Silence Breakers, #MeToo, and Whistleblowing
Time’s Person of
the Year 2017 is the Silence Breakers, women who have raised their voices
against sexual misbehavior. They may be whistleblowers,
but not all in the traditional sense.
Unlike the rest of us, they have started a firestorm.
Whistleblowing has been defined in various ways. One early (1985) version put it:
the disclosure by organization members
(former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the
control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to
effect action[1]
In some ways this reading covers a broad range of actors. It includes, for example, those who, like me,
reveal relatively minor misdeeds. Some
ethicists think only disclosures of big crimes are worthy. Also, it does not limit the behavior we
disclose to violations of law, which is demanded by most whistleblower
protection laws.
It is, though, restrictive in other respects. It expects the whistleblower to be part of
the offending organization, making loyalty a potent issue. It demands that the wrong be actual rather
than merely suspected, as most laws now allow.
Further, it requires the disclosure be made to someone who can fix the
problem. Just telling journalists doesn’t
count.
The Silence Breakers – and #MeToo, Time’s Up,
and other movement participants – call out possible wrongs, but not always
those committed by organizations where they are members. As a result, formal channels often don’t exist
for registering their complaints, and those they approach may be unable to fix
anything.
Every whistleblower’s charge is denied by her accused, but
Silence Breakers are subject to especially wide-ranging denials and critiques. Among the bad guys, Harvey Weinstein said his
relations were consensual. Donald Trump called
his accusers liars. Bill O’Reilly
said there was nothing to the claims made against him even as Fox was paying
$32 million in his newest settlement.
Similar denials arise in corporate fraud cases, of course. For example, Wells Fargo refused to admit
government claims when it agreed to pay
$50 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and $35
million to the U.S. Comptroller for fraudulently opening customer accounts. And when it settled for $108
million claims it improperly charged fees on veterans’ mortgages. Again when it agreed to pay $766
million for improperly foreclosing mortgages. And when it agreed to change its practices and
to pay $4 million
for improperly repossessing the service members’ cars.
We expect accused wrongdoers to deny our claims. But kibitzers like to weigh in on what
Silence Breakers report. A hundred French
female public figures believe that the matters demand a more nuanced
understanding of sexual relations. Matt
Damon cautioned not to conflate casual sexual offense with sexual
assault. Then under pressure he walked
his comment back. A woman’s report of abuse by
Aziz Ansari was followed by impassioned criticism
and support.
Deciding if a behavior was really wrong is difficult in any whistleblower case. For some the rankness of the act
makes it more clearly wrong. For others
any offense is worth proclaiming.
Even more basic than the question whether behavior is right
or wrong is: who cares[2]? Whose interests are harmed may decisive. I accused
HomeFirst of several violations, but no one really cared. The financial stakes could have been too
small. Or maybe the injured were just homeless
folks and none was seriously hurt.
The interests harmed are not always those of the general
public. Many whistleblowers disclose misdeeds
that affect them personally. Their
paychecks bounce. They are denied paid
breaks or overtime pay. Or they are exposed
to danger in the workplace. Silence
Breakers have disclosed actions that reach new levels of personal insult. Rape and forced witness to someone masturbating
are hugely more damaging than the typical crimes most people disclose.
Organizations regularly ignore our honest complaints and claim
we were fired for good reason. It was our
faulty teamwork or performance. Those accused
by Silence Breakers likewise claim their victims were at fault. The way they dressed or behaved was the
problem. They work in an industry where
such things are common. They should be
ashamed of themselves.
Most whistleblowers disclose white-collar crime – there’s a
lot of that occurring all the time. How
much sexual misconduct goes on can be a matter of definition. The U.S. Department of Justice
reported 432,000 cases of rape/sexual assault in 2015. But broadening the definition, one
poll found 54% of all women have experienced unwanted sexual advances in
their pasts. #MeToo’s power is less
surprising than the fact that it took so long to emerge.
Organizational whistleblowing has been awash in public
attention for more than four decades. In
2002 it was three female whistleblowers
who were Time Persons of the Year. Disclosures
have increased. Laws have been passed to
protect and even reward well-placed whistleblowers. But just a few of us have risen to hero
status. And we have started no revolution.
Silence Breakers, #MeToo, and others uniting their voices against
sexual harassment could truly rock relations in the workplace and in social
life. If they do, it will be a change
that has been in process for decades. Their
success will follow years of personal pain experienced by millions.
Most regular whistleblowers lose in our projects. I did. It’s hard to make sense of what we did when so
little changes[3]. We’d like some of the revolution the #MeToo
crowd sparks. We’d like some of that
righteous fury again.
[1]
Miceli, M. P. and J. P. Near: 1985, 'Characteristics of Organizational Climate
and Perceived Wrongdoing Associated with Whistle-Blowing Decisions',
Personnel Psychology 38, 525-544 quoted in Mesmer-Magnus,
Jessica R. and Chockalingam Viswesvaran. “Whistleblowing
in Organizations: An Examination of Correlates of Whistleblowing Intentions,
Actions, and Retaliation.” Journal of Business Ethics 62 (2005):
277–297.
[2]
Asked by critics from the beginning. For
example Nader,
Ralph, Peter J. Petkas, and Kate Blackwell (eds.) Whistle
Blowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility. New
York: Grossman Publishers. 1972;
Bok, Sisella. “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility.” New York University Education Quarterly 11.4
(1980): 2-10; Bouville, Mathieu.
“Whistle-blowing
and morality.”
Journal of Business Ethics. 81.3
(September 2008): 579-585; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-007-9529-7
No comments:
Post a Comment