Free Whistleblowing Critical Thinking Example

Introduction

Whistle blowing is a phrase or term used to refer to an employee who discloses up his fellow employee at work for violation of the law or committing a crime at work (Arszułowicz and Gasparski, 2011). The employee can open up for an act, which is unlawful or illegal or if an employee is absconding his/her chores. Some of the deeds that can be disclosed include deeds that can endanger another employee safety and health, and acts that cause pollution to the entire environment. Also, the deeds include acts that will lead to a criminal offense, for example, corruption, if the organization is disobeying the law for example evading paying annual income tax and a company doing acts wrongly and being covered up.
Basing on the above topic we can use the case of Jeffery Wingad, a previous employee and worker of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company who talked out about and against the leading and largest American tobacco company with journalist Mike Wallace in an exclusive and independent interview that was out later in early February 1996.
He revealed out the secret plans and deals of the tobacco company to boost nicotine’s effect on those individuals smoking by adding samples of ammonia in their product that will have an effect on the lungs that will cause them take in more and rapid nicotine, which in the long run it will have to affect the central nervous system and the brain. He jointly worked with the state attorney general and the department of justice of the United States of America that led to some arrests and prosecutions against those employees of the tobacco company who were behind the plot. It also aided immediate huge amount compensation for those affected in 1998 in forty-six states of the U.S.A and other countries leading tobacco producing company.
Basing on the above example, we find that Jeffery Wingad is a responsible employee who is socially responsible and adhere to the law (Johnson, 2003). Before whistleblowing up, the following conditions should be considered; the deed the company is going to be involved possess a bid threat to the targeted group of individual, and, in this case, they are all the smokers, he has tried to whistle blow internally, but the problem has not been rectified. Continuous whistleblowing in the organization will not yield any change or it not stop the company from pursuing the goal, the whistleblower has supporting and tangible evidence against the company and lastly the whistleblower is sure the disclosure of the matter will stop the harm. The following are some of the effects of whistleblowing that affect the organization at large and how whistleblowers are also affected;

Reduced trust

The trust and reputation the company had reduced since it exposes the rot, which is existing in the organization and the respective company have or ask its employees to use internal communication if they are not comfortable with the wrong doings that go on in the company or respective department and divisions (Arszułowicz and Gasparski, 2011). It will give the company a chance to review its activities before the soup spill over to other sources like the media (Lewis, 2010). If the trust among workers and management falls, it will create tension among employees and the management which will affect the working competence of each affected.

Revenge and retaliation

In some cases, whistleblowers encounter hostile reception and resentment from the surrounding, for example, friends, workmates, and their superiors. He may be treated as a traitor and looked upon in the society or organization, which affects the concentration and working conditions of the employee. For this, the state comes up stringed legal protections who whistle blows.

Broken bond between the employee and management

Most of whistleblowing occurs as a result of a broken chain of command between the employee and his superiors or any other leader who does not portray his message clearly and serious (In Burke and In Cooper, 2013).
The employee can also have a fear for portraying the activities of the company they fear consequent repercussions for acting against the company will hence break the chain of command.
Therefore, the company’s management should encourage its employees to communicate through internal channels to avoid serious downcast with respect to the management of the external forces (Lewis, 2010).

Organizational consequences

The whistleblowing character usually causes or creates both market and legal consequences for the company (Johnson, 2003). Taking the above example it will give the other four large tobacco producing companies an upper hand in a competitive market and it may lead to suspension if the ministry of legal finds the company guilty of the reports being claimed. Furthermore, if the whole management knowingly took a hand and endorsed illegal or unethical acts, it will lead to automatic face fallout if the word leaks out. Other employees of the company who did not involve on or took part or they were not aware of the wrong act will be affected if the organization faces legal pursuits or confrontation from the public generally (Lewis, 2010).

We are going to analyze the case above in three ways:

• Jeffrey Wingad ethic perception in relation with whistle blowing
• Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company in relation with whistle blowing
• The general public perception in relation with whistle blowing
Jeffrey Wingad ethic perception in relation with whistle blowing
We find here this employee rip between his loyalty to his company and conscientious commitment to the society and the governing law of the state at large (In Burke and In Cooper, 2013). The first employee is putting his job in jeopardy state when the whistle blows up the whole story. Since this is a big company may be, it could happen that no one can listen to a mere employee who is coming up with such a piece of information as some public may receive the information as he wants to spoil the reputation of the company name since this is a democratic country and it comprises of different people and showing such loyalty only to one person poses a lot of questions. Due to this the public may influence the whistleblowers’ thinking for the importance and in favor of the tobacco company, thus not taking up the sense of such claims (Johnson, 2003).
If the whistleblower is certain of what is claimed and trusts the channel in which he can pass the message like in this case mass media he/she should not hesitate to come forward and bring out the allegation since he will be helping the society and acting in the public interest and law at large (In Burke and In Cooper, 2013). Mass media and whistle work together mostly since they depend on each other. Though, their ambitions and motives may be different they usually share only one common goal, exposing the wrong act and to protect the affected parties, which are mainly the society and the environment. If the whistleblower is acting in self-interest, this should be addressed by the investing body and protect the affected party also.

Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company in relation with whistle blowing

Every organization is expected to have a whistleblowing the channel in place and should not be delighted or satisfied on matters pertaining the usage of this channel. If the information being claimed by the whistleblower is distorting the company has the right to deny such reports since its expected by the law, every organization or company act responsibly when such claims arise it risks to be investigated by the state for such allegations which usually lead to serious consequences, for instances the company is answerable to the given bodies like the Ministry of Justice and other affected parties (Johnson, 2003).
Basing on this company’s case there are few cases where whistleblowing may be considered as an unjust way of action in relation to employee ethics to the company (Arszułowicz and Gasparski, 2011). Where the information being laid out threatens issues like the security of a company it will be wrong for an employee to blow up such information to the public since the firm should not let a culture of misconduct like in this case inclusion of ammonia in nicotine to infiltrate in its operations since it’s against the public interest.
A company can avoid whistle blowing by acting according to the law requirement and bar itself against the illegal activities that can lead to whistle blow.

The general public perception in relation with whistle blowing

If the given company is involving in good business activities, there will be no need to worry about the rise of any ugly or negative perception of its activity by the society, community leader and its environment in general. Usually in most the whistleblowers target the public perception as well as the governing authorities to spoil the reputation of the given company.

Solutions to whistleblowing

Creating an efficient and effective whistleblower channel program
It involves coming up with an effective whistleblower hotline channel that pick up and responds as soon as possible to the worker's matters and complain (Johnson, 2003).

Encouragement and embracing a practice that welcome complaint

Complaints will bring out the weakness in the management therefore creating a room for change and improving on services or activities being complained. Petty complaints and claims will be avoided, and it will enhance confidence among employees by sustaining such a culture and practice (In Burke and In Cooper, 2013). It will also promote employees to raise claims in an informal way and try to resolve the issue between them or with the management hence reducing at all chances of whistleblowing.

Responding to the complaints launched by the employees

If it happens that by any chance that an employee has launched a complaint through the whistleblower of the company then the company should try and solve the complaint as elaborated by the company’s hotline plan, or it can get the accurate and correct and genuine information from the anonymous launcher with the aid of the a call or interview. The company can also consult with an external counsel in connection with the alleged claim and come up with a possible favorable solution (Lewis, 2010).

References

Arszułowicz, M., & Gasparski, W. (2011). Whistleblowing: In defense of proper action. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Johnson, R. A. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works and why. Boulder: Rienner.
In Burke, R. J., & In Cooper, C. L. (2013). Voice and whistleblowing in organizations:
Overcoming fear, fostering courage and unleashing candour.
Lewis, D. B. (2010). A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What Can We Learn