Read Reflect and Respond Please read these two articles and respond to this question:
Would you ever become a whistle blower at the organization you work? In your answer consider the two articles, your experience, the consequences and benefits, why you would choose to or not, ethical responsibility and social responsibility.
Note- you are not required to reply to other posts but your reply to posts are welcomed. Article 1 Company Loyalty, Whistle-Blowing And Social Responsibility: Which Do We Choose And Why? Dennis Jaffe Public airing of a company’s internal problems is becoming more and more common. In the health arena, employees spoke out and questioned harmful policies of the now-failed TheranosLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. as well as those of Purdue PharmaLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. Whistle-blowers at companies like BoeingLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. have reported practices that skirt safety and environmental regulations, and their voices were viewed as generally useful. More recently, employees of on-line furniture retailer WayfairLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. initiated protests of the company’s refusal to stop selling beds and other goods to detention centers for migrant children, thus enabling these centers to exist. Is it a good idea to welcome critical voices from a company’s employees, or is this disruptive and undermining of company operations? When the abuses are proven and involve public safety, it seems clear that these whistle-blowers are performing a public service. But the question to consider is when public airing of a company’s problems is the right path for employees to take and when it is not. Some companies, such as Wayfair, support the rights of employees to make their views known. Other companies disavow the whistle-blowers, saying they are disgruntled employees who are out to cause damage and not to act responsibly. And while freedom of speech is a much-valued principle in public discourse, it is not entirely clear whether employees have the right to speak out publicly against what they perceive as unethical or damaging company actions—without suffering personal consequences. When weighing company loyalty against social responsibilities, a good argument can be made for either type of behavior. On the one hand, an employee has a responsibility to keep company affairs confidential and to deal with disagreements internally. On the other hand, an employee who sees their company doing something they feel is not right should be able to make their observations public, especially if the company is not listening to their concerns. A classic writing on this topic was Albert O. Hirschman’s treatise, “Exit, Voice, and LoyaltyLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.,” which observes that when an employee is concerned or upset about their company’s behavior, they have two options—to exit or to retain loyalty and actively voice their concerns within the company or organization. Hirschman further argues that there is a need for public voicing of concerns because the organization has a public face and a social responsibility. That view is now espoused by many, including growing numbers of new millennial workers. MORE FOR YOU 5 Cognitive Biases Blocking Your SuccessLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. Preparing To Go Public: An Overview Of The IPO ProcessLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. Immigrants Hope Registry Saves Immigration BillLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. There are several factors today that are tipping the balance in organizations toward public airing of problems. One factor is that many folks are quasi-employees as gig or contract workers, whose loyalty is not expected. Secondly, young workers feel less loyal to companies they feel do not reward or respect loyalty as a value. A third factor is that the boundaries between internal and public conversations are blurring as the airing of information becomes easier and more common. Finally, when a concern arises, employees may find that it seems more difficult and costly to raise an issue internally than to raise it in public. There are consequences and widespread effects whether an issue is raised publicly or internally. An example of the former is when an employee at GoogleLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. posted on his company’s internal forum a memo critical of the company’s policies to ensure diversity. He argued that such policies were “unfair, divisive, and bad for business.” The memo was soon leaked to the press and the public, and the employee was fired. But his concerns were discussed widely inside the company—and outside as well. More consequences can occur within a company that demands loyalty but doesn’t listen. Say an employee has a concern about how their company handles ideas to improve operations. If they bring this concern to their managers and they’re not listened to but are told to be patient and that this is not the time for such ideas, what will they do? They will continue to talk, but to their friends and peers and not to their managers. If their concern links to the experience of others, there will be a growing dissatisfaction that is not known at higher levels of the company. The employees may stop caring about their work or perform at a lower level, causing a loss of improvements to the company. Finally, people will be open to recruitment by other firms, and a brain drain may begin. If employees had few options for exit and finding another place to work, the company could relax and manage even a dissatisfied workforce. But today, with knowledge workers feeling little loyalty and public sharing becoming widespread, an increase in public whistle-blowing is to be expected. Therefore, it behooves a company or organization to spend less time feeling victimized and more time listening and responding to internal challenges—before they become public. What can a company or organization do to limit whistle-blowing and public airing of dissent? Most importantly, they should have a clear policy for raising concerns—about fairness, quality and proper behavior toward customers, suppliers, government and the community. At the same time, they need to encourage their employees, contactors and gig workers to bring their concerns forward. If employees believe they will not be harmed by saying what’s on their mind, they will be less likely to go public as a first step. True, a company that supports respectful and open expressions of concern may find themselves challenged about some misguided and unreasonable issues. But by focusing on these issues openly rather than punitively, they may have the possibility of changing policies and practices that could cause harm. Indeed, if some of the public whistle-blowers had been listened to internally, their organizations might have fared much better than they did when the issues became public. Finally, it appears that company loyalty and social responsibility need not be in conflict if both the employees and the companies play their part. A loyal employee will voice their concerns firstly within the company and through the proper lines of communication. A responsible company will then listen and respond to the concern and take action to correct any injustice or problems. But if they do not listen or take corrective actions, this is the time for an employee to become a whistle-blower. That would be their social responsibility for the sake of all concerned.
******************************* Article 2
The Whistleblower’s Dilemma:
Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits? How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response — and how can organizations encourage those who want to report a misdeed to come forward? The Whistleblower’s Dilemma: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits? How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response — and how can organizations encourage those who want to report a misdeed to come forward? FEATURED FACULTY Janice Bellace, Links to an external site.Links to an external site.Maurice Schweitzer, and Links to an external site.Links to an external site.Samir NurmohamedLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. Knowledge at Wharton Staff The whistleblower is back. Instances of insiders calling out corruption, lawbreaking, and unethical behavior are happening all the time. But not since the Enron and WorldCom scandals has the role of the whistleblower stepped out of the shadows as it has now. Less clear is whether whistleblowing as a tool will emerge bruised or burnished in the wake of recent whistleblower allegations that President Trump held back foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for potentially damaging information on potential 2020 election rival Joe Biden. The administration has worked hard in recent weeks to stigmatize the image of the whistleblower as an archetype, portraying him or her as an agent of treachery rather than as a servant to the common good and the rule of law itself. But even before this particular turn of events, the decision to act on conscience in response to wrongdoing was considered “a very risky proposition for an employee who would like to stay working at the company,” says Janice Bellace, Wharton professor emeritus of legal studies and business ethics. That’s because for all of the prominence of whistleblowing in the past decade or so, there is still often no safe roadmap for a worker who has seen something to say something. “Most people who perceive that there is some wrongdoing often do not know the specific law that would apply,” says Bellace. “As a result, they don’t actually have a good grasp of whether unlawful wrongdoing or probable wrongdoing has occurred. Moreover, and this has happened in some cases, they begin to access material that they might not have the right to access. So, I find these three points problematic from an employee’s vantage point. And even if you do know the law and do have proof, there will be a considerable period of time before you can have your position validated, and you may be without your job during that period of time. That’s a difficult proposition.” “It’s a really hard issue,” says University of Pennsylvania professor of corporate law David Skeel. “You want everybody to behave ethically and you want to create an environment where people feel comfortable reporting this behavior. But the reality of human interaction is that we often suspect that when we report, we’ll be punished. It starts at the playground when you are a kid and it doesn’t go away.” Many assume that the various systems of rewards and protections that are in place meant to encourage whistleblowing would make it easier for people to come forward. And often they do. “But none of those things makes the issue go away,” says Skeel. Deciding whether to blow the whistle is still a tricky matter. “When you add in the fact that traditionally a whistleblower has lots of relationships within the firm that could be jeopardized, it’s tough to stand up and do the right thing. It’s just one of those dilemmas.” Why Do It? How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response? Anyone facing the question knows that he or she risks being portrayed as an alarmist or disloyal on the one hand, or tacitly approving of illegal or unethical activity on the other. “Most people who perceive that there is some wrongdoing often do not know the specific law that would apply.”— Janice Bellace “People are more likely to blow the whistle when they can see how the organization or an external actor might do something about it,” says Julian Jonker, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. “There might be ramifications for employees doing the reporting, and if there is nothing good to come from this, they will ask themselves, ‘why do it?’ One change could be to make it so that not only will there be protections for whistleblowers, but we also make explicit the way in which complaints will find a response. Setting aside the perceived usefulness of reporting, an employee is also faced with an ethical question about whether he or she should blow the whistle. The employee must make the ethical decision of whether there is in fact wrongdoing, and whether the wrongdoing is so bad that it outweighs any duties of loyalty they have to the organization on the ethical scale.” When the wrongdoing is really severe, “it can be thought of as a way of saving the organization,” says Jonker. But the price in many organizations for whistleblowing can be high, ranging from being socially ostracized to being fired in retaliation. Making an accusation can indeed transform workplace relationships, but the exact way in which relationships are changed depends on a variety of factors, according to findings by Maurice Schweitzer, Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions, and Jessica A. Kennedy of Vanderbilt University in a study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2018. Accusations, especially those regarding ethical violations, are prevalent in organizations, and an accusation influences perceptions of both the accuser and accused, they report in “Building Trust by Tearing Others Down: When Accusing Others of Unethical Behavior Engenders TrustLinks to an external site.Links to an external site..” In five experiments, Kennedy and Schweitzer determine that accusations harm trust in the accused, harm group functioning, and boost trust in the accuser. People are perceived to be more trustworthy and to have greater integrity when they make accusations than when they do not, the study reports — “as long as the accusation appears to be motivated by a desire to defend moral norms; in this case, making an accusation increases cognitive trust by projecting integrity and high ethical standards.” In other words, the accuser’s motive must be seen as pure. In addition, when organizational members make accusations, the benefits may ripple out to the entire organization by “enforcing norms and promoting ethical behavior,” according to the authors. Ethical conduct stems from the organization setting an ethical tone, “and a culture that tolerates or promotes accusations may guide employees to recognize the high costs of engaging in unethical behavior.” Still, whistleblowers are routinely perceived as disloyal to the organization, “so what’s playing out in the federal government is disappointing … but it’s not unusual by any means,” says Schweitzer. “Moral courage is hard, and in the moment it is far easier to be complicit. This is related to a psychological construct termed pluralistic ignorance. Imagine being in a class and the professor isn’t making any sense to you. You are not sure what to do. You look around and nobody is asking questions. At the same time, everyone else is looking around to see the same thing — nobody asking any questions. So, when we are uncertain about what to do, we look to others for guidance. In this setting, everyone is looking around … and not asking questions. The same thing happens when it comes to observing unethical behavior.” The first thing that needs to happen in an organization interested in promoting an ethical culture is for the leaders to lead by example, says Schweitzer. “Their commitment to ethics really drives what subordinates are likely to do,” he says. The second thing is to promote the idea that while organizations care about favorable outcomes, the process is even more important. The recent Wells Fargo scandalLinks to an external site.Links to an external site. is a case in point. Employees were getting the clear message that the company didn’t care that its sales goals were unreasonable. Goals were to be met even if it meant signing up customers to new accounts without their consent or knowledge. “The reality of human interaction is that we often suspect that when we report, we’ll be punished. It starts at the playground when you are a kid and it doesn’t go away.”— David Skeel “We all care about outcomes,” says Schweitzer, “but what is important is how we get to those outcomes. And so again this means that as leaders, we need to model the behavior we expect others to follow — we penalize wrongdoing, we have a commitment to getting things right and when we fall short of goals, we learn from it. But we don’t penalize people merely because of an outcome.” Ethical leadership is an important factor in influencing a worker’s decision on whether to report an ethical transgression, but so is behavior from another source: coworkers. Employees look for social cues on whether to blow the whistle, find the authors of “Encouraging Employees to Report Unethical Conduct Internally: It Takes a VillageLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.,” published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2013. Because formal or informal sanctions can come from either supervisors or coworkers, “if employees perceive that either their supervisor or peers are less ethical, they will be less likely to report unethical conduct internally,” the study finds. Wharton management professor Samir Nurmohamed, one of the study’s co-authors, says that social pressure to act the same way plays out in the small matters as well as the large ones, and “prior research shows that when you feel close to someone at the workplace who lies, it can impair your moral judgment.” Another factor is that places with strong cultures tend to attract and retain workers of a similar viewpoint, sometimes creating a concentration in workers more beholden to personal loyalties than ethical considerations. “Hiring people from different backgrounds and networks ensures that people in the organization aren’t dependent on that one job or organization,” says Nurmohamed. “It also sends the message that your organization values different viewpoints, and that there is not social pressure to act the same way.” A Maze of Laws How does an employee who becomes aware of questionable behavior decide whether it rises to the level of whistleblowing material? “That is a big problem, because most employees, at least at the initial stages of a whistleblower situation, get it wrong, because there are over 50 whistleblower protection laws in the private sector, and they are all different,” says Stephen M. Kohn, partner at Washington, D.C.-based Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. The good news is that many of these laws provide anonymity, protections from retaliation, and, in many cases, some significant carrots for the whistleblowers. “People are more likely to blow the whistle when they can see how the organization or an external actor might do something about it.”— Julian Jonker The whistleblower program run by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance, last year paid out bounties of more than $168 million to 13 individuals whose information and cooperation brought enforcement actions, the SEC reported in its 2018 accounting to Congress. “In fact, the commission awarded more dollars in FY 2018 to meritorious whistleblowers who provided new and critical information than in all prior years combined. The commission also received more whistleblower tips in FY 2018 than in any other previous year,” the report states. More good news: various other whistleblower programs provide protections and rewards in other sectors. The False Claims Act protects and rewards whistleblowers with claims of contractors defrauding the government. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Whistleblower Program covers crimes like securities fraud and currency rate manipulation. The IRS’s Whistleblower Informant Award aims to uncover tax fraud. The U.S. Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 guards government employees from retaliation when reporting a wide variety of abuses, violations of law, waste and actions posing a threat to health or safety. But there are significant gaps in programs that reward whistleblowers, and they tend to be around certain environmental and consumer protection laws — “parts of the economy for which non-financial violations are occurring, but have equal impact on public interest,” says Kohn. Given the maze of laws, how can the average employee know what to do? “You must contact a knowledgeable whistleblower lawyer, period, before you to go internally, before you go to the SEC — before you tell your wife,” says Kohn. “These laws work. And they don’t have the publicity of others. They run counter to many stereotypes, that whistleblowers are being retaliated against and losing their careers. But under these laws the government has done a fantastic job at protecting identification.” But contacting a lawyer, if the company finds out about it, is likely to be interpreted as an escalation of confrontation. In some sectors, confrontation is inevitable, since whistleblowing is mandatory — when a teacher learns of sexual misconduct in a school, for instance. Since 1978, New York City has required city workers to report instances of waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption, lest they face disciplinary action. “We all care about outcomes, but what is important is how we get to those outcomes.”–Maurice Schweitzer Would extending mandatory reporting to more sectors ease some of the confusion facing many workers? “It probably would make it more likely that you would report,” says Skeel, “but it also makes the situation more fraught if you are afraid of the negative consequences and are told you are breaking a rule if you don’t speak up.” Will the current Trump-whistleblower episode change the course of future whistleblowing? Any greater meaning hinges in part on how it ends, and the story is far from over. “On the one hand, this is an example of someone who did their duty and filed a whistleblower report with very good information, and that is the good point,” says Bellace. “On the other hand, in this case, you have the president calling this person a spy, and you’re saying to yourself, ‘I think I am doing the right thing, and I am going to be attacked for it.’ I think the current whistleblower incident could cut both ways.” Trump’s characterization of, and attacks on, the current whistleblower threaten to have a chilling effect, says Schweitzer. “As a nation, we have worked hard to implement whistleblower protection laws, and Trump’s actions represent a serious setback to what we have accomplished,” he says. “Whistleblowers are the people on the frontlines who can protect us against fraud and corruption. The threats and attacks on the whistleblower set a dangerous precedent. Rather than protecting and admiring them, Trump has sent a warning shot to anyone thinking about reporting misdeeds.” But there’s at least one other way of looking at it. Because of the prominence of this case, it could serve to “advertise” the value of whistleblowing like nothing else before it. “I don’t know that it will necessarily lead to a lot of soul-searching in large institutions,” says Skeel. “But where there is a massive issue, it might make more people on the margins willing to come forward.”
********************
In your post strive to meet the following criteria: Ideas Excels in responding to assignment. Interesting, demonstrates sophistication of thought. Central idea/thesis is clearly communicated, worth developing; limited enough to be manageable. Post recognizes some complexity of its content: may acknowledge its contradictions, qualifications, or limits and follow out their logical implications. Understands and critically evaluates its sources, appropriately limits and defines terms. Organization & Coherence Uses a logical structure appropriate to post’s subject, purpose, audience, thesis, and disciplinary field. Sophisticated transitional sentences often develop one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations. It guides the reader through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas. Support Uses evidence appropriately and effectively, providing sufficient evidence and explanation to convince. Style Chooses words for their precise meaning and uses an appropriate level of specificity. Sentence style fits paper’s audience and purpose. Sentences are varied, yet clearly structured and carefully focused, not long and rambling. Mechanics Entirely free or almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. Cites when necessary and provides references.
In recent years, the act of whistle-blowing has gained prominence in various organizations. This essay delves into the complex decision of whether one would become a whistle-blower in their workplace, considering the insights from two articles, personal experiences, potential consequences and benefits, ethical and social responsibilities, and the evolving landscape of corporate loyalty and public discourse.
Whistle-blowing, the act of exposing an organization’s internal problems, has become increasingly prevalent. It raises a critical question: Would you ever become a whistle-blower at the organization you work for? This essay explores the factors influencing this decision, drawing insights from two articles – “Company Loyalty, Whistle-Blowing And Social Responsibility” by Dennis Jaffe and “The Whistleblower’s Dilemma: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?” featuring Janice Bellace, Maurice Schweitzer, and Samir Nurmohamed. Additionally, it considers personal experiences, examines the consequences and benefits, delves into ethical and social responsibilities, and assesses the changing dynamics of corporate loyalty and public discourse.
The decision to become a whistle-blower is multifaceted and influenced by a myriad of factors. Jaffe’s article argues that when public safety is at stake, whistle-blowers perform a public service. However, the dilemma lies in determining when to make company problems public. Corporate loyalty and social responsibility often seem at odds. Albert O. Hirschman’s concept of “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” presents two options for concerned employees: to exit or to voice their concerns internally (Jaffe, 2018).
One of the key considerations in becoming a whistle-blower is ethical responsibility. Bellace (Bellace et al., 2019) highlights the difficulty in determining whether wrongdoing has occurred and emphasizes the importance of understanding the law. Whistle-blowing should not be taken lightly; it must be rooted in a genuine desire to expose wrongdoing and protect the common good. It becomes a social responsibility when it serves to save an organization from its own misconduct.
Becoming a whistle-blower carries significant consequences (Schweitzer & Kennedy, 2018). Schweitzer notes that whistle-blowers are often perceived as disloyal, leading to social ostracization or even job loss. However, it can also boost trust in the accuser if their motives are perceived as pure. The benefits include the potential to bring about change, uphold moral norms, and protect the organization and the public from harm.
The landscape of corporate loyalty is evolving. Traditional notions of unwavering loyalty are giving way to a more critical and socially aware workforce. Employees today feel less loyal to organizations that do not value their loyalty in return. The ease of sharing information in the digital age blurs the lines between internal and public conversations (Jaffe, 2018).
One significant factor that is influencing the balance between loyalty and social responsibility is the rise of the gig economy. Many employees today are quasi-employees, working on gig or contract-based arrangements. In these situations, loyalty is not necessarily expected as it would be in traditional employment settings. This shift in the nature of work has implications for how employees view their responsibilities to the organizations they work for.
Moreover, the values and perspectives of millennial workers are playing a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of loyalty and social responsibility. Unlike previous generations, many young workers today feel less loyal to companies that they perceive as not rewarding or respecting loyalty as a core value. This shift reflects a broader societal change towards more individualistic and socially conscious values. It implies that for organizations to retain and engage young talent, they must align with these values by fostering a culture of transparency and social responsibility.
Another noteworthy development is the blurring of boundaries between internal and public conversations within organizations. The digital age has facilitated the rapid dissemination of information. Internal discussions and concerns can easily find their way into the public domain. This phenomenon presents both opportunities and challenges for organizations.
On one hand, it allows employees to raise concerns and voice their opinions more freely. On the other hand, it can lead to situations where internal matters are exposed prematurely or without context, potentially harming the organization’s reputation. This dynamic underscores the need for organizations to proactively address concerns raised internally to prevent them from becoming public issues.
The central challenge remains how to strike a balance between company loyalty and social responsibility. Employees must grapple with the ethical quandary of when to blow the whistle and whether it serves the greater good. Organizations, in turn, must create an environment where employees feel comfortable reporting ethical or legal violations internally, reducing the need for public whistle-blowing.
Leaders within organizations play a crucial role in shaping the loyalty-social responsibility equation. Ethical leadership, as highlighted by Schweitzer (Schweitzer & Kennedy, 2018), is vital in influencing an employee’s decision on whether to report an ethical transgression. Leaders must lead by example, demonstrating a commitment to ethics and a willingness to address concerns openly and transparently.
In addition to leadership, the organizational culture plays a pivotal role. Trust is a fundamental component of any healthy workplace culture. Employees are more likely to blow the whistle when they trust that the organization or an external actor will take appropriate action (Jonker, 2018).
Organizations should not only protect whistle-blowers but also ensure that complaints will receive a response. Transparency in the investigation process and a commitment to upholding ethical norms can foster a culture where reporting unethical conduct is seen as an ethical duty rather than an act of disloyalty.
Understanding the legal framework is essential for employees considering whistle-blowing. There are over 50 whistleblower protection laws in the private sector, each with its nuances (Kohn, 2019). The protection of anonymity and the potential for financial rewards can incentivize whistle-blowers.
However, contacting a knowledgeable whistleblower lawyer before taking any action is crucial to navigate these complex legal landscapes (Kohn, 2019). This legal protection empowers employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.
The current landscape of whistle-blowing is marked by increased awareness and scrutiny. High-profile cases like those involving Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have brought the issue to the forefront of public consciousness.
The future implications are likely to include a continued push for transparency and accountability in organizations. As technology continues to evolve, the ease of information sharing will increase, making it even more critical for organizations to address concerns internally to prevent public disclosures that can damage their reputation.
The decision to become a whistle-blower is a complex and ethically charged one. It involves weighing personal loyalty to the organization against the social responsibility to expose wrongdoing (Bellace et al., 2019). The changing dynamics of corporate loyalty and the ease of public discourse add further layers of complexity. Ultimately, becoming a whistle-blower should be driven by a genuine commitment to ethics and the common good, even if it means challenging the organization’s practices. Companies, in turn, must foster a culture that encourages the internal reporting of concerns to limit the need for public whistle-blowing. In an era where transparency and accountability are paramount, finding a balance between company loyalty and social responsibility is crucial.
This extended essay explores the nuances of whistle-blowing, taking into account the changing landscape of loyalty, the impact of the gig economy and millennial workers, and the evolving role of leadership and organizational culture. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal framework and protecting whistle-blowers to promote transparency and accountability in organizations. With these considerations in mind, individuals facing the decision of whether to become whistle-blowers can make more informed choices, aligning their actions with their ethical and social responsibilities.
