The act of whistleblowing is very vital to any company as it enhances the culture of ethics. In strategic corporate governance, one of the most valuable tools is whistleblowing which empowers workers to act against activities of misconduct and in so doing protect the reputation, profits as well as a safe work environment. A whistleblower is a person working in an organization whom upon learning of the illegal or unethical behaviors in his or her workplace refuses to be part of it and goes ahead to report it to the authority with the intention of stopping it. Although the act of whistleblowing is fundamental in maintaining the wellness of the company, it can as well result to the emergence of conflict of interest. This conflict arose because the whistleblower is viewed in different perspective, in some cases the whistleblower is seen as a person who acts in the best interest of the company and other situations as someone who is disloyal to the organization. Even though loyalty is seen as having ethical value, it should not hinder an individual from exercising his or her moral obligation of being accountable and acting in a responsible way which may include blowing a whistle in the event of any wrongdoing.
My Position
Whistleblowing is an act of speaking out against unethical activities taking place in an organization. Whistleblowing may seem like an act that violates the employee’s duties of confidentiality and loyalty to his employer. However, the whistleblower must choose between serving the public interest, and the obligation he or she has of safeguarding the loyalty for the company and its stakeholders. The employers consider whistleblowing as an act of disloyalty and betrayal. However, an employer or a workmate who is engaging in unethical and immoral corporate activity may not be working in his or her best interest. Therefore, the whistleblower should do what it takes including going against his or her responsibility to the employer of upholding loyalty to the workmates and the organization and blow the whistle regardless of the consequences. The employee has a moral duty of protecting the public interest by uncovering the immoral activities happening in the organization and brings it to a stop for the benefit of the public and the good of the institution. By blowing a whistle to stop the unethical act, the employee demonstrates a higher degree of loyalty than one who chooses to remain silent. Not blowing the whistle in an instance that one is sure there is a violation of the law and set standards that could harm the company's reputation, profitability, and wellness, as well as the general public, is detrimental in the long run. Keeping quiet is failing to do justice and a real sign of disloyalty and not in any way acting in the best interest of the company and the public.
An employee has to act in the best interest of the employer, and therefore he or she must weigh the actions of the employer and ascertain if they are in his or her best interest. The employer's actions are not always in his or her best interest. The employees have no responsibility of being loyal to corporate employers because this relationship does not involve mutual enrichment. Loyalty is not compatible with self- interest and since corporate employers are more concerned with self-interest employees who blow whistles have not violated any corporate loyalty. The primary objective of any employer is making a profit, and for this reason, loyalty is not relevant. The employees, therefore, must safeguard the interest of the company which might include whistleblowing in the event of wrongdoing by the workmates or top officials whose actions might hurt the company in the long run. By blowing a whistle to stop an unlawful act, the employee is not disloyal, but instead, he is demonstrating the highest degree of the loyalty to the employer as compared to the worker that decide to ignore the immoral behavior that could affect the company negatively (Larmer, 187). I believe in a case where an employee goes against the wishes of the employer and blows a whistle against illegal acts in the company such a person cannot be seen as disloyal.
Opposing Position
The opponents of whistleblowing argue that employees should always act in a manner that the employer believes it is in his or her best interest. Since the employers do not approve whistleblowing and think it is not in the best interest of the company any worker who goes ahead, and whistle blow is disloyal. Bok argues that since the would-be whistleblower has taken an oath to uphold loyalty and confidentiality, going against this obligation and blowing the whistle on his employer and his colleagues violates the company loyalty. Also, an act of whistleblowing violates not only the company's principle of not blowing the whistle but also hierarchy is also not obeyed because these whistleblowers are in most cases subordinates (Bok, 178). Opting to go for whistleblowing as the first alternative before exhausting the avenues that are already available in the organization to solve such issues is time wasting and might cause more harm than good to the organization. Employees should only consider whistleblowing if all channels for solving the problem are not working or else he or she would be in violation of the loyalty to their employer. These opponents believe that for an employee to be regarded as loyal to the company he or she must act by following what the company believes is in its best interest. Contrary to this a situation will arise where a level of internal prying and mutual suspicion will emerge at which no organization can function (Bok 177). It is therefore prudent for every loyal employee in an organization to comply with the principle of not blowing the whistle and uphold loyalty at all times by acting according to what the employer believes is in the best interest regardless of the potential consequences that may occur. By taking the oath to maintain loyalty, it means the employees must not under any circumstance blow a whistle because by doing so he or she will be breaking the oath and this will be an act of disloyalty.
Refutation of the Opposing Position
The argument by Bok that the employees should always act following what the employer feels is in the best interest is misleading because an employer engaging in immoral acts is not working in the best interest and for the good of the company. An employee should, therefore, act independently in contrary to the company's wishes and whistle blow for the greater good of everyone. Such an employee even though violates his or her obligation to uphold loyalty and confidentiality he or she demonstrates the highest loyalty because he chooses public interest against personal interest and this action will bring about the greatest good for the organization in the long run. In the case where the employee has taken an oath of loyalty to the employer which makes whistleblowing an act of disloyalty, remaining silent whenever there are incidences of unethical activities could lead to more harm than good to the company and the public (Larmer, 187). By reporting actions of immorality to safeguard the company and the general public from the harm that such activities could cause eliminates any disloyalty in the act of whistleblowing. I, therefore, oppose the argument of the opponents of whistleblowing because by taking a step to report the immoral activities taking place in the company the whistleblower is acting in the best interest of the company and the public regardless of what the employer wishes.
Position Summary
Although whistleblowing appears as an act of violating company loyalty, it is more harmful to keep quiet in a situation where the employer is engaging in unlawful activities. The employer who has unethical behaviors is not acting in his or her best interest, and although blowing a whistle to uncover the unethical actions is against the wishes of the employer it will bring about a greater good for the company in the long run. The whistleblowers who uncover the immoral activities have the highest degree of loyalty and their actions cannot be linked with disloyalty even though they acted independently and went as far as violating their obligation to serve in the best wishes of the employer. Abiding by the principle of not blowing the whistle will mean that there is no room for justice to be done on employers who engage in wrongdoings. For this reason, I believe whistleblowing does not lead to a violation of the company loyalty but instead encourages employees to act with the aim of promoting the greater good for the company, stakeholders and the public.
Reflection
This paper has undergone significant improvement thanks to the support of my classmates who made recommendations during revision on what needed to be added to the article to make it outstanding. The feedback from my classmate upon reading my draft paper was that there was a need for inclusion of a clear description of who whistleblowers are in the introduction section to make readers understand well what I am addressing. Similarly, the comments indicated that my explanations should be in-depth, and ones that focus more on the information from the document of taking sides as this will make my argument more valid and appealing to the readers.
Work cited
Bok S. Taking Sides. Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility, New York University Education Quarterly. 1980.
Larmer R. Taking Sides. Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty, Journal of Business Ethics. 1992.
