Professional in large organization: Loyalty, dissent, and whistleblowing People have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to the public that might come with little cost or at a cost of their professional career. Whistleblowing is an act of expressing misconduct, alleged dishonesty or illegal activities either within an organization or publicly by an individual or a group. In an organization, there are different sectors that perform their specific tasks. As a human, we all have a moral obligation to act on behalf of public good whether we are professionals or not. Whistleblowing, a topic of controversy generally raises several ethical issues in the society because of its multifaceted nature and the different perceptions of people towards …show more content…
I agree with the author De George’s claim that management should be the one who is liable of consequences not the engineers. Analyzing ‘The Pinto’ situation on the basis of professionalism, the Ford engineer performed at their best to design the Pinto within the timeframe assigned to them. Apart from designing, they had recommended to add $6.95 part to minimize the possible risk to public, considering public safety; however it was the management that failed to perform their moral duty and made wrong decision which would later cost them a lot of money, it’s market value and more importantly those precious lives. This suggests the prevalence of authoritarian management in the society where there are constraints on proper design, authority, and professional roles. In fact, it is true that to be loyal is an ethical duty of employee because it strengthens the relationship between the employer and colleagues. But it is necessary to understand the true meaning and value of loyalty.. For example, if an employer who is acting immorally is not acting in her best interests and the employee blows the whistle realizing the fact that it is even more immoral to not report and to ignore the immoral conduct; it would not be the violation of loyalty towards employer because that might prevent someone from engaging in self-destructive …show more content…
In contrast to Larmer, DeGeorge states that there should be a certain rule of thumb before any workers go in public to disclose information about the safety of a product. I would analyze the Larmer’s instance as a positive attitude of employee towards his employer. Even though the act of disclosing information about the unethical issues sounds disloyal, it can be of significantly important in turning the table of wrongdoing to withdrawl of those practices. However, it is morally wrong to accuse somebody without enough evidences,which DeGeorge defines as a rule of thumb. As he states, “ if the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable; if employees make their concerns known to their superiors; and if getting no safisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors. If they still get no action, they are morally permitted to make public their views; but they are not morally obliged to do so.” I think DeGeorge is correct becuasue whistleblowing should also progress in a natural course of cause and effect. Only when there is enough grounds to justify or clarify the wrongdoing, there is possibility of successful whistleblowing that ensures safety of
Corruption is a persistent problem that plagues the world and it knows no boundaries. Transparency International defines it as the “abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (2013). For the purposes of this thread, ‘corruption’ is defined as any individual, collective, or structural act or process that permits the use of public authority or position for private gain. This definition captures the broad and many ways individuals and institutions abuse power and the public trust. In regard to whistleblowing, much conflict stems from the context in which the whistleblower is viewed. We will examine the case of NYPD Narcotics Detective Frank Serpico who was regarded a snitch and a rat by fellow officers who were on the take and complete a what would you do dilemma.
First I will be telling you about the pressure of being a “whistleblower”. In Fahrenheit 451 the pressure of being a “whistleblower” is so real, everyone is told to rat out everyone who has a book in their household, if they find out they have a book in the home it is burned to the ground. This is related to our society because we are pressured to do what is right, and part of my belief system is to do what is right and to point out what is wrong. For example if someone were to gossip behind their back I would try to stand up and tell them it is wrong and tell the person what the others said
According to a particularist, there is something defective with the whole process of coming up with a general standard of action of current problems. The acknowledgment of a judgment of what you should do, and then doing whatever the theory says depends on the involvement of a person and the situation. The theory that I can best relate to would be particularism due to the fact I don’t believe in following just one specific rule, being having to pick right from wrong. Particularism comes from the category of teleology, which are methods that are out to find the meaning or purpose of our lives, and judge our success or failure based on how well we have pursued that purpose.
Bouville (2008) describes whistleblowing as an act for an employee of revealing what he believes to be unethical or described as an illegal behaviour to a higher management (internal whistleblowing) or to an external authority or the public (external whistleblowing). Whistle-blowers are often seen as traitors to an organisation as they are considered to have violated the loyalty terms of that organisation while some are described as heroes that defend the values and ethics of humanity rather than loyalty to their company. In the medical community, it is the duty of a practitioner aware of patient care being threatened to make it known to those in charge and for those in charge to address the issues and act on it. The General Medical Council (GMC) stipulated this act of raising concern as a doctor’s duty in its Good medical practice guide. This paper will be based on the analysis of the experience of whistle blowers, reasons why they chose or chose not to take such actions and personal opinions on whistleblowing in the medical community.
Whistle blowing according to Boatright, “is the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and /or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest”. (2009).
The act of whistle-blowing is an ethical issue that all employees have the right to. Whether they decide to make the corrupt information known publicly or anonymously, the information they provide can protect everyone involved. The ethical and moral sides of whistle-blowing can go both ways. In order to protect the customers, patients, or consumers of the harmful products the companies are offering, employees that have morals and feel the need to make the truth be known have an ethical responsibility to do so. Issues of being a whistle-blower are more controversial than the responsibilities of the employees doing so. When a whistle-blower takes action, they expose information from their company that it not meant to be public. They basically turn their backs away from their company and colleagues by revealing the truth. When surveying these issues, an employee who is torn by exposing information or keeping silent must decide whether it is more ethical to stay loyal to their organization or to the organization's
The company has a culture of unquestioning when something wrong surfaced in the company. Take for example the Lockheed documents incident, where the 25000 documents were seen in the company for nearly 3 years before someone voiced his concerns regarding it. This unhealthy culture not only allows unethical practices to prevail, it also hinders company’s growth.
The article’s purpose is to clarify the thin line between patriotism and treason in a whistleblowing action. Depending on the information available for the public to digest, many people could have different opinions on the whistleblower (s) and their intentions. The author discusses a case of Tim Priest, who disagreed with his management’s new policies and the way they were applied in practice, thus publicly announcing the hidden truths about the department. Priest worked for the police department as a detective sergeant. Questions of his intentions about disclosing the authority’s dishonest actions were raised amidst the investigation.
In this climate of deteriorating government transparency, whistleblowers expose corruption to the public which may otherwise never come to light. In recent history, whistleblowers have been vital in revealing government corruption. In one of the first large scale leaks, “the whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg leaked US government files known as the Pentagon Papers, whi...
Organizations that are more established and prosperous will have a more favorable way of looking at acts of whistleblowing and will have more resources at its disposal to devote to investigate the claims of the whistleblowers. On the other hand those firms which are less prosperous may see acts of whistleblowing as a threat to their existence and, have a hostile climate in general towards whistleblowing. The acts of whistleblowing may be perceived differently by different people in the organization. The superiors and the supervisors of the whistleblower may see such an act as questioning their ability, integrity and conduct. The fellow employees and colleagues may perceive the whistleblower as being disloyal to the company and the owners and the top management may see it as an effort on the part of the whistleblower to destroy the organizational image and threaten its stability. It is thus difficult to predict the outcomes across organizations in case of whistleblowing. A number of factors determine the outcome but these factors and the outcome itself vary from organization to organization and from individual to individual (Paul and Townsend,
“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius Quotes, 2012). The person who does her duty, at great risk to her own interest, when most others would defy from fear is considered a hero (Schafer, 2004). Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a hero who blew the whistle on Apotex, University of Toronto (U of T) and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC); and fought for her academic rights till the end. Whistle-blowing refers to actions of an employee that breach her loyalty to the organization but serves the public interest. When other constraints proved to be ineffective, whistle-blowing acts as a check on authority of the organization. Whistle-blowers expose severe forms of corruption, waste, and abuse of power within their organization and put the organization in a position where it is answerable to the public, thus enhancing its accountability (Cooper, 2006, pg. 198-205).
On November 29th, Mary Inman gave us a talk on the topic whistleblowing, which let me know more about the whistleblower activities and the whistleblower protection. According to the definition given by the website whistleblowers international, whistleblowing is someone who reveal the unethical or illegal activities within the company. The person can be current or past employee, or an outside individual who is familiar with the unethical activity. This whistleblower does not need to be U.S. citizen.
Whistleblowing is an ethical procedure when there is clear evidence of serious evidence, that will harm the public and the blower has tried to find an internal solution to effect change. The whistleblower who is associated with the unethical activity has a moral responsibility to do the right thing.
The level of importance that is given to the whistleblower and whistleblowers depends on its nature, its political contexture, and media portrayal. In this scenario, the supervisor made decisions oblivious to the facts presented by his staff and scientists’ opinions. The problem relied on HNF supervisor Girton lack of consideration to address the concerns of the majority and his own subordinates. The dissatisfaction
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.