Ethical Issues In Enron

Hayley, I absolutely agree with you. Each individual must make his or her own decision as to whether the disturbing unethical offense is worth the personal cost (Reece 2014, pg 111). When I was personal faced with trying to decide to whistle blow or keep quiet and do nothing at all; I had to tell. I tried to just keep my head down and be silent but, the silence was literally making me sick. I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t sleep, and what I knew was constantly on my mind, I felt like I couldn’t function properly. The reason I was unable to function was because not being honest was not in my charter. I made the decision to be the whistleblower, and yes I did receive some back lash but for me that was better than the silence. Every individual is different,

Whistle blowing in organizations can be an outstanding source of needed information to the organization. On the other side, that same information that is delivered can have a negative effect on the employee that has decided to take matters in to their own hands and inform management of potential unethical behavior. An article called “Nonprofit whistle-blower employee nets $1.6 million retaliation award” written by Tricia Gorman is in reference to an employee whistle-blower that her place of employment violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, which is part of the organizations policy for hostile work environment.

In an age when accelerated communications contribute to growing perceptions of organizational improprieties, the ethical and legal implications of whistleblowing have become a major topic of discussion. According to Lawrence and Weber (2014), whistleblowing is an employee disclosing apparent organizational misconduct to the government or media; however, this reporting of information should come after attempts at going through proper channels in order to persuade the organization to take appropriate actions has been ineffective.

To start, one must first address laws surrounding whistleblowing before looking at ethic-based authorities. While there is not a law that requires one to whistle blow, there are laws that have been put in place to ensure that

The article I found by Thompson discusses risk and rewards of whistle blowing, the example used was from 1994 and the CEOs of the seven major American tobacco companies tested before Congress that nicotine was not addictive Shortly afterwards, Jeffrey Wigand, then head of research and development at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., gave the lie to that, rest in a deposition in a lawsuit brought by the State of Mississippi and then in an interview on 60 Minutes. This resulted in the tobacco companies reaching a $246 billion multistate settlement in 1998. Wigand underwent a smear campaign and said that he and his family received death threats. Whistle blowing ended his marriage. The maverick doesn’t consider himself a hero. He has said, “People were dying. I was loyal to a higher order of ethical responsibility.” The 1999 movie The Insider depicts some of this saga and Wigand now lectures worldwide, offers expertise on tobacco issues, and runs the nonprofit Smoke-Free Kids, Inc.

Several theories indicate why the whistle-blowing process has become more prevalent and characteristics or processes encourage individuals to come forward a report instances of wrongdoing or making organizational behaviors public knowledge (Lennane, 2012). The process of whistle-blowing often involves an individual being conflicted between loyalty to their organization or their belief that they have a responsibility to protect public interest above the practices of their organization (Soma & Nirmala, 2011). Individuals may attempt to initiate

Ms. Williams is a typical of a whistle-blower in the sense that whistle-blowers are willing to face retaliation from their employer. Janet P. Near, a professor at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University who has studied whistleblowing since 1980 stated that “If they [whistle-blowers] cannot suffer retaliation from their employer, we don’t count them” (Melnick, 2014, para 6). In many specialized industries, everyone knows each other so it is not unusual for whistle-blowers who get fired to have trouble finding work within the same industry. Near indicates that whistle-blowing is less about the psychology of an individual, but more about the severity of the situation unmasked (Melnick, 2014). C. Frederick Alford, political psychology professor and author of Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power stated whistle-blower arrive late at the realization that what people do and what they say are two different things so they are naïve in a certain sense (Melnick, 2014). As a result, they are shocked when they realize people lie, cheat, steal, and whatever (Melnick, 2014). Therefore, Near insists “What seems to predict whether someone will actually blow the whistle is: how serious the wrongdoing is, if they are very sure it happened and so on ... Situational characteristics rather

A Whistleblower is defined as an employee who submits a law infraction by their company, to the employer or to the Federal government and where the infraction could be sexual harassment toward the reporting employee or a public policy violation such as unlawfully keeping an employee from preforming their civic duty as on a jury ("Whistleblower Protections - FindLaw," n.d.). The U.S. government as well as numerous states have enacted statues to protect whistleblowers from an employer’s retribution for claim or violation report submissions

Well, according to Miceli, Nearand and Dworkin (2008), whistleblowing is an act of revealing wrongdoings in an organization by the former or current employees of the very organization. As such, a whistleblower is an individual who reveals wrongdoings within an organization to the public or the senior management. The key characteristics of a whistleblower include, but are not limited to, dissent, accusation, breach of loyalty, altruism, sportsmanship courtesy, conscientiousness and civic culture (Miceli, Near & Dworkin, 2008).

A whistle-blower is a person who exposes illegal or immoral activity that they have witnessed. This can be knowledge of misused public money, law breaking, unethical actions, or activity that pose risk to public safety. Employees who have witnessed immoral or illegal actions often decide to keep quiet.

The Dodd-Frank Act has allowed for more leniency when it comes to whistleblowing but this legislation was implemented after this story began. There are several industry protection programs for whistleblowers and the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) even promotes whistleblowing by giving out monetary rewards for certain cases. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was supposed to make whistleblowers believe that they would not be retaliated against. However, making the determination of whistleblowing after hearing Tony Menendez’s story will make the weak squeamish and the strong possibly reconsider.

First off, whistleblowers are by definition someone who informs on an organization involved in illicit behavior- illicit meaning forbidden by law. In Gale’s Opposing

Whistle-blowers, as the stereotype enforces, are driven by a desire to cause maximum damage through negative headlines. They are illustrated to be fueled by their own agenda or ego and to have no desire in going through the typical outlets of expression. In reality, however, it is almost always the opposite that is true. Executives or individuals in positions of authority may often have a chance to prevent whistle-blowing becoming publicly damaging, yet often down the opportunity due to the detrimental consequences it may have on them politically or economically.

If a boss is dealing drugs or an executive officer is drinking on the job, employees have the option to speak to an authority or keep quiet about this situation. In conventional terms, the act of speaking out is called whistleblowing. Employees use these actions to call out their boss at work or an executive that is not following the companies policy. However, speculations have arisen whether the employee has loyalty to the boss. As a representation of the business and the employer, the employees has become an agent of the company. With the bad name going out in public, the employee as well will face the consequences as he is also a representative of the organization. In spite of that, misconduct upon policies regarding company policies may also lead

The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?