Whistleblowing

Some definitions

• Bringing an activity to a sharp conclusion as if by the blast of a whistle (OED);

• Raising concerns about misconduct within an organisation or within an independent structure associated with it (Nolan Committee);

• Giving information (usually to the authorities) about illegal & underhand practices (Chambers);

• Exposing to the press a malpractice or cover-up in a business or government office (US, Brewsters);

• (To) disclose - to expose to view

• Disclosure - the act or an instance of disclosing

Protecting the Whistleblower• In general, the only areas where Canadian workers have legal protection

against discrimination are human rights, employment standards, environment and health and safety.

• In essence, reporting sexual harassment, toxic-waste dumping or using dangerous machinery may not cost you your future unless the firm wants to pay thousands in damages.   On the other hand, squealing on a boss or colleague who walks off with a computer, bilks a customer or fiddles his expenses doesn't necessarily come with a job protection plan.

• 1997 Supreme Court of Canada ruling has helped.   It states that an employer firing a worker must truthfully state the reasons for the dismissal.   As Ball says, an employer is hardly likely to say he fired someone because they revealed criminal company activities.   As a result, he says, anyone showing court they were let go for whistle-blowing could collect considerable damages.

The real thing?

• Genuine• The whistle-blower to the

best of their knowledge is accurately attempting to portray the facts as they understand them

• Motivated by a moral desire to rectify a moral wrong

• “Principled dissent”

• Fraudulent• Knowingly uses

inaccurate info or hyperbole to portray the “facts” of alleged act

• Motivated by desire to hurt or get revenge on target; call attention to themselves to gain benefit; promote some ideals which are seen as worthy but require the sacrifice of selected target

Key Issues

• An individual or group within organization or recently involved with it “interprets” an even t or series of events undertaken by the organization or enacted by some of its members as a form of non-trivial wrong doing

• The whistle-blower is not sufficiently powerful to rectify the perceived wrong

• The wb attempts to make their interpretation of the wrong-doing a matter of public record

• Info has the power to rock the status quo, but determination of wrong-doing is not made easily. Often lingering questions remain

The players

• The Whistle-blower

• The whistle-blower’s targets

• The whistle-blower’s outlets

• Organizational and societal bystanders

• Society at large

The journey

1. Trigger2. Decision to pull or not to pull the trigger3. Action

1. Group vs individual 2. Anonymous vs self identified3. Internal vs external4. Formal vs informal documentation5. Try to take control of process or let others deal out justice

4. Whistle-blower’s assessment of reactions of others5. Results

The triggers

• Accidental– Happen upon event (often leads to attempts to o-opt

or threaten wb)

• Investigative– Small indicators lead to discovery of larger problem

• Disputatious– Differing viewpoints re interpretation of event

• Escalating– Find out there is a team behind you

Going mute

• Genuine change of mind

• Too high or price to pay

• Followed chain of command and therefore did share

• Assumes that “others” know and accept it

Action!

• Choices• Blow whistle as individual or group• Select w-b outlets which are internal or external

to organization• Make disclosure anonymously or by self-

identifying• Use formal or informal documental to interest

outlets and other org/societal bystanders• Allow others to identify specific targets and mete

out justice or attempt to control process

Reactions

• By-standers + WB targets = retaliation and high costs for WB

• Bystanders +silence = neutralization of WB

• Bystanders +WB=improved possibility of righting the wrong with decreased risk of retaliation