Reducing the Risk of Whistleblowers

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

According to Harvard Law School’s article, approximately two-thirds of companies in the U.S. are affected by fraud. However, whistleblower Hotline can be as defense against management overrides. The article noted that whistleblower could be more effective if it become as apart of the corporate compliance programs and a reward of any monetary sanctions collected to motivate the employees Also, the article mention that the employees

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

Whistleblowing is the act that employees commit when they cry foul on their own organization for misdoings, corruption and illegality. I shall argue that whistleblowing in the workplace is “sometimes permissible” in order to keep businesses and corporations in check. I shall do so by presenting the best argument for whistleblowing to be “sometimes permissible” and not “always permissible”.

While reporting fraud on the government can be personally rewarding from a moral, ethical and financial standpoint, it can also be very difficult in terms of the stress and anxiety associated with standing up to powerful corporate interests. The decision to become a whistleblower can be a life-altering experience that was about to overtake General Motors. This could potentially have an adverse effect on the whistleblower’s employment, social activities, and other aspects of his or her life (McEldrew Young, 2016).

Whistle blowing occurs when an employer asks an employee to do something immoral, such as falsifying data or offering bribes. The employee may “blow the whistle” on the company revealing the immoral and most times, illegal practice(s) which will result in them losing their job and are blacklisted from the industry, leaving them without a way to support themselves and their families. When deliberating on blowing the whistle, the employee becomes an ethical egoist. The employee focuses on his or her self-interest which determines what they should do in the situation (Rae,

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?

The concept of whistleblowing in modern days differs from citizens to public servants. From citizens’ perspective, this action is perceived positively because it promotes the public good, and for most public servants, this action is perceived negatively because it damages the reputation of the organization and can ultimately jeopardize national security.

Companies are often faced with ethical challenges, one of which is whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is when someone in the company reports the wrongdoing of another person. Two issues to address, whether the employee should blow the whistle and what the company should do to deal with the whistleblowing case. (Leech 2008) Some companies feel that whistleblowing is acceptable while some do not. Number of unethical activities can be reduced and solved in a short span of time when someone blows the whistle, allowing the management to know of the issue and take appropriate actions to avoid any unnecessary damage. On the other hand, some believed that whistleblowing can cause misunderstanding due to insufficient evidence and the company’s reputation may be affected if people from the external environment gets to know about their company’s problems.

However, ethically, internal whistleblowing, as opposed to external whistleblowing, is preferred. This is due to severe damage caused by external whistleblowing as compared to internal whistleblowing (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009). In order to avoid the severe damages caused by whistleblowing, Vinten (1996) has suggested that an organization may minimize

Often the debate arises of whether human-beings are born with an innate sense of “right-from-wrong” and most often the consensus is, yes. The later question might then be, what makes a person question doing the right thing? In the reality of someone who may be labeled a “whistleblower,” apprehension to report wrongdoings may reasonably come from fear of retaliation. Particularly when the wrong-doing is occurring within the federal government and/or secret intelligence community. Who will stand up to these powers and what protection can policy afford those that take the ultimate risk in “doing the right thing” by unveiling the crimes of waste, fraud, and abuse within our government

“Personally, I believe that whistle blowers do not get the right treatment they deserve in most cases and this can be due to a lot of factors which could include organizational structure, high level of corruption, Improper channeling of information, time wastage, lack of proper rules concerning whistle blowers, etc. These and many more can account for the treatment of whistleblowers in the society. If there is proper planning, proper rules, low level of corruption etc in an organization or society, whistle blowers would be treated right in the society and wouldn’t be stigmatized as in the case

Whistle blowing is an endeavor of an employee or previous employee of a company to uncover what he or she accepts to be a wrongdoing in or by a company or association. Whistle blowing tries to make others mindful of practices that are viewed as illicit or immoral. In the event that the wrongdoing is accounted for to somebody in the company it is said to be internal. Internal whistle blowing has a tendency to do less harm to the company. There is additionally external whistle blowing. This is the place the wrongdoing is accounted for to the media and conveyed to the consideration of the general population. This sort of whistle blowing tends to influence the company negatively in view of terrible attention. It is said that whistle blowing is close to home if the wrongdoing influences the whistle blower alone (like sexual badgering), and said to be generic if the wrongdoing influences other individuals. Numerous individuals whistle blow for two fundamental reasons: morality and vengeance.

Morally, to reveal something to the public, it is required to reveal something from your own organization, you are voluntary member of the organization, you believe the organization is engaged in a serious moral wrong, you believe that if you are not revealing the wrongdoing, it will become worst. There are some advantages to the moral justification of whistleblowing. First, avoiding damage or harm to the public is not a motivation for whistleblowing. Second, in order to prevent harm, one does not necessary to work through organizational channels. Third, in order to prevent harm, one does not necessary to be sure as if the harm will definitely happen and worry about the career

Whistleblowing is the practice in which employees report illegal and immoral practices of their employers to parties that can take corrective actions (Waytz et al. 1027). It is a controversial organizational subject. On one hand, whistleblowers help companies to correct dangerous working conditions, defective products and curb fraudulent or wasteful practices. These individuals may be in form of a previously overlooked source of information that is crucial in upholding the conduct of huge, sophisticated organizations. On the contrary, whistleblowers may upset the public image, cohesiveness and authority structure of an organization. Despite these issues, managers struggle with handling