Whistle Blowing
Vs
Organizational Loyalty
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Factors to Consider Before Blowing the Whistle
Ask yourself whether you should blow the whistle or not........................................ 2.1
Leaking important information of the organization.................................................. 2.2
Determine the type of unlawful activity and to whom it should be reported.......... 2.3
Select internal or external contacts........................................................................... 2.4
State your claim specifically and appropriately....................................................... 2.5
Proper way to report wrongdoing............................................................................. 2.6
Impacts of Whistle Blowing
On the Employee Level.............................................................................................. 3.1
On the Organization Level......................................................................................... 3.2
On the Social Level.................................................................................................... 3.3
When is Whistle Blowing Justified
Five conditions under which whistle blowing is justified......................................... 4.1
When is Whistle Blowing Not Justified
Five conditions under which whistle blowing is not justified................................... 5.1
Managerial Steps to Prevent Whistle Blowing
Attitude Toward Whistle-Blowing.............................................................................. 6.1
Encouraging Internal Whistle-Blowing...................................................................... 6.2
Steps for Creating a Whistle-Blowing Culture......................................................... 6.3
Create a Policy........................................................................................................ 6.3.1
Get Backing and Support from Top Management............................................... 6.3.2
Publicize the Organization's Commitment............................................................ 6.3.3
Investigate and Follow Up....................................................................................... 6.3.4
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 7
Reference List ............................................................................................................................. 8
(1) Introduction
The world of work becomes a jungle as a result of many misconducts and wrongdoings whether it is from managers or coworkers, and those misbehaviors that harm and destroy the welfare and the safety are normally occurring in the form of a suspected abuse, a fraud or a law violation. People who were present in cases like this and went to report it to the management of the organization or to the public as a warning or complaint are considered as whistleblowers, then whistleblowing is a situation in which a person in or outside an organization witnesses a misconduct and reports it to a person or an organization.
In general, people who will be present during the misconduct may react in two manners. The first one is to try to keep the misbehavior secret and don’t report because they think that they are going to be fired if they say it, specifically if the wrong-doer is a manager or a boss. The second is the fact that it gives this abuse a support to rise and occur again in the workplace.
Many violations of the law and many dangers to public health and safety go unreported because people who know about them are afraid of retaliation. As our livelihoods and often our health insurance, are dependent on our jobs, the fear of losing a job is pervasive. (Workplacefairness.com, 2008)
Those conflicts and issues that may be faced up by the whistleblower lead many people to choose silence as an alternative in order to keep their jobs and salaries and all we know that silence is not a solution but it’s a part of the problem. The second reaction is from those who put the organizational loyalty as the first priority for them and have no fear to “blow the whistle” because they know exactly that the person who makes this misconduct puts his/her hands in the organization’s pocket and by doing so he/she puts them also in mine, yours and every pocket in the society and silence will encourage him to put his hands in other pockets. Those brave whistle blowers make the wrongdoer very visible to be judged.
Whistle blowing involves speaking out against wrongdoing (ethical or legal). This can be handled by going through the standard organizational channel. If that is not effective or somebody has good reason to believe that it will make the matter worse, then one has to consider going outside the standard channels. This could be within the organization or, if necessary, outside it (such as reporting directly to a professional organization or governmental group). (Banja, 1985)
This reaction that requires skipping the normal reporting channel and takes the complaint or the warning directly to the public can be one of the causes of conflict that should be considered before whistle blowing. The whistleblower should ask himself/herself before, what he/she will say is worth saying and beneficial to the public or it will just open for him/her some windows that will make the storm easy to enter through them. In addition he/she should make a comparison between the roles and the responsibilities of employers and co-workers versus the public responsibilities; after that he/she should know that from the professional perspective the public safety is the number one priority. Moreover, the risks that will be faced up after whistle blowing should be counted and he/she should be prepared to encounter different kinds of retaliation and revenge such as: position and salary demotion, industry blacklisting, job loss and innuendos after the whistle blowing.
Whistle-blowing has many impacts on employees, employers, organization and society and those impacts can be positive and negative, due to the way of perception toward whistle blowing either by employees, employers, organization or society. And it depends if the whistle blower does it for the sake of the organization’s interests and from an organizational loyalty dimension, or is it just for personal reason such as a conflict for a position, hate or even small clashes. Therefore, the whistle blowing cannot be justified in the majority of the time by the misconduct-doer, if he/she really does it or he/she is just a victim for a false whistle blowing and sometimes it is justified when it is for a real abuse or misconduct that occurred in the workplace which may affect the future of the organization and to keep the work between the teams inside the organization in the harmony that should be sought all the time by the organizations’ members. For that reason the organizations’ leaders and staff should put wise managerial steps to prevent and restrict whistle blowing internally and externally by putting some rules, as boundaries that will purify it from personal interest make from it an organizational loyal act and not something that will intersect the organizational loyalty and the organization’s success.
(2) Factors to Consider Before Blowing the Whistle
· Ask yourself whether you should blow the whistle or not
· Leaking important information of the organization
· Determine the type of unlawful activity and to whom it should be reported
· State your allegations specifically and appropriately
· Select internal or external contacts
· Proper way to report wrongdoing
· Risk factors for mistreatment of whistleblowers
(2.1) Ask yourself whether you should blow the whistle or not
It’s very important for us to understand that, every case in which we blow a whistle may be considered as an unethical act. Is this unethical act preventing something wrong to happen or its violating the rules and we should act accordingly. If it’s helping to prevent the wrong things to happen in the organization then it’s good, otherwise we should not do it. For example, if you are working in an organization and you came to know that a manager is doing something wrong by selling manufacturing product less than the price it is, then you should go and report this to management. This can be considered as good.
(2.2) Leaking important information of the organization
Many organizations have their own ethical principles and if you seep out any information internally or externally that is confidential, for instance the trade secrets of a company, it can create a situation where you can lose this job as well as risk the businesses for the company. And this information can be used by other competitors which may harm the company.
(2.3) Determine the type of unlawful activity and to whom it should be reported
When someone does something wrong we have to find out who did it wrong and to whom is the right person who should be reported. For example, if a worker does something wrong then it should not be reported to vice-president of the company. It should be reported to manager but if the same manager does something wrong then it should be reported to higher designated person than him.
(2.4) Select internal or external contacts
While considering internal contacts be aware of reporting a problem to a right person and see whether the internal channel has proven effective and if it didn’t worked properly, then you should go for external contacts. For example, if the CEO does something wrong then we should report it to external agencies like the media.
(2.5) State your claim specifically and appropriately
When you claim something it’s important to have a specific and appropriate data to support your claim. This data will help you to get your point clearly to the person to whom you are trying to report a problem. But if the data is not appropriate, then it could get you into trouble.
(2.6) Proper way to report wrongdoing
There should be a systematic approach to report the wrong doing. We should not discuss the matter with anyone other than the official person. We should check the meeting deadlines and other technicalities that should be considered.
For instance, if it happens that you want to discuss a serious matter with one of the executives then you can wait to meet him and discuss this matter only to him and not anyone else.
There are many factors which should be considered at mistreatments of whistleblowers and few of these are:
· Personal characteristics of the whistleblower and of the job situation that influence retaliation, like gender and other demographic variable. For example, a whistleblower can be a woman and she can bring a point of gender discrimination.
· Characteristics of the wrongdoing whether its seriousness, which will affect the process, by which reporting occurs. For example, a whistleblower can create a problem at workplace.
· The power and status of the wrongdoer which can be influenced, whether the organization protects or sanctions them. What if he is the CEO or an executive of the company? In this way it would be difficult to take an action on him.
(3) Impacts of Whistle Blowing
Whistle blowing is the topic of dissent at the workplace that has an ultimate impact for the benefit of the society as a whole. Whistle blowing has a significant impact on employee, organization and society level. Concerns at the employee level, whistle blowing entails the moral dilemmas and conflicts of interests faced by employees who go public with a charge of organizational wrongdoing. Concerns at the organizational level, whistle blowing focuses on such issues as corporate organizational culture, loyalty and dissent channels. At the society level, whistle blowing encompasses social accountability and regulation as well as the formation of public interest support group. (Truelson, 1989)
(3.1) On the Employee Level
Whistleblower is an employee of an organization who widens an awareness of an organizational product or service or policy considered to be unethical, immoral, illegal or dangerous to the public. Whistleblower on such a case, reports organizational wrongdoing to immediate supervisor, corporate top level administration and at last takes the protest outside of organization to public press or other support group to express the dissatisfaction (Truelson, 1989). Such an individual employee will be praised, if his/her whistle is appropriate and benefits the organization and society from wrongdoing. Similarly, if the whistle is not appropriate and the employee does not have valid evidence and proof of organizational wrongdoing, then he/she will be fired by the company and will have a very ghastly relationships with his/her fellow employees and would be guilty.
(3.2) On the Organization Level
According to Roberta Ann Johnson, “The short term impact of Whistle-blowing is often negative. In some instances, whistleblowers can weaken organizational chain of command, pose a threat to its effectiveness, unsettle employees’ confidence in their abilities to use discretion and create a sense of unpredictability.” When whistleblowers succeed in making the public aware of agency wrong doing, malfeasance, corruption or fraud, the news is bound to embarrass the agency. In fact the publicity from whistle blowing might also cause financial losses for the agency, a reduction in public support, increased management turnover and sometimes losses of organizational cohesion within the organization (Micelli and Near 1992). Whistleblower can, of course, have benefits for the organization because they address the problem of dangerous practices or corruption, which ultimately increase productivity of organization. In the long run it can reduce the losses and cost which organization have to bear as consequences of wrongdoing.
According to Micelli and Near 1992, “The beneficial effects of Whistle-blowing are especially apparent in high-stakes of public health and safety because of the substantial potential dangers posed. Nuclear power plants, pharmaceutical firms and automobile manufacturer are places where decisions can have consequences that would preserve life or its quality. For these organizations which operate daily with the threat of a misfortune, in event of mistakes, whistle blowing could be a kind of early alarm system”.
(3.3) On the Social Level
Broadly, whistle blowing has the benefits for the society as a whole. All the individuals and organizations that operate within the social tertiary are the essential components of society. Therefore, the benefits of whistle blowing for the employee’s and organization’s are ultimately the benefits of the society. More specifically, whistle blowing helps to “Eliminate and control individual and organizational misconduct” (Johnson, 2003), unethical behavior and wrongdoing both inside and outside the organization.
(4) When is Whistle Blowing Justified?
Is there a situation that whistle-blowing is justified? Can one act according to his or her conscience without being labeled “traitor” to the corporation? The answer is yes. When the public and corporation interests are positively related and the consequences of blowing the whistle will ultimately benefit the corporation, the whistle blower’s action is justified.
(4.1) Five Conditions under which whistle blowing is justified
Our text book listed the following conditions which state whistle-blowing is justified (Business Ethics, Joseph W. Weiss):
1. When the firm, through a product or policy, will commit serious and considerable harm to the public, the employee should report the firm.
Dr David Franklin, a microbiologist and former fellow of Harvard Medical School In 1996 sued Pfizer Inc. for medical fraud. Pfizer Inc. settled in 2004 and paid $430 million in fines. Franklin, under the whistle blowers act received $26.6 million. (http://www.corporatenarc.com/franklin.php)
2. When the employee identifies a serious threat of harm, he or she should report it and state his or her moral concern.
Dr. Jeffrey S. Wigand is a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson in Louisville, Kentucky, who worked on the development of reduced-harm cigarettes. Company's decisions involving the selection of ingredients in their cigarettes when on February 4, 1996 on the CBS news program 60 Minutes, he stated Brown & Williamson intentionally manipulates the tobacco blend to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarette smoke, thereby increasing the 'impact' to the smoker. (http://www.jeffreywigand.com/)
Dr. Wigand has received Ethical Humanist of the Year and Smoke-Free America Award in 1996. After that he has received numerous honors and awards for his dedicated work. (Complete award list: http://www.jeffreywigand.com/honors.php)
3. When the employee’s immediate supervisor does not act, the employee should exhaust the internal procedures and chain of command to the board of directors.
Mark Klein is a former AT&T technician who leaked knowledge of his company's cooperation with the United States National Security Agency in installing network hardware to monitor and process American telecommunications.
In recognition of his actions, the Electronic Frontier foundation picked Klein as one of the winners of its 2008 Awards. (http://www.salon.com)
4. The employee must have documented evidence that is convincing to a reasonable, impartial observer that his or her view of the situation is accurate and evidence that the firm’s practice, product, or policy seriously threatens and puts in danger the public or product user.
Douglas D. Keeth, a former corporate vice president for finance at United Technologies, which is based in Hartford, had participated in an internal investigation of the wrongdoing when the company first learned that its Sikorsky Aircraft division was billing the Pentagon for work it had not yet performed.
But when he reported these findings to corporate headquarters in March 1989, the unnamed managers first ordered that all copies of the report, including hundreds of pages of internal company memos, voice-mail messages, and records be destroyed. (New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com)
5. The employee must have valid reasons to believe that revealing the wrongdoing to the public will result in the changes necessary to remedy the situation. The chances of succeeding must be equal to the risk and danger the employee takes to blow the whistle.
Robert MacLean, who disclosed that the FAMS planned to remove air marshals from nonstop, long distance flights—the same type of aircraft used during the September 11 attacks in 2001, in order to avoid the cost of overnight hotel stay. (http://www.whistleblowers.org)
The conditions and examples that are listed above are the situations when whistle-blowing is justified. The whistle-blowers are acknowledged by the public and rewarded for their conscience and works. The corporations that are involved in the cases have been regulated for their own good and the interest for the people to be protected.
But we should also notice in some cases, whistle-blowing has put the whistleblower in a dangerous place. Satyendra Dubey, who accused employer NHAI of corruption in highway construction projects in India, in letter to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, assassinated on November 27, 2003. Marlene Garcia Esperat, a former analytical chemist for the Philippines Department of Agriculture who became a journalist to expose departmental corruption, was murdered for it in 2005. Even the example that has been mentioned before, Dr. Jeffery Wigand claims that he was subsequently harassed and received anonymous death threats. Without proper protection from the authorities, whistleblower’s rights might be seriously violated. They may not only face the normal consequences of losing jobs, ejected by the peers, but also lose their lives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers)
Federal government and local government have been trying to protect whistleblowers’ rights by setting up laws and regulations. Federal and State Laws Protect Whistleblowers, WB Protection Program, Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 Whistleblower Protection have been past to contributed to this matter. Nearly 30 states have their own whistle-blower protection laws. (National Whistle-blower Center. http://whistleblowers.nonprofitsoapbox.com)
To sum up, whistle-blowing can be justified in five conditions, each one of them occurred when the public and corporation interests are positively related and the consequences of blowing the whistle will ultimately benefit the corporation. Whistle blowing must be acknowledged and rewarded by the general public. The actions of whistle-blowing bring danger to whistleblowers, so the federal and local governments have been trying to protect them by enacting laws and regulations.
The moral dilemma of organizational loyalty versus personal ethics will always be an important issue. The justification for whistle-blowing and guidelines for potential whistle-blowers must be considered by employees before blowing the whistle and by corporations to prevent external whistle-blowing. (Business Ethics, Joseph W. Weiss)
(5) When is Whistle Blowing not justified
Whistle-blowing in 21 states has been protected by law, however, there are actions that some employees do in order to avoid retaliation which made the law weak. The causes and acts of whistle-blowing is not justified in many ways. According to the textbook, some employees expose false accusation. Their motivations is not justifiable or accurate. Therefore, Weiss listed the 5 instances when whistle-blowing is not justified as follows. (Weiss, 2009, p.387)
(5.1) Five Conditions under which whistle blowing is not justified
1. When the information shown is about the plans or operation that should be confidential because it would affect the performance of the organization.
2. When the information is irrelevant to the organization policies.
3. When the employees’ accusations do not show a conviction but affect the organization morale.
4. When the accusations affect the managers’ capability.
5. When employees object to their discharge, transfer, or demotion because the management’s unsatisfactory performance.
The textbook also talks about 12 factors that should be considered before blowing the whistle in order for employees to have a chance to think about the value of being a whistleblower and if those accusations benefit themselves or the organization.
Whistle-blowing can be either loyal or disloyal to an organization. If that complaint had a positive effect on the organization, it would be considered as organizational loyalty. On the other hand, the complaint that is from negative thinking, as well as the instances that I mentioned above, it would be interpreted as disloyalty to the organization. When employees know that some of the executives have been guilty of wrongdoing, they could either stay away and keep quiet or expose those unethical performances. To keep quiet is normally considered loyal, but to expose is always considered as betrayal. Employers might think that to blow the whistle is in order to threaten the profitability of the organization and undermine its reputation. While employees who discover some wrongdoing of top managers and try to be responsible for the society by blowing the whistle might think they are loyal to the organization. Therefore, this issue presents a question “Is whistle-blowing compatible with organizational loyalty?
Tina Uys discussed the role of loyalty in “Rational Royalty and WhistleBlowing” that the common law or contract of employment requires employees to act in good faith and in the best interest of the organization. The organization expects employee loyalty in 4 ways; obey any reasonable instruction of employees, conform to the values and norms of the organization, supposed to protect and promote reputation of the organization and have to remain to confidentiality (2008). However, “Loyal employees who blow the whistle often describe themselves as members who initiated whistle blowing because of their loyalty to the organization” (Miceli & Near, 1992). On the other hand, “Disloyal employees may be disgruntled, malevolent employees who disclose misconduct for their own personal gain” (Bather &Kelly, 2005). As long as those complaints are based on the law and maintain company’s benefits, it is believed and considered as organizational loyalty
Whistle-blowing is not justified when it is considered organizational disloyalty. Uys said that understanding loyalty as rational loyalty removes the dilemma of conflicting loyalties that the whistleblowers face (2008). Vandekckhove and Commers also support that loyalty is the explicit set of mission statements, goals value statement and code of conduct of the organization which is judged as legitimate (2004). Additionally, Uys gave the clear opinion about whistle blowing versus the organizational loyalty that as long as the complaint decrease the values and norms of the organization, employees would be considered disloyal and the whistle-blowing should not be justified.
According to a case study of the National Academic of Science, the whistle blower that shouldn’t be justified is presented as an example as follows:
Engineer A is employed by a large industrial company and assigned relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors. In this case, Engineer A gave his management supervisor the suggestion about the problem of one of the subcontractors. Unfortunately, the supervisor rejected his comments because the supervisor found that he redesigned the proposal of the work of subcontractor. However, Engineer A still trusted in his opinion and continued his conflict with the supervisor. As a result, he got three months’ of probation. During that period, he needed to improve his performance, or he would be terminated.
Engineer A blowed the whistle to his employer because he considered the course of conduct was improper related to public concerns and he insisted that his employer had an obligation to insure that subcontractors deliver equipment according to the specification.
However, Engineer A blew the whistle that was considered unjustified because he was upset that his employer did not accept his idea, therefore, his whistle blowing seems to be not for ethical duty but it becomes a matter of personal conscience.
(National Academy of Engineering, 2006)
(6) Managerial Steps to Prevent Whistle Blowing
(6.1) Attitude Toward Whistle-Blowing
Many people see the whistleblower as a "snitch," or a “lowlife who betrays a sacred trust largely for personal gain. A Whistleblowers faces the dichotomy of either choosing to be loyal to their organization first or to go externally for the better good. Given this dichotomy, whistleblowers may well encounter difficulties when they appeal internally or go public with information that may damage their companies.
So the question is, how does an organization create a culture that encourages employees to ask questions early? To point out issues and to show courage in confronting unethical or illegal practices? And then how can a company ensure that timely action is taken? In other words, how does an organization encourage internal whistle blowing? That is, to an authority within the organization, to preclude external whistle blowing and the resulting damage to an organization.
(6.2) Encouraging Internal Whistle-Blowing
As the previous section illustrates, whistle blowing to an external entity, such as the media or government agencies, has been a dangerous activity, both for the individual and the organization. The ambivalent attitude toward whistleblowers ensures that, even with legal protection, they may face retaliation in subtle ways: being shunned by co-workers, being closely supervised, or just feeling separated.
This section provides some best practices for encouraging employees to bring unethical or illegal practices to the forefront and addressing them before they become fatal to an organization.
The objectives of an internal whistle blowing program are:
· To encourage employees to bring ethical and legal violations they are aware of to an internal authority so that action can be taken immediately to resolve the problem.
· To minimize the organization's exposure to the damage that can occur when employees circumvent internal mechanisms.
· To let employees know the organization is serious about adherence to codes of conduct.
The barriers to a successful internal whistle blowing program are:
· A lack of trust in the internal system.
· Unwillingness of employees to be "snitches".
· Misguided union solidarity.
· Belief that management is not held to the same standard.
· Fear of retaliation.
· Fear of alienation from peers.
·
Although companies should seek to remove these barriers, it is also important to acknowledge some further matters. What if the whistleblower is retaliating against a supervisor with false accusations? What if the whistleblower is bringing genuine problems to the fore but is also a subpar employee? In that case, does the whistleblower get a free pass just because he or she exposed an issue? What should be done when it becomes clear that encouraging employees to bypass the proper channels is undermining management decision making? What if whistleblowers participated in the very actions they are now exposing, perhaps as a means of escaping the consequences of their participation? What if there is reason to suspect a whistleblower is targeting a specific employee because of his or her race, gender, or ethnicity? These are just a few of the issues to be considered in creating a whistle blowing culture.
(6.3) Steps for Creating a Whistle-Blowing Culture
(6.3.1) Create a Policy
A policy about reporting illegal or unethical practices should include
· Formal mechanisms for reporting violations or any wrongdoings, such as hotlines and mailboxes. Setting up hotlines or simply having a business culture where employee feedback is welcome, it demonstrates to employees that it is safe to raise concerns.
· Clear communications about the process of voicing concerns, such as a specific chain of command, or the identification of a specific person in the organization, such as a senior executive or a “human resources” professional.
· Clear communications about bans on retaliation.
·
Offer also reward systems that provide incentive for valid whistle-blowing and that would not only lessen employees’ fears of retaliation, it would give them also a financial inducement to step up.
In addition, a clear connection should exist between an organization's code of ethics and performance measures. For example, in the performance review process, employees can be held accountable not only for meeting their goals and objectives but also for doing so in accordance with the stated values or business standards of the company.
(6.3.2) Get Backing and Support from Top Management
Top management should demonstrate a strong commitment to encouraging whistle blowing. This message must be communicated by line managers at all levels, who are trained continuously in creating an open-door policy regarding employee complaints. Have managers teach compliance, company values, and good ethics decision-making to their direct reports. The best way for managers to learn those things is to teach them, and the best way for employees to learn is to be taught by their own managers. Discuss ethics in regular staff meetings throughout the year. Find out employees' opinions about the organization's culture in relation to its commitment to ethics and values. Such teaching involves managers and employees in discussion of ethics issues in a safe, training environment, and it opens the door for safe discussion of real ethics issues in the future in their normal working environment.
(6.3.3) Publicize the Organization's Commitment
To create a culture of openness and honesty, it is important that employees hear about the policy regularly. Top management should make every effort to talk about the commitment to ethical behavior in memos, newsletters, and speeches to company personnel. Publicly acknowledging and rewarding employees who pinpoint ethical issues is one way to send the message that management is serious about addressing issues before they become endemic.
(6.3.4) Investigate and Follow Up
Managers should be required to investigate all allegations promptly and thoroughly, and report the origins and the results of the investigation to a higher authority. For example, at IBM, a long-standing open-door policy requires that any complaint received must be investigated within a certain number of hours. Inaction is the best way to create cynicism about the seriousness of an organization's ethics policy.
(7) Conclusion
In the society and organizational world, citizens have the right of freedom of speech. The most delicate part of being able to speak freely is whether a person uses it for the person’s own personal benefit or for the benefits of corporation and society as a whole. For the organization to survive and compete in today’s competitive business world, the issue of Whistleblowing and organizational loyalty should be taken into serious consideration. Organization should have policies and mechanism to check and balance the Whistleblowing. For example, choosing whether employee should blow the whistle or not against his/her peers, colleagues, etc., following some rules and guidelines addressing above. Each whistle blower must be aware and understand the impacts of whistle blowing to him/her, the organization and to the society. When, and if, a person decides to blow the whistle he or she must have valid reasons for blowing the Whistle, therefore, to justify what he/she is about to do. Choosing to keep silent in order to prevent consequences like losing job, and even in extreme cases die, should again consider some factors and must prepare accordingly. Furthermore, as mention in a previous section above, organizations must be prepared and follow a series of managerial steps in order to prevent whistle-blowers from blowing the whistle. With the use of correct resources and procedures whistle blowing can always create loyalty base organizational environment.
(8) Reference List
Risk factors for mistreatment of whistleblowers. The Australian National University. Retrieved from http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/whistleblowing/ mobile_devices/ch06s03.html
Truelson J.A.(1989). Implication of Whistleblowing for Public Administration Education.
Policies studies review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 871-876. Retrieved November 12,
2009 from Business Source Database.
Whistleblowing: When it works..and Why.(2003). The Whistleblower impact on Agency.
Available from http://books.google.com/bookslivepage.apple.com?id=SwuCxfZn_kEC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=impact+of+whistleblowing&source
Whistleblowing in the organization (1992). What predict Whistle-blowing effectiveness?
We have a lot to learn. Available from
http://books.google.com/books?id=BmYa2NiKC0QC&pg=PT153&lpg=PA154&dq
=impact+of+whistleblowing+by+Micelli+and+Near+1992#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Miceli, M. P. and Near, J.P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The Organizational and Legal
Implications for Companies and Employees. New York: Lexington Books.
Online Ethics Center for Engineering. (2006). Whistleblowing – case no. 82-5, National Academy of Engineering. Retrieved October 11, 2009 from http:// onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ppcases/NSPEcases/BERindex/ WhistleblowingBER.aspx
Uys, T. (July, 2008). Rational loyalty and whistleblowing: South African Context. Current Sociology.
Vandekerckhove, W. and Commers, M.S. (2004). Whistle blowing and rational loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics.
Weiss, M.(2009). Business ethical: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Nelson Education, Ltd.
Ravishankar, L. Managerial steps to prevent whistle-blowing. Santa Clara University. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ submitted/whistleblowing.html
