determined to act unlawfully. For the whistle blower, however, these considerations are mitigated by the overall desire to correct the wrongdoing or at least bring it to the attention of those who are in the position to investigate and correct the matter. These practical consequences are not the extent to which a whistle blower may be exposed. Loss of employment, threats regarding personal safety, and even disbelief are all practical consequences the whistle blower may face. They can play a significant role, and are assuredly a part of every whistle blowers consideration in whether or not they feel compelled to report. However, what tends to mitigate these practical consequences are the consequences if the whistle isn't blown; continued unlawful practice by the company, breech of trust to primary stakeholders, and possible threats and pressure applied to employees to keep silent.

Torts of Employees

The rule of respondent superior posits that an employer is liable for negligent and intentional torts committed by employees and who commit the infraction while performing within the "scope of their employment" (Ashford, 923). Respondent superior liability is based on the employer's relationship with the employee and not their own fault, according to Ashford. Some of the reasons for the employer being liable due seem like good reasons. However, passing the cost on to consumers and socializing the risk seems like a slippery slope.

It would be reasonable to think that because of respondent superior, employers would invest more into training and supervision, but to say that it actually occurs generally is difficult. Too often, training and increased supervision only occur after a company has been cited for said tort or infraction (Khanna, 1996). I do not feel that respondent superior makes employers liable for too many acts of their employees, as vicarious liability does not absolve employees for some level of responsibility and employers are ultimately responsible for what happens within their companies. There are some companies that may be reluctant to use employees; however, there are provisos for the employer including insurance that offer some protection. A companies move to not use employees may not be solely based on the possibility of liability, but on other factors such as overhead, financial crisis, and so on. However, it goes without saying that any discouragement of hiring employees could have negative implications for both prospective employers and employees.