Complete Book of Everyday Christianity
An A-Z guide to following Christ in every aspect of Life. Here in one book, is the complete guide you need for every part of your life—family, money, relationships, job, church, entertainment and more. The editors, Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens, combine decades of ministry, scholarship, church leadership, parenting, and other sorts of practical wisdom.WHISTLE-BLOWING
Whistle-blowing can be defined as an employee’s disclosing to the public illegal, immoral or unethical behavior of an employer or organization that is likely to result in harm to others. Whistle-blowing should not be done without serious reflection on the part of the prospective whistle-blower. It presents a moral conflict of loyalty-between one’s employer and/or colleagues and the prevention of harm to third parties. Whistle-blowers, by calling attention to possible wrongdoing within their organizations, are the subjects of much controversy. Some see them as disgruntled employees who are tattletales, squealers and snitches. Others see them as noble characters or heroes who are willing to put themselves at risk to expose organizational practices that are wasteful, fraudulent or harmful to the public safety.
Purposes of Whistle-blowing
In an ideal organizational world whistle-blowing would be unnecessary. However, in those situations in which management has a myopic fixation on maximizing the bottom line at any cost, whistle-blowing may be needed. Some of the areas whistle-blowers have called attention to in recent years include price fixing, fraud, unsafe products, widespread embezzlement, insider trading and dumping of toxic waste. Frequently, these whistle-blowers have courageously put themselves at risk in the pursuit of bringing pressure on an organization to correct its wrongs.
Some whistle-blowers’ actions, however, are ethically suspect. These individuals act out of selfish or egoistic reasons. Sometimes whistle-blowing suits are instituted by employees with an ax to grind. They may be blowing the whistle with the intent of getting even with the organization for recent decisions that affected them adversely or with the hope of getting a big financial payoff (for example, under the False Claims Act whistle-blowers can receive up to 25 percent of any money recovered by the government).
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Whistle-blowing
The costs of whistle-blowing are high for both the company and the whistle-blower. Whether it wins or loses, the company “gets a black eye.” It spends considerable time and money defending itself, and regardless of the outcome its reputation may be tarnished.
The potential costs to the whistle-blower are especially noteworthy. Unfortunately, many firms not only discourage but actually punish whistle-blowing. Other than outright dismissal, retaliation often includes demotion, false complaints about job performance, relocation or reassignment, investigation of finances and personal life, and harassment of family and friends. Even if the whistle-blower ultimately wins, the costs can still be considerable: attorney fees, money spent for living expenses while the case drags on, mental anguish and possible ostracism by former coworkers.
Criteria for Whistle-blowing
To approach whistle-blowing from both a moral and rational perspective, certain criteria should be met:
1. The purpose of the whistle-blowing should have a moral base. The public interest should be the prime concern (for example, the desire to expose unnecessary harm, a violation of human rights or conduct counter to the defined purpose of the organization).
2. What is being protested should be of major importance, be carefully analyzed and be specifically articulated. Whistle-blowing requires that the wrongdoing is a serious breach of ethics (for example, a company engaged in the upcoming release of a product that does serious harm to individuals or society in general).
3. The prospective whistle-blower should have compelling evidence to substantiate the facts of the protest. It is also important for the employee to have tangible documentation of the practice or defect.
4. Before the whistle is blown, all internal avenues for change within the organization should be exhausted. The employee should report this concern or complaint to his or her immediate superior to provide an opportunity for rectifying the situation. If no appropriate action is taken, the employee should take the matter up the organizational hierarchy. Before he or she goes public, the resources for remedy within the company must be exhausted.
5. The whistle-blower should be above reproach. Specifically, the whistle-blower should not benefit from revealing the information. Whistle-blowing should be an act of conscience-it should not be done principally from a selfish or vindictive orientation. To check for possible personal bias, the employee should seek considerable objective advice and then have the courage to personally accept responsibility for providing the information.
Some Final Thoughts
Sadly, legitimate whistle-blowing comes about too often because bureaucratic management blinds itself to shoddy products, environmental danger and questionable practices in order to maximize profit. Whistle-blowing may provide a signal that the organization is not performing well, has poor management or both.
It seems tenable to assume that three of the salient obligations that organizational members owe to the public it serves or to which it sells are truthfulness, noninjury and fairness. Therefore, when these crucial concomitants are willfully dashed, whistle-blowing may be necessary to bring this breach of trust to the public.
To avoid the costs of whistle-blowing for both the company and employee, some progressive organizations are attempting to provide ways for employees to report concerns and complaints. Some constructive avenues allowing employees to share their concerns include open-door policies, ombudspersons, confidential questionnaires and hot lines. While this is an encouraging sign, it would be naive to believe that there no longer will be a need for whistle-blowing.
Paul Tillich in The Courage to Be suggests that following one’s conscience and defying unethical and unreasonable authority is an act that entails considerable risk and great courage. As Christians we must not see our relationship with our employer as one of unilateral blind loyalty. Our ultimate responsibility and loyalty are owed to the Lord. We also have a responsibility to our neighbors, other employees, customers and the general public (Matthew 22:34-40).
References and Resources
S. Bok, Secrets (New York: Random House, 1983); N. Bowie, Business Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982); G. F. Cavenagh, American Business Values (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990); J. Richardson, ed., Annual Editions: Business Ethics 95/96 (Sluice Dock, Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin, 1995); W. H. Shaw and V. Barry, Moral Issues in Business (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1992); P. Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1950).
-John E. Richardson
Originally published in The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity by Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens. ©1997 by Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA. www.ivpress.com
Print
Email
