Why Leaders Should Be Legal

In addition, whistleblowers should be portrayed as being good in order for society to begin seeing them in a positive way. Furthermore, the government should make this type of crimes a public matter. Allowing the public to be able to see all charges and outcome regarding these cases could bring out other wrongdoings in other organizations. The government should also impose greater punishment such as jail time for these types of crimes rather than imposing fines that they are able to

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

Whistleblowing encourages and enables employees to raise serious concerns within the company rather than overlooking a problem or 'blowing the whistle' outside. Employees are advised to speak to their designated senior CareGiver or a member of the

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

You are protected under the law if you reveal to those in positions of authority, or 'blow the whistle on' suspected malpractice at work. It is in the public interest that the law protects whistleblowers so that they can speak out if they find malpractice in an organisation. Blowing the whistle is more formally known as 'making a disclosure in the public interest' so it is important you can do so knowing that you are protected from losing your job or being victimised as a result of what you have uncovered and made public.safe.

1. Describe the key characteristics of a whistleblower, and briefly summarize one (1) researched instance of whistleblowing in one (1) publicly traded company within the last 12 months. Include the details of the issue that the whistleblower reported and the effect of the whistleblower’s actions on both the whistleblower himself and the company.

Unfortunately, as an employee of an organization several years ago I was involved in a whistle blowing the case. I can personally vouch for the fact it is unpleasant at best and quit a headache. My “employer” was violating multiple OSHA and PEOSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) codes and requirements for training and personal protection. My colleague and I brought these issues to management in a written form on more than one occasion, and we both were promptly removed from the personnel roster without cause. The next several months were meetings, interviews, letters and legal correspondence to prove our case which was ultimately decided in our favor, reinstating us and led to a hefty fine for the agency. This was a volunteer

Leadership is like a weighted coin, with a preference for the head of corruption. In fact, many of today’s greatest leaders seem to have long histories of controversy and questionable decisions. Take, for example, the PR company Bell Pottinger of the United Kingdom, which has recently been exposed for facilitating racism in South Africa, under direction from one of its clients (Cheryl). Exposure of this and other company controversies marked the beginning of the end for Bell Pottinger. Had the leaders of Bell Pottinger properly weighed company risks, prioritized their employees, and set a precedent of rules, corruption could have been prevented.

You’re right Timothy. But sometimes it takes more courage for the employees to speak up about unethical conduct of their superiors. Probably because they’re afraid of being retaliated like getting fired from work or demoted. Nevertheless there are laws like Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 and Dodd-Frank (Section 922) that would protect whistleblowers from the retaliation of their employers and even reward if the whistleblowers can provide the original information to the SEC .

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,

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

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.

Whistleblowing- It is designed to proper employees from being victimised by their employer, so they will “blow the whistle” on wrong doing. Work places try to create an environment which enables staff to raise whatever concerns they have. Staff are assured if they raise a genuine concerns under this policy they will not be at risk of punitive action being taken against them. However this doesn’t not cover people who maliciously raise an issue that they know not to be true. An employee can make a disclosure based

1). Living as a responsible leader is not the easiest road to take. It requires one to keep in mind that leadership is often abused with the actions of power used for the sake of power. For example the environment created by Ken Lay during his 17-year run as CEO of Enron was an extreme case of irresponsible leadership. As Enron imploded from the disclosures of fraudulent accounting practices and criminal actions Lay’s response was that “he did not know about and had not authorized the improper actions” (MacDonald, 2011, p. 1). With this response Lay demonstrated his lack of understanding of what constitutes true leadership.

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?