Whistleblowing
One might wonder why an entire article is devoted to the concept of whistle-blowing. After all, it seems reasonably obvious what the concept is and what constitutes a whistleblower. But, as is true of so many ideas, whistle-blowing is only obvious after someone has explained and defined it. In a sense, this is what Sissela Bok has done for the concept.
The heart of the article describes the nature of whistle-blowing in three features: dissent, breach of loyalty, and accusation. Each of these is crucial to the very concept of whistle-blowing. For example, if someone in a company makes public a fact that everyone already knows about the company this can hardly be called whistleblowing. Likewise, if everyone agrees the information is being made public there is no sense in calling this a case of blowing the whistle. With that said, let’s examine each of these features in turn.
The essence of dissent is to “make public a disagreement with an authority or majority view.” However, the intent of whistle-blowing is not merely to make public this disagreement but to point out something not already known which could be a danger or threat to safety. In other words, if someone merely voices their disagreement with the President of the United States this is not whistle-blowing. However, if someone makes something public which is not known to alert the public to harm then this is.
The central conflict here, as Bok points out, is between “conforming and sticking their necks out.” In this respect, all whistle-blowing involves a risk. One’s job could be at risk or in extreme cases one’s life. Always at risk is one’s reputation which brings us to the second element of breach of loyalty.
Since blowing the whistle involves making public something about a company or organization you belong to, the other members of your organization will likely view you as being disloyal. After all, loyalty doesn’t seem to imply “ratting out” your comrades. How is it possible to be a whistleblower and a loyal employee at the same time?
A useful analogy may shed light on this since it is a crucial element in blowing the whistle and always a source of difficulty for those contemplating blowing the whistle. Suppose you have a close friend who is on drugs and perhaps even manufacturing them (in a meth lab) or selling them. Now, as a loyal friend what should you do? One option is to say nothing and if asked about it, cover for your friend. But, is this being a loyal friend? Wouldn’t it be better to alert the authorities to get your friend some help? Or suppose the authorities already know about your friend and are closing in. Would loyalty dictate that you tell your friend so they could avoid trouble? Again, a plausible case could be made that true friendship and loyalty would best be exhibited by blowing the whistle on your friend. Sure, the short-term consequences would be bad but in the long run, your friend might be better off.
This raises another point we’ve discussed before, that is, the concept of trade-offs. Here the decision is between potential harm to one’s career, reputation, life versus harm to others. There is no perfect answer for every case and doing one thing may make matters worse somewhere else. It is at this point that many decide the trade-off is not worth it. Often people believe that their actions as individuals cannot make a true difference. What can one person do? Of course, there are cases throughout history where the actions of one individual made all the difference. This is what decides to blow the whistle all the more difficult. Your actions could make all the difference. But to make a difference involves the third element which is an accusation.
This is probably the most difficult element in that it involves the actual act of blowing the whistle. As Bok points out, the accusation must be relevant and timely. It does no good to accuse in regards to something that happened years ago about which we can do nothing. And warning of long future risks is ineffective as well. It would hardly be blowing the whistle to point out what might happen in the year 2070!
There are, of course, other considerations involved in analyzing the nature of whistle-blowing. These include the credibility of the whistleblower, the motives behind their action, and any biases they might have. Are their accusations anonymous or made in public and verifiable? One should also consider whether every other option has been explored before making a public accusation. Whistleblowing should not be seen as the first course of action. In most cases, it is the last act when all other options have failed.
As we pointed out in the section on truth-telling and business bluffing, the fact that business sometimes makes demands such as the need to bluff or in this case whistle blow does not necessarily indicate that business operates on fundamentally different rules from the rest of our lives. Rather, it may indicate something seriously wrong with the business world. For whistleblowing, the indication is often that there is something wrong with a specific business. In such cases, ordinary ethics may demand that someone blow the whistle as difficult and costly as it may be.
The heart of the article describes the nature of whistle-blowing in three features: dissent, breach of loyalty, and accusation. Each of these is crucial to the very concept of whistle-blowing. For example, if someone in a company makes public a fact that everyone already knows about the company this can hardly be called whistleblowing. Likewise, if everyone agrees the information is being made public there is no sense in calling this a case of blowing the whistle. With that said, let’s examine each of these features in turn.
The essence of dissent is to “make public a disagreement with an authority or majority view.” However, the intent of whistle-blowing is not merely to make public this disagreement but to point out something not already known which could be a danger or threat to safety. In other words, if someone merely voices their disagreement with the President of the United States this is not whistle-blowing. However, if someone makes something public which is not known to alert the public to harm then this is.
The central conflict here, as Bok points out, is between “conforming and sticking their necks out.” In this respect, all whistle-blowing involves a risk. One’s job could be at risk or in extreme cases one’s life. Always at risk is one’s reputation which brings us to the second element of breach of loyalty.
Since blowing the whistle involves making public something about a company or organization you belong to, the other members of your organization will likely view you as being disloyal. After all, loyalty doesn’t seem to imply “ratting out” your comrades. How is it possible to be a whistleblower and a loyal employee at the same time?
A useful analogy may shed light on this since it is a crucial element in blowing the whistle and always a source of difficulty for those contemplating blowing the whistle. Suppose you have a close friend who is on drugs and perhaps even manufacturing them (in a meth lab) or selling them. Now, as a loyal friend what should you do? One option is to say nothing and if asked about it, cover for your friend. But, is this being a loyal friend? Wouldn’t it be better to alert the authorities to get your friend some help? Or suppose the authorities already know about your friend and are closing in. Would loyalty dictate that you tell your friend so they could avoid trouble? Again, a plausible case could be made that true friendship and loyalty would best be exhibited by blowing the whistle on your friend. Sure, the short-term consequences would be bad but in the long run, your friend might be better off.
This raises another point we’ve discussed before, that is, the concept of trade-offs. Here the decision is between potential harm to one’s career, reputation, life versus harm to others. There is no perfect answer for every case and doing one thing may make matters worse somewhere else. It is at this point that many decide the trade-off is not worth it. Often people believe that their actions as individuals cannot make a true difference. What can one person do? Of course, there are cases throughout history where the actions of one individual made all the difference. This is what decides to blow the whistle all the more difficult. Your actions could make all the difference. But to make a difference involves the third element which is an accusation.
This is probably the most difficult element in that it involves the actual act of blowing the whistle. As Bok points out, the accusation must be relevant and timely. It does no good to accuse in regards to something that happened years ago about which we can do nothing. And warning of long future risks is ineffective as well. It would hardly be blowing the whistle to point out what might happen in the year 2070!
There are, of course, other considerations involved in analyzing the nature of whistle-blowing. These include the credibility of the whistleblower, the motives behind their action, and any biases they might have. Are their accusations anonymous or made in public and verifiable? One should also consider whether every other option has been explored before making a public accusation. Whistleblowing should not be seen as the first course of action. In most cases, it is the last act when all other options have failed.
As we pointed out in the section on truth-telling and business bluffing, the fact that business sometimes makes demands such as the need to bluff or in this case whistle blow does not necessarily indicate that business operates on fundamentally different rules from the rest of our lives. Rather, it may indicate something seriously wrong with the business world. For whistleblowing, the indication is often that there is something wrong with a specific business. In such cases, ordinary ethics may demand that someone blow the whistle as difficult and costly as it may be.