Whistleblowing in organizations and society

Whistleblowing well-known idea is that people are a company's greatest asset. The employees' actions are the core of a company's development. Therefore, they are chosen in relationship with their professional skills and they are expected to act in accordance with the company's interests. However, sometimes, members of the staff notice that the organization under which they are employed may break certain laws or may have a negative impact on the community. At this point, they are dealing with a dilemma. Which is the way of conduct that they should adopt? Should they report these faults (and consequently be labeled as whistle blowers) or should they pretend that nothing is immoral and continue their day-to-day activity?

Taking into consideration the first alternative, it should be stated that whistle-blowers can be either internal or external. The ones who are considered internal report the misconduct to other employees or to the superiors within the company. The others address lawyers, media or other local, federal or state agencies. In the case of the internal ones, the problems can be solved inside the company, without revealing the wrong acts to the media. However, if the stake is major for the company, the superiors (who didn't know about the erroneous actions) may decide to cover them instead of putting an end. Thus, in this case, it is not enough to adopt an internal approach.

Judging in accordance with the Utilitarian moral framework, it is important to emphasize its norms. A good deed is not defined by the intentions which led to it or by the goals pursued by the driving force, but by its effects or consequences. "Mill argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for generating secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness. Thus most of our actions will be judged according to these secondary principles. He feels that we should appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a moral dilemma between two secondary principles. [...]Mill discusses our motivations to abide by the utilitarian standard of morality. Man is not commonly motivated to specific acts such as to kill or steal, instead, we are motivated to promote general happiness. Mill argues that there are two classes of motivations for promoting general happiness. First, there are external motivations arising from our hope of pleasing and fear of displeasing God and other humans. More importantly, there is a motivation internal to the agent, which is the feeling of duty. For Mill, an this feeling of duty consists of an amalgamation of different feelings developed over time, such as sympathy, religious feelings, childhood recollections, and self-worth. The binding force of our sense of duty is the experience of pain or remorse when one acts against these feelings by not promoting general happiness. Mill argues that duty is subjective and develops with experience. However, man has an instinctive feeling of unity, which guides the development of duty toward general happiness" (http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/utilitarianism.html).

Thus, by considering the facts mentioned above, it is better to engage in a whistle-blowing act because the long-term results are much more consistent than the current ones. By breaking the law or harming the community, the company may gain profit. We know that creating profit for the shareholders (maximizing the shareholders' wealth) is the purpose of any company. However, within the stakeholders of a firm, we can also comprise the community. Social responsibility is an important issue which leads to the optimization of the business. Hiding the misconduct of the managers involves lying to the stakeholders. No one can make sure that the hidden wrongdoing will never come out. Because of the future revealing of the truth, the company will undergo a great amount of harm.

Giving examples, we can refer to an employee reporting on his superior's illegal acts. If the person reveals the truth, then the company will not suffer as much damage as in the case of being discovered by an auditor or other supervising authority. If things go wrong after the whistle-blowing act, the firm can simply lay off the superior and prove that it cares about correctness in doing business. However, if the misconduct is revealed by an outsider (another agency), then the company can be regarded as having concealed the truth.

Also, an employee may wish to reveal the conduct of his superior who did something legal, but ethically not clean (let's say he decided to resize the company, laid off a good number of employees forcing the market value of the corporation's shares to rise and sold his stock right after that, knowing that in a short while the market value of the company's shares would fall down). One man won, a lot of people lost - shareholders, employees, their families, the local stores etc. Obviously, the deed is done, nothing can be repaired. Therefore, the person may choose not to speak. But, in the long run, an exposure could produce positive consequences: a warning for other people doing the same kind of controversial acts, a warning for the public to be more careful etc.

Companies have been created with the goal of fulfilling customers' needs. As a consequence, people lay their trust upon these firms and believe that they will act in accordance with their needs. Yet, the never ending aim for profit leaves some executives sightless about the concerns of their clients. At this point, there is a strong need for a person to reveal the truth and reestablish correctness inside the company. This is a whistle-blower.

Laws have been enforced in order to provide equal chances to all members of the community, in our case to all companies. Competition is the "invisible hand" which regulates the market. As long as competition exists, there is certainty that the products and services offered respect the highest standards. The misconduct of some employees can lead to a competitive advantage upon other firms. The competitive advantage is beneficial and right when it appears from natural factors or when it is based on lawfully actions. In the case of misconduct, this advantage in unnatural and, therefore, not right. It will contribute to an unbalanced business environment. In the case of persons bribing officials in order to get more benefits, we can speak about tearing the competitive background. This is why I believe that employees should engage in whistle-blowing.

Another case of whistle-blowing requirement is the one when a company endangers the safety of its clients. As examples we can mention a doctor who doesn't use sterilized utensils, or a service providing company which makes use of broken or unsafe machinery (an amusement park), a food producer which uses expired or low-quality ingredients etc. In all these cases, it is advisable to report the wrongdoings.