Should You Become a Whistleblower? (Part 2)
When deciding whether to blow the
whistle, the observer has questions to ask himself[1]:
1.
Is the behavior wrong?
2.
If so, does anyone else have responsibility to
act to stop it but fails to act?
3.
If so, is the organization signaling it is not,
and will not be, responsive?
4.
If so, does she have an opportunity and a
responsibility to act?
5.
What are the expected costs and benefits of
action versus inaction?
There will be factors that argue against speaking out. An organization may enforce silence when managers
fear negative feedback and they believe that employees are untrustworthy and
management knows best. Policies and
practices may then evolve that restrict communications. In such a climate, a collective belief
develops that speaking up
about problems in the organization is not worth the effort and voicing one's
opinions and concerns is dangerous[2].
Loyalty, a powerful force in subduing dissent, serves the
valuable social purpose of binding people into groups and making them more
effective. In knowledge-based companies
like HomeFirst, workers are essential assets that must be protected and
contained[3]. The loyalty of employees, in the face of their
dangerous mobility, is a crucial objective of management[4]. Hostile responses to whistleblowing find
justification in the need to protect against disloyalty and the betrayal of
company secrets. However, loyalty can be
also granted to an unworthy object, even to a gang of thieves or murderers[5].
Whether a company deserves loyalty may be shown in how it fulfills
its stated purpose, and the purpose need not be highfalutin. A corporation that does an excellent job of
producing toilet paper, for example, at a good value for its customers and by
doing so meets the honest needs of society (without undue pollution and other
costs) and the reasonable requirements of its shareholders, may indeed be
worthy of employee loyalty[6].
Corporations are often complex and changing. They may pursue
a mix of competing objectives.
Their goals evolve over time so that it can be difficult to determine
precisely the proper object of loyalty.
In addition, customers, or more broadly stakeholders, often have
multiple and conflicting interests. In
the EHAP loan issue, HomeFirst chose to favor a group of foster care youth, services
to whom were well paid, to the detriment of other clients, who lived on the
street and might have liked to occupy the underfunded emergency shelter
beds. An employee’s loyalty to a
particular version of the company may form his willingness to become a
whistleblower.
Two important elements of loyalty[7]: first, loyalty is owed to the other only if
it is reciprocal; and second, one is loyal to another if and only if he wants
what is really best for the other.
Mutuality requires that if the loyal employee remains and works
diligently through hard times, then the employer has a moral obligation to show
a similarly loyal support to the employee.
Employee loyalty can require working longer hours and even taking a pay
cut to benefit the company, which should provide compensating benefits when
times improve.
The bond of mutual loyalty within an organization clashes
with the employment-at-will practiced in California and many other states. My employment offer letter was clear:
HomeFirst was “an ‘at-will’ employer.
Accordingly, either you or [HomeFirst] can terminate the employment
relationship at will, at any time, with or without cause or advance
notice.” Every year the employee
handbook reminded employees of this relationship.
While loyalty to the employer may be a reasonable expectation
in certain circumstances, other, higher values may justify whistleblowing. Disclosure may be viewed simply an
exercise of the basic human right to free speech[8]. The observer may point to his overriding
responsibilities as a finance professional or a CPA, for example. The whistleblower may hope to improve the organization's opderational efficiency or to better fulfill its responsibility to stakeholders, its
accountability to society, or its mission and values[9]. Alternatively, this line of argument may
simply attempt to redefine loyalty ad hoc
so that the otherwise vile whistleblowing appears morally acceptable[10].
On the other hand, companies may not be fit objects for loyalty
because a company is not an end in itself, as a person is, but an instrument
for the purpose of making money and providing goods and services. An employee may feel a loyalty to – or, in
nonprofit terminology, a passion for – the provision of goods and services but not
to the instrument that facilitates that objective. For its part, a company seeks loyalty not for
ethical reasons but because loyal employees are easier to manage. Absent the loyalty requirement,
whistleblowing is not just permissible but obligatory when the company is
harming society[11].
Whether or not employees should be loyal to their
employers, they appear mindful of the employment-at-will nature of their
positions. In January 2014 the average
tenure for employees in the U.S. private sector was 4.6 years[12]. In the area of social assistance, where HomeFirst
employees were classified, the 2014 average was just 3.2 years. From 2008 through 2012, the median tenure of HomeFirst
employees who terminated was a bit over five months, a term depressed by
the many temporary employees that were hired and then fired for the shelter
programs. Excluding temporary employees,
HomeFirst’s average employee tenure was close to the national average, but far
from joined for life.
Placing corporate loyalty on the highest pedestal seems preposterous
on its face. To some, corporate loyalty
is a vicious hoax that causes both employers and employees to delay decisions
that will need to be taken in the end anyway.
The sham is exposed when one of the parties eventually trades loyalty
for self-interest in a voluntary or involuntary termination[13]. Yet few are as openly disdainful of loyalty
as NetFlix’s CEO, whom Ethisphere Institute named one of the 100 most
influential in business ethics in 2015[14]:
loyalty is useful as a stabilizer but little else[15].
The ethical arguments for and against whistleblowing emerge
more from one’s emotional preference and institutional investment than from philosophical
analysis. Lacking a theoretical basis
for deciding whether to disclose a perceived wrong, the observer must rely on
his estimation of the practical consequences of blowing the whistle.
[1] Miceli, Marcia P., Janet P. Near, and Terry
Morehead Dworkin. Whistle-blowing
in Organizations. New York: Rutledge. 2008
[2] Morisson, Elizabeth
Wolfe and Frances J. Milliken. “Organizational
Silence: A Barrier to Change and
Development in a Pluralistic World.” Academy of Management Review, 25.4 (2000):
706-725
[4] Alvesson, Mats. “Social
Identity and the Problem of Loyalty in Knowledge-intensive Companies.”
Journal of Management Studies 37.8 (December 2000): 1101-1123
[5] Ewin, R.E. “Corporate
Loyalty: Its Objects and Its Grounds.” Journal of Business Ethics 12
(1993): 387-396
[6] Ibid
[7] Stieh, James A. “Clearing
Up the Egoist Difficulty with Loyalty.” Journal of Business Ethics. 63
(2006): 75-87
[8] Lindblom, Lars. “Dissolving
the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing.” Journal of Business Ethics 76 (2007):
413-426
[9] Vandekerkhove, Wim
and M.S. Ronald Commers. Whistleblowing
and Organizational Social Responsibility.
Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Company. 2006
[10] Varelius, Jukka. “Is
Whistle-blowing Compatible with Employee Loyalty?” Journal of Business
Ethics 85 (2009): 263-275
[11] Duska, Ronald. “Whistleblowing and Employee
Loyalty.” In Contemporary
Issues in Business Ethics. DesJardins, Joseph R. and John J. McCall (eds.)
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1985 and Duska, Ronald. Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
2007
[12] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, “Employee
Tenure Summary.” September 18, 2014
[13] Carbone, James H. “Loyalty: Subversive
Doctrine?” Academy of Management Executive. 11.3 (1997): 80-86
No comments:
Post a Comment