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 whistleblowing 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. Trigger
2. Decision to pull or not to pull the trigger
3. Action
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group vs individual
Anonymous vs self identified
Internal vs external
Formal vs informal documentation
Try to take control of process or let others deal out justice
4. Whistle-blower’s assessment of reactions of others
5. 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 selfidentifying
• 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