Whistleblowing entails an ethical dilemma as the individual considering becoming a whistleblower is torn between two competing loyalties, loyalty to the corporation and loyalty to society or the law or some higher morality.
Full Answer
Whistleblowing As An Ethical Dilemma. Whistleblowing entails an ethical dilemma as the individual considering becoming a whistleblower is torn between two competing loyalties, loyalty to the corporation and loyalty to society or the law or some higher morality. Whistleblowing can be defined as the attempt by an employee or former employee of an organization to disclose …
Operations Management questions and answers. Discussion Question – Whistleblower: An Ethical Dilemma A whistleblower, by definition, is someone who brings an unethical, immoral, or illegal business practice to the public’s attention. Whistleblowers have a difficult time in doing this, and they often find their lives changed because of their actions.
 · Weighing out competing ethical principles is a great place to start. “A value of ethical dilemma exists when two or more ethical principles compete with one another (Myers Kiser, 2016, p. 93).” Using a model developed by Dolgoff, Harrington, & Lowenberg (2012) known as the Ethical Assessment Screen, we can look at seven ethical principles ...
Ethics in Practice: Whistleblower - An Ethical Dilemma A whistleblower, by definition, is someone who brings an unethical, immoral, or illegal business practice to the public's attention. Whistleblowers have a difficult time in doing this, and they often find their lives changed because of their actions.
The ethics of whistleblowing is a tricky matter. Whistle-blowing brings two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict. Doing what is fair or just (e.g., promoting an employee based on talent alone) often conflicts with showing loyalty (e.g., promoting a longstanding but unskilled employee).
Whistle blowers in the public sector often face the unique problem that their disclosure may constitute a crime. This can create an ethical dilemma when the ongoing misconduct is severe and there is no reasonable prospect that the abuse will end absent blowing the whistle….
When a group engages in immoral behavior, group members face the whistleblower's dilemma: the conflict between remaining loyal to the group and standing up for other moral concerns. This study examines the developmental origins of this dilemma by investigating 5-year-olds' whistleblowing on their in- vs.
Briefly, (1) the firm's actions will do serious and considerable harm to others; (2) the whistle-blowing act is justifiable once the employee reports it to her immediate supervisor and makes her moral concerns known; (3) absent any action by the supervisor, the employee should take the matter all the way up to the ...
An example of whistleblowing is when an employee finds evidence of embezzlement within a company and uses the evidence to report the illegal activity to their boss, the board, or to the police. This can be done on a corporate or federal level.
Ethical Motivations Whistleblowers understand that the illicit activity taking place isn't just illegal—it can also be harmful. Illicit actions may harm the community, jeopardize the health of the employees, compromise environmental safety, or defraud the government and, ultimately, taxpayers.
Employers may fire a whistleblower, or pressure them into quitting. Employees who don't quit may be bullied, demoted, isolated or harassed. Some whistleblowers crack, becoming depressed, suffering panic attacks or drinking to cope with the pressure.
There are two types of whistleblowing. The first type is internal whistleblowing. This means that the whistleblower reports misconduct to another person within the organization. The second type is external whistleblowing.
That's why we suggest every potential whistleblower carefully consider the pros and cons of whistleblowing in the workplace:Pro: Exposing Fraudulent Activity Is the Right Thing to Do. ... Con: Your Career Could Suffer. ... Pro: Protection from Retaliation Is Available. ... Con: Your Relationships May Suffer.More items...•
Whistleblowing investigation process: How to prepare for an internal investigationStep 1: Separate the wheat from the chaff. ... Step 2: Contact the whistleblower. ... Step 3: Get to the bottom of things. ... Step 4: Take corrective measures.
The conditions in which whistle blowing is morally justified are:A product or policy that will commit serious and considerable harm to the public. ... When the employee identifies a serious threat of harm to the consumers, employees, other stakeholder, state and things against his or her moral concern.More items...
All reports must be handled with confidentiality and sensitivity. Ultimately, all that whistleblowers want is to have their report handled confidentially, protection from any comeback (including being victimised or fired), and to have their report investigated properly.
Discussion Question – Whistleblower: An Ethical Dilemma A whistleblower, by definition, is someone who brings an unethical, immoral, or illegal business practice to the public’s attention. Whistleblowers have a difficult time in doing this, and they often find their lives changed because of their actions. Sometimes they are shunned and also receive ...
A whistleblower, by definition, is someone who brings an unethical, immoral, or illegal business practice to the public’s attention. Whistleblowers have a difficult time in doing this, and they often find their lives changed because of their actions. Sometimes they are shunned and also receive death threats. It is common for the family members to feel the effects of a whistleblower’s behavior.#N#Dr. Jeffrey Wigand became one of the best-known whistleblowers after his experience was turned into a movie, The Insider . He proved tobacco companies were deliberately boosting the nicotine content of cigarettes, making them more addictive and cancer causing. However, similar to other whistleblowers, he suffered from tremendous stress and received death threats and other forms of intimidation for doing the right thing. Do some research on Wigand’s actions.#N#For the first part of your post:
Most people have heard the term “whistleblower.”. It refers to a person who brings attention to illegal or unethical activity within their company or government. Like a referee who notices a foul in a game, they “blow the whistle.”. There are many systems in place in the United States that protect whistleblowers, but is whistleblowing even ethical?
It’s still a risky endeavor, even with protections. Offering incentives is the best way to ensure that people take the risk.
The history of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is not a new concept. An early form of it existed in England before there was an organized national police force. If someone saw an illegal act, they were encouraged to report it. If it resulted in a conviction, the reporter would get a reward.
The most important consideration in assessing whether a whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner is the intention for one’s action. Is it to right a wrong? Is it to give voice to one’s values in the face of countervailing forces? Or, is the basis for the action the pursuit of self-interests, which may manifest itself in blowing the whistle in order to cash in on the whistle-blower award? After all, greed is a powerful motivating force when considering whether to blow the whistle on financial wrongdoing.
It’s not because of the possibility of receiving a whistle-blower’s award. Instead, the whistle-blower believes in principled behavior and leads her life in accordance with ethical values. But, what if a whistle-blower’s motive is to gain a financial reward such as is available through whistle-blowing complaints under the Federal False Claims Act ...
An ethical person is one who posseses strong character traits built on courage and informed by the belief that integrity is the backbone of ethical decision-making. A would-be-whistle-blower is willing to stand her ground even in the face of pressure from higher-ups to stay silent.
Responsible people blow the whistle when they believe more harm than good will occur if the whistle-blower stays silent. A virtuous whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner if she truly believes a responsibility exists to protect the public interest.
Personal Values and Organizational Culture are the Foundation of Whistle-blowing. The ethics of whistleblowing is a tricky matter. Whistle-blowing brings two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict.
The worst thing that can happen in an organization is for top management to say they believe in a code of ethics and then violate that very same code when it comes to their individual behavior. And in a culture of ethics, whistle-blowing can come out of the cold.
From a personal perspective, it could be argued that it is incongruous for human nature to display loyalty to a bureaucratic organization because it is composed of so many different people. This dehumanizing environment could distort the whistle-blower’s perception of their relevance within a company or their ability to influence change, thus degrading their sense of responsibility and motivation to report.
Lawyers often run into ethical dilemmas when trying to figure out the best way to represent their clients. For instance, a lawyer may represent a client whose guilt is known to them. However, the lawyer is still prohibited from inducing the client to perjure him or herself on the witness stand. For this reason, law firm managers must strike a balance between ethical considerations and advocacy of their clients. There is always the option to withdraw from a case if maintaining such a balance becomes impossible.
They may be encouraged to do anything they can to win a case, regardless of ethical implications. As a result, lawyers need to be especially vigilant with the rules of professional responsibility to avoid ethics rules violations.
A conflict could also occur if two lawyers in the same firm represented clients with opposing interests. Indeed, even if one lawyer at a firm has no direct conflict of interest, the fact that another lawyer does may preclude representation. Nowadays, many large law firms employ conflict-checking software to avoid representing a client who may pose a conflict of interest.
Lawyers must be willing to refuse client requests, especially if such requests are unethical. In these instances, it’s always best to steer the client away from such a course of action. It also helps to clarify what can befall the client if the attorney were to accede to his or her request. A lawyer should not fall prey to going along with a client’s wish just because he or she may lose the client.
Lawyers simply cannot represent clients when they have a conflict of interest. For instance, if an attorney represented someone already, he or she would not be in position to sue that person later if their earlier representation gave the lawyer information that amounted to an unfair advantage or even the appearance of one.
Unfortunately, ethics rules do not cover every kind of ethical dilemma that can arise in the practice of law. Moreover, rules violations do not always result in disciplinary action. So, what can lawyers do to ensure that they don’t run afoul of the laws that govern their profession?
Conversely, the final dilemma a whistleblower may face is one of personal loyalty, to their own ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, obligations of confidentiality and loyalty ideally should not take precedence over the fundamental duty to act in a manner that prevents unnecessary harm to others.
Once a whistleblower has disclosed to an external party, the public and media scrutiny, as well as possible resulting charges may result in long-term harm to the reputation of an organisation (Figg, 2000). As a consequence, an immense amount of time may be spent fighting whistleblower disclosures, resulting in a possible loss of morale among employees remaining within the organisation, and the formation of any chaos and mutual suspicion among employees can affect the performance of the organisation. There may also be issues of lost revenue and a decrease in the market performance of the organisation. Weinstein (1979 cited Keenan 1995, p.4) notes that more often than not, managers have taken the stance that whistleblowers pose a risk to the organisation’s unification, authority structure, and public image.
It cannot be denied that whistleblowing is accompanied by a range of problems, for both the whistleblower and the organisation. However, it can be argued that whistleblowing is an important and valid method of endeavoring to control possible unethical behaviour by organisations, as well as helping to establish a level of social responsibility. For these reasons, it is important for society to maintain a level of support and encouragement towards whistleblowers, so that their often valuable contribution towards eliminating corporate wrongdoings can continue.
This is just one example of how whistleblowing can benefit society, by exposing the kind of careless risk an unethical organisation can place the public under, as well as helping to sustain or encourage an organisation’s degree of social responsibility, through the threat of exposure.
Whistle blowing refers to the act of organisation members, either former or current, disclosing information on illegal and unethical practices within the organisation to parties internal or external to the organisation, who can take action. It is becoming increasingly common as more ...
Among the many new forms of protection available under this Act, corporate executives who retaliate against whistleblowers may be faced with up to 10 years in prison, and the U.S. Labor Department has the power to reinstate employees without a trial (Borrus et al., 2002).
That is, the threat of employees no longer keeping silent about unethical behaviour within the work place, coupled with a higher protection from retaliation for whistleblowers, is a large deterrent to potential wrongdoers (Dworkin, 2002), as well as an ambassador for social responsibility.
The court held that there was no attorney-client privilege for communications between the in-house counsel and the client because the in-house counsel was not licensed and, therefore, not an "attorney.". There is some split of authority on this issue.
A lawyer was helping run the family business, which was controlled by his mother and shared with his siblings. There was no engagement letter. As the mother started aging and fading, there were disputes among the children (the lawyer and his siblings) how things should be handled.
Int'l, 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) demonstrated the burden on counsel, co-workers, and the client that can arise from the unlicensed practice of law in-house. An associate in-house counsel discovered that the general counsel was not licensed to practice law in Tennessee where the general counsel officed. She reported this first to the general counsel and later to the company's board of directors. After considerable time, the general counsel was still not admitted, so the in-house obtained her own legal advice concerning her ethical obligations and felt compelled to report the unlicensed practice of law to appropriate State agency. The reporting counsel was later fired and brought suit for common-law retaliatory discharge. No lawyer should want to subject their client to this kind of embarrassment, and this was all driven by the general counsel's refusal to become licensed in the state where she practiced.
This is a dream case for commentators on in-house ethics because it raises two of the most common "defenses" asserted by in-house lawyers when pushing back against ethical concerns. Mr. Rosefielde was in-house for several small companies owned by Mr. Kaye.
Practice tip: In-house counsel have to be vigilant regarding possible conflicts when representing anyone other than the company.
This case involved an in-house attorney who complained to the US Department of Energy (DOE) about discrimination at her client. To further her case, she gave information to the DOE about other complaints of discrimination at the company. Even though she prevailed in her jury trial, the ruling was reversed. The Fifth Circuit held that there was no exception to the ethical rules that allowed her to disclose information regarding other wrongs without client consent, which she did not have. The verdict was reversed and the case dismissed based on the lawyer's misconduct.
In the dispute, it was determined that the lawyer's notes were not privileged as to any of the companies in the dispute, as he was each company's lawyer. It was also held that the common-interest doctrine did not apply to protect the notes, because that doctrine requires the involvement of multiple lawyers.