Should You Become a Whistleblower? (Part 3)

Should You Become a Whistleblower? (Part 3)

Consciously or not, each potential whistleblower calculates the significance of the wrongdoing and the possible attractions in voicing dissent against the perceived deterrents to speaking out.  A 2014 survey[1] found that those who eventually reported misconduct externally gave a variety of reasons:

-          50%        Problem was on-going and the reporter thought an outsider could stop it

-          45%        Reporter did not trust anyone in company

-          40%        Company retaliated after an internal report

-          39%        Reporter feared being fired without outside help

-          36%        Company acted on an internal report but not in a satisfactory manner

-          29%        Company did not act on internal report

-          29%        Reporter thought that keeping quiet would get company in big trouble

-          22%        Reporter was afraid for safety

-          14%        Reporter saw potential for substantial monetary award

More than having reasons for speaking out, an individual may have a moral obligation to blow the whistle when[2]

-          Others will be harmed if no action is taken

-          The observer has the ability to act

-          The observer is in a position to act

-          No one else is likely to act

-          The act will not be entirely futile

But I think that these standards do not push the observer forcefully enough to speak out.  Determining who will be harmed if the wrong is not disclosed becomes difficult when white-collar crimes are involved[3].  Close inspection and a good imagination were necessary to decide who was harmed by what I called HomeFirst’s wrongs.

In most organizations there is usually someone else who also is capable, proximate, and a possible last resort even if apathetic bystanders are not legion.  When I disclosed HomeFirst acts that I considered violations, CEO Jenny, the Program Officer, the Development Officer, members of the Board and various program managers were available to play the whistleblower but eluded that role.  Perceptions of the likelihood of success may diminish over time as earlier disclosures prove ineffective, but that should not diminish the responsibility to disclose wrongdoings.  Although identifying our failure to pay the minimum wage rate to New Start clients or to pay their payroll taxes was unlikely to be productive (given responses to my earlier complaints), that pessimistic view should not have discouraged disclosure.

Interviews of whistleblowers suggest a different set of reasons or ethical bases for the actions taken by the whistleblowers[4]:

-          Imagination for consequences: seeing what will happen as result of wrongdoing (such as the deaths of injured parties)

-          Sense of historical moment: whistleblower just happened to be the one there at the right time; it was the time to act

-          Identification with the victim

-          Inability to live double lives: ethical at home, unethical at work

-          Sense of shame

But these reasons do not resonate with me in my dealings with Jenny and Board members.  I imagined no horrific consequences to the wrongs.  I was in the right place and time, but I had not acted in similar past situations.  I sympathized with the victims, but I did not identify with them as Jenny or the Board Chair might have due to family members’ past homelessness.  I had managed to live with ethical conflict often enough in the past, and I felt no shame from it. 

More relevant for me was Alford’s finding that most of the whistleblowers he studied were moved principally by something more basic: a “choiceless choice”[5] and the sense that the whistleblower, driven by principle, could not have done otherwise despite the fact that, for many, the act meant sacrificing career, family and home.  A moral narcissism drives the whistleblower, and it is not always pretty or heroic. 

Life being short and uncertain, our stories help us along[6].  The whistleblower’s story – the one that leads her to the point of disclosing a perceived wrong – is formed over a lifetime of observations and evaluations[7].  Deciding not to become a whistleblower when you sense that should, it seems to me, risks denying that precious and necessary story of your life.  

I confess that many people have shown little emotional interest in my whistleblowing beyond a general sympathy with my discomfort.  I suppose that such an activity is not part of their stories, at least at that point in their lives.  If it is part of your story, becoming a whistleblower will probably have consequences that make you uncomfortable, but remaining silent may have even more damaging consequences.

---

[1] Ethics Resource Center. “National Business Ethics Survey of the U.S. Workforce.” 2014

[2] Duska, Ronald, Brenda Shay Duska and Julia Regatz. Accounting Ethics. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 2011

[3] Friedrichs, David O. Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society. 3^rd ed. Belmont, Cal.: Thomson Higher Education. 2007

[4] Alford, C. Fred. Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 2001

[5] Ibid

[6] May, Todd.  A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  2015

[7] Murdock, Iris.  The Sovereignty of Good. London and New York: Routledge. 1970 (1989 reprint)