Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing
"Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing" refers to the act of going against authority or rules, and the act of reporting unethical or illegal activities within an organization, respectively. Both concepts are relevant in understanding individual behavior within social structures and the ethical dilemmas that individuals may face when confronted with unjust or harmful situations.
4 Key excerpts on "Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing"
eBook - ePubFinancial Compliance
Issues, Concerns and Future Directions
- Maria Krambia-Kapardis, Maria Krambia-Kapardis(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
...4), which describes it as “the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to affect action”. In essence, the “whistleblower attempts to exert power to change the behaviour of some members of the organization” (Near and Miceli 1995, p. 686) to address non-compliance with laws, regulations or organizational ethical standards, as reflected in the organization’s code of ethics and policies. Internal whistleblowing refers to reporting channels inside the organization (to people such as compliance officers) while external whistleblowing typically refers to reporting channels outside the organization (such as media or regulators) (Miceli et al. 2008). While a lot of legislative attention has developed over the years on the protection of whistleblowers, in many instances it has not been effective in protecting whistleblowers or encouraging whistleblowing. This is likely a consequence of the perception of whistleblowing by management as disloyal and costly, despite research evidence that shows the benefits of whistleblowing and its appropriate management (Miceli et al. 2009). Near and Miceli (2008) find that “policy actions by lawmakers aimed at increasing the penalties for wrongdoing … and increasing sensitivity to wrongdoing may have more impact on the incidence of whistleblowing than laws aimed at reducing retaliation against whistleblowers. If executives terminate wrongdoing when informed about it, then observers of wrongdoing may be more likely to blow the whistle” (p. 278). They further speculate that a clear understanding by executives of what constitutes wrongdoing (by societal, legal or organizational standards) and the penalties they will incur if wrongdoing continues is likely to result in them being more receptive to whistleblower disclosures and more willing to terminate reported wrongdoing...
eBook - ePubResearch Ethics for Scientists
A Companion for Students
- C. Neal Stewart(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
...Chapter 7 Research Misconduct: Falsification and Whistleblowing ABOUT THIS CHAPTER One of the most difficult decisions a scientist makes is when and how to report a case of research misconduct. The decision has important consequences for the reporter and reportee as well as other people in the lab and university. Reporting misconduct discovered as a reviewer is easier than blowing the whistle on a colleague, but this should not be done casually. Science integrity is our corporate responsibility, but there are many procedural considerations to be weighed up when contemplating blowing the whistle. Integrity is tested when misdeeds are observed and a scientist is left with a difficult decision: report misconduct, or not? How is it done? What about the special instance in which it is believed that a student's colleague or mentor is making up data? What are the consequences? Whistleblowing is not for the faint of heart, since there are many documented examples of retribution and unintended negative consequences that do not favour the whistleblower. Indeed, great courage is required by responsible scientists to face unpleasant facts and do the right thing for the sake of science integrity. This chapter is perhaps the most important one in this book inasmuch as it, in many ways, defines professional ethics in research science. The chapter integrates mentorship, responsible conduct in research, grantsmanship, research pressure, with the responsibility we all share as citizens in science. Whistleblowing takes its meaning from reporting wrongdoing, e.g., a crime in society or breaking the rules in a game, say, when a policeman blows the whistle on a criminal or a referee whistles a foul in sports. In all cases, the perpetrator is not very happy with the whistle being blown and many other people are often dismayed as well (e.g., think about your reaction when your favourite football team is called for a penalty). Almost nobody seemingly appreciates the whistleblower...
eBook - ePubWhistleblowing
In Defense of Proper Action
- Wojciech W. Gasparski(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...At the same time one should stress that a public debate between management and employees of the company on the directions of development of the company or informing the competition of unethical practices in the parent company is not a symptom of the phenomenon of whistleblowing. 3. The Whistleblower’s Dilemma How should an employee behave if he or she is encouraged by his company to violate socially approved moral norms, e.g., lying or concealing the truth, violating the privacy of other persons for the sake of some immediate goal of the company? What should an employee do when he or she knows that production of his company is harmful to the environment or its products are dangerous for users? In many cases the only way of avoiding or reducing the wrongdoing was for an employee to go public with news of abuses committed by his company. However, an employee going public with news of such or other abuses is generally not highly regarded by the management of the company and other employees. He or she is perceived as “a bird that fouls in its own nest” or as a person violating the principle “dirty laundry has to be washed at home,” as someone who harms his own company. As a result of his actions the company may lose orders, contracts, positive image, customers and other employees may lose their jobs. Examples from real life show that whistleblowers are squelched in various ways, sacked, intimidated, blackmailed, and ostracized at work. The discussion taken up in the 1990s on the ethical appraisal of whistleblowers is reminiscent of the discussion on civil disobedience of the 1960s, because the essence of these phenomena is similar. The following arguments are presented in the matter of employee whistle-blowing (Boatright, 1997; DeGeorge 1990). On the one hand, it is argued that disclosure by an employee of the abuses of his company violates his relation with his employer, which is a relation between an agent and a principal...
eBook - ePubWhistleblowing, Communication and Consequences
Lessons from The Norwegian National Lottery
- Peer Jacob Svenkerud, Jan-Oddvar Sørnes, Larry Browning, Peer Jacob Svenkerud, Jan-Oddvar Sørnes, Larry Browning(Authors)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...College students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53, 40–55. Khan, R. (2018). Whistleblower: Warrior, saboteur or snitch? Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2018/07/05/whistleblower-warrior-saboteur-or-snitch/#53bb06736362. Leeds, R. (1963). Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 229–240. Liebes, T., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2004). It takes two to blow the whistle: Do journalists control the outbreak of scandal? American Behavioral Science, 47, 1153–1170. Loyens, K. (2013). Towards a custom-made whistleblowing policy. Using grid-group cultural theory to match policy measures to different styles of peer reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 239–249. McGlynn, J., & Richardson, B. K. (2014). Public support, private alienation: Whistle-blowers and the paradox of social support. Western Journal of Communication, 78 (2), 213–237. Miceli, M., & Near, J. (1997). Whistleblowing as antisocial behavior. In R. A. Giacalone & D. B. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382668. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20, 679–708. O’Sullivan, P., & Ngau, O. (2014). Whistleblowing: A critical philosophical analysis of the component moral decisions of the act and some new perspectives on its moral significance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23, 401-415. Park, Y. J., & Jang, S. M. (2017). Public attention, social media, and the Edward Snowden saga. First Monday, 11. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7818/6517 Quigley, B., Gaes, G. G., & Tedeschi, J. T...
