Whistleblowing

Sharon Watkins earned her 15 minutes of fame the honest way, as the Enron employee who blew the lid off of then CEO Ken Lay's debauchery. But for every celebrated whistleblower, there are hundreds who remain in the shadows. And for good Samaritans who do tell their tale, the price they pay can be exorbitant.

Whistleblowers perform in many careers and are found at all levels of an organization: scientists and secretaries, lawyers and paralegals, managers and staff, security personnel and computer specialists, etc. They are as varied in age, ethnic background, education, profession, sex, and income as the population at large.

Whistleblowing is a relatively recent entry into the vocabulary of politics and public affairs, although the type of behavior to which it refers is not wholly new. How is it defined? Whistleblowing refers to a warning issued by a member or former member of an organization to the public about a serious wrongdoing or danger created or concealed within the organization. In a genuine case of whistleblowing, the whistleblower would have to have unsuccessfully utilized all appropriate channels within the organization to right a wrong. Many view whistleblowing as an external action to an unresponsive organization and reporting more as an internal process, done through organizational channels. I believe one would have to

unsuccessfully exhaust all the internal channels of communication before "going public."

When whistleblowing occurs as defined, it is a morally courageous action. When all is said and done, the whistleblower must "blow the whistle" for the right moral reason and/or reasoning. The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?

Unfortunately, during most of this century many people equated whistleblowers with tattle tales. For instance, until the early 1980s, legal indices often listed the law of whistleblowing under the word "snitch" or "informant." During the Nixon era, much of that negative attitude changed. With the advent of Watergate, the public began to recognize the service whistleblowers were providing to taxpayers at great risk to themselves.

Further, whistleblowing impacts not just the whistleblower but also their family and friends. Although whistleblowers have many different backgrounds, skills, professions, interests, and experiences, their adversaries customarily paint whistleblowers in one-dimensional negative terms. Frequently, they are described as whining, disgruntled, problem employees with low standards and little or no talent, who are seeking publicity, money or special privileges for themselves. A favorite accusation is that they are not "team players." Often, their employers shamelessly accuse them of suffering from severe psychological problems, low morals, or serious defects in job performance.

Contrary to such negative allegations by their detractors, research and scholarly writing conclude that whistleblowers usually are the opposite of how their foes describe them. The most consistent common denominators among whistleblowers are their ethics-driven reasons for whistleblowing, their whistleblowing experiences, and the resulting retaliation directed at them by their adversaries.

Research has shown that whistleblowers usually are described as top performers and model employees before they commence whistleblowing. They are honest, hard working, upwardly-mobile individuals, who operate with moral codes. They are team players who believe they are pursuing issues affecting the greater good of the team. That is why they blow the whistle. Afterwards, most whistleblowers are fired for trumped up reasons or forced to leave their jobs, their business communities, and often their professions due to the severe retaliation and negative professional publicity directed at them by their adversaries. Despite these severe damages, the whistleblowers risk all in pursuing the greater good.

Contrary to the accusations of their detractors, whistleblowers' goals usually have little to do with money, privilege or publicity for themselves. Instead, whistleblowers go public in order to protect others and hold culpable personnel responsible for misbehavior. They want to improve their place of employment. They don't want others to suffer as they have. Therefore, the primary goal whistleblowers usually seek is accountability for misbehavior and correction of the problems they see in the work place.

Further, they desire honesty in government and want to end violations of law. Therefore, they seek legal recourse in an effort to force their adversaries to comply with the law and to corroborate their concerns rather than as a mechanism to gain personal privilege or a monetary windfall. If money is discussed at all, it is usually at the bottom of their list of goals. When money is a goal, usually it is merely to recoup whatever they have spent or lost in pursuing the whistleblowing; it is not to reap rewards from the whistleblowing.

Whistleblower Retaliation

A common retaliatory strategy seeks to make the whistleblower, instead of his or her message, the issue. Employers will try to create smokescreens by attacking the sources, motives, credibility, professional competence or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issues he or she has raised.

Further, employers may occasionally try to build a record to brand a whistleblower as a chronic problem employee. To lay the groundwork for termination, employers may begin to compile memoranda about any incident, real or contrived, that conveys inadequate or problematic performance. Whistleblowers who formerly received stellar performance evaluations may begin to receive poor ratings from supervisors.

Employers may also threaten whistleblowers into silence. This tactic is commonly reflected in statements such as, "You'll never work in this town/industry/agency again." Threats can also be indirect: employers may issue gag orders, for example, forbidding the whistleblower from speaking out under the threat of termination.

Another retaliation technique is to make an example of the whistleblower by separating him or her from colleagues. This may remove him or her from access to information necessary to effectively blow the whistle.