Name: Mayank Dubey ID No.

: 2018A2PS0127P

Whistle Blowing:
Whistle Blowing has always been a controversial topic as the conditions wherein a person
should or shouldn’t go ahead with it have always been really fuzzy. The increasing
confidentiality in companies and blurring of moral lines has made this a very important topic.
This has seen a huge change with the advent of Professional Ethics in the working of the
organizations, which has led to it being observed as more than just a breach of loyalty but
also a moral duty of the employee towards the society.
What is Whistle Blowing?
Whistle Blowing has been commonly defined as, “the release of confidential information
voluntarily by a current or former member of the organization as a sign of moral protest to an
appropriate audience via means outside the normal channels of communication about conduct
that is either illegal or immoral or against public interest.” This definition manages to
encompass a lot of different aspects of whistle blowing, of which a few observations stand
out.
Firstly, the person blowing the whistle has to be someone within the organization and can’t
be someone outside it, i.e. someone outside the organization or a member of the press is
under no obligation to not reveal any incriminating information in the public domain.
Whereas, an employee has an obligation towards the employer as they came about the
information during the course of their work for the employer.
Second, the information that is revealed by the employee must not only be confidential but
also be either bringing to light certain facts the public did not know or making them
understand the significance of this information which was earlier kept secret. This statement
manages to encompass the major difference between “blowing the whistle” and “sounding
the alarm”, where the latter refers to taking a stance opposite to your employer regarding
information already in the public domain.
Third, the information should contain evidence of certain illegal or immoral activity within
the organization or such information that is against the public interest although it may very
well be within the legal limits and domain. This may also contain information which, if
revealed could prevent something seriously wrong from happening. Any other information
that is revealed to expose incompetent/self-serving management or to influence the course of
some events is not considered as whistle blowing.
Fourth, the information must be revealed outside the established channels of communication.
For example, many companies allow the employees to write directly to the CEO with
complete assurance of anonymity whereas some other companies employ someone called an
“ombudsman” who takes care of the employees’ complaints. Therefore, any employee
following any such methods of reporting wrongdoing is not considered to be a whistle
blower. Also, the authority to which the information is passed on to is also pretty relevant as
simply passing on the information to a higher up or third party doesn’t constitute whistle
blowing, but instead the press is often considered an appropriate source of whistle blowing as
it ensures that the information ultimately reaches the concerned authorities.
Fifth, the information must be declared voluntarily and must not be coerced using legal
measures as has been done in the past in various cases. This means that if a person is forced
to reveal certain information as part of a trial, then he can’t be called a whistle blower as he
had little choice but to reveal the concerned information.
Sixth, the act must be done as a sign of moral protest and not as one for advancing one’s own
ambitions or seek revenge. This dictates the employee must clearly introspect about the
emotions involved in revealing the information before actually committing the act.
Conditions for Justified Whistle Blowing
Whistle Blowing as an act seems to be completely justified as an act of public good and
welfare, but this also leads to immense harm for both the organization and the individual.
Thus, this act needs to be carefully contemplated before proceeding with the same. Thus, an
employee must weigh the public service being done be them against the extreme effect this
would have on the bonds of trust between the employee and the employer. Some questions
help us simplify this decision.
Is the situation morally important enough to warrant whistle-blowing? This question begs the
answer as to whether or not the damage that could be cause by the information remaining
confidential is imminent enough or is damaging enough to outweigh the repercussions of
blowing the whistle. For example, considering a drug with certain undisclosed side effects
which is very effective, it needs to be weighed as to whether or not whistle blowing is
beneficial enough to blow over the damage and suffering caused by taking it off the market.
Also, whether or not the faults in a construction project on the drawing board are imminent
enough to warrant the trouble of blowing the whistle.
Does one understand the significance and have all the facts? The information presented by
the employee must be beyond reproach, as they have a strong obligation towards the people
being accused of the wrongdoing to make sure the charges are well-founded. The opinion of
the employee must not be based on one-sided information, which is mostly the case with
lower level employees who specialize in one particular field and jump to wrong conclusions
with the little information they possess about matter better judged by higher level managers.
In case the charges are well founded, the evidence must be enough to meet the ordinary
charges of legal preponderance.
Have all alternative steps to whistle blowing been accounted for? Whistle blowing must only
be used as a last resort wherein every other possible step has either been exhausted or if the
whistle blowing within the organization would be too slow to avoid a certain disaster in time.
It is also acceptable in the case wherein the organization itself is so involved in the
wrongdoing that using them has little probability of success. Even Courts don’t consider a
case wherein all the possible internal options haven’t already been exhausted. Most
corporations have thus set up systems which allow employees to express their concern
internally, thus avoiding the hassle and risks of whistle blowing. Moreover, almost all the
organizations involve taking up the matter with their immediate seniors before proceeding
further unless they are themselves part of the problem.
What is the best way to actually blow the whistle? Once a person has decided to actually go
ahead and do the deed, they must decide on the best possible course of action to disclose the
information. The information might be disclosed in various ways, it may be done by sending
an anonymous tip to the concerned authorities which might be enough to spark an
investigation into the matter without violating any major duty of confidentiality or it may as
well be done by contacting the local authorities, press or prosecuting attorney. The whistle
blower must be careful to present the charges in an objective and responsible manner, by
sticking to the issue at hand and refraining from making personal attacks at the people
involved in order to avoid being painted as a disgruntled or radical employees or anything
else that taints the whistle blower’s credibility.
How responsible are they corresponding to their current role? An employee has certainly
more obligation and is also a lot more justified regarding matters on which the person has
direct responsibility as opposed to professionals like lawyers, engineers and accountants, who
have the obligation to blow the whistle under certain circumstances and are restricted or
prohibited to do so under others.
What is the probability of success? It is only worth whistle blowing if there is a significant
chance of success. The whistle blower must make a convincing enough case and attract
enough attention to be successful in their endeavour.
Loyalty and The Loyal Agent Argument:
There is tremendous debate on the fact whether or not whistle blowing is an act of disloyalty
or not. This completely depends on the definition of loyalty adopted by the reader. On one
hand, it can be said that loyalty is following orders and not rocking the boat, which would
make the whistle blower disloyal whereas, it can also be said that loyalty is commitment to
the true interests or goals of the organization, in which case, whistle blowing can be
considered an act of loyalty towards the organization.
This argument is further intensified by The Loyal Agent Argument, which says that
employees have an obligation towards the employer in keeping certain information
confidential and to be loyal. This argument is further provided credence by the law which
legalises the duty of the agents to be loyal to the organization.
Conclusion:
We can safely conclude by saying that the decision as to whether or not blow the whistle is
one of the toughest decisions one might have to make. This task is not made easier by the fact
that the person has to weigh the public’s good and their loyalty towards the organization
while simultaneously considering the extremely high stakes involved in the same. But, the
framework and guidelines laid down by the ethical code not only greatly simplifies the task
of deciding when to blow the whistle but also how to do the task, and should certainly be
used as a guide rule for making such a decision.