Case Analysis Of Whistleblowing

An ethical dilemma of internal whistleblowing was occurred to Michael Foss, the Chief Executive Officer of Global Aid, when he had been struggling to report to the Promotion Selection Committee that Brad Miller, who was one of the candidates, was complained by an anonymous e-mail of harassing another staff member. Foss’s decision is determined by a set of values of three factors: organisational culture, Utilitarianism and Kantianism.

“Organisational culture is a pattern of shared beliefs, values, and behaviours that a social community embraces” (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin, 2012). Languages, habits, attitude and rituals that performed by members of a group composes the organisational culture. It invites and influences individual to identify with an organisation. The Global Aid’s Policy –such as ‘Global Aid shall take any and all necessary steps to eliminate and prevent its (any form of discrimination or harassment) occurrence on campus”— had reflected the company held strong stance and saturnine attitude against sexual harassment. Correspondingly, as the CEO of the organisation, it is Foss’s duty to report the allegation of sexual harassment against Brad to the Promotion Selection Committee. However, Foss was hesitant to communicate and present this negative news to the Committee. Behaviour of such a reluctance happens within a semantic-information distance, that in a supervisor-subordinate relationship, supervisors are inclined to “communicate a more positive image than they actually perceive” (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin, 2012). Foss’s hesitation on reporting the anonymous email is an epitome of ethical dilemma between Utilitarianism and Kantianism.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical doctrine that made on the basis of “...

... middle of paper ...

... then it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

From the perspective of Kantianism, it is a more ethical action for Foss not to tell the Promotion Selection Committee that Brad was being complained by an anonymous e-mail of harassing another staff member. According to the case, it was an allegation of sexual harassment only. There was an absent of ocular proof. In regard to the categorical imperative, if I were Brad, I would never want to be either I or someone else was deprived of job promotion because of an allegation filed by an anonymous e-mail. Since the idea of depriving a job promotion is self-frustrating, reporting to the Promotion Selection Committee that Brad was engaging in an allegation does not comply with the ethics of Kantianism.