Whistleblowing is the act of bringing attention to possible wrongdoing by employees or other stakeholders within an organization. Debate on the ethical issues around whistleblowing is as conflicting just as the topic is polarizing. Those in support of the whistleblowing culture argue that it is important in uncovering the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on within organizations (Kohn 23). Those against whistleblowing argue that it is a betrayal of the trust the employer has placed on the employee, and its impact could have adverse effects, especially if the organization in question is security related. However, it is important to look at the issue of whistleblowing objectively.
As is with any situation, there are both pros and cons of whistleblowing. Organizations that encourage internal whistleblowing help create a conducive environment for transparency (Kohn 46). Such transparency may lead to the organization realizing structural problems within it that may ultimately be improved to better its performance. A case in point is Edward Snowden, a Booz Allen Hamilton contractor who passed on classified information on National Security Agency's (NSA) programs. The specific program that Snowden blew a whistle on was the Prism Surveillance Program. The program was being conducted by the agency even though there were concerns that it violated the constitution. The U.S government has over the years accused him of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. However, none of the government's arguments supersedes the seniority of the constitution in affording all the citizens the right to privacy. It is hoped that such events help create a structural change in such organizations.
Such incidences may, however, be prevented if organizations implemented policies to guide internal whistleblowing. It is said the prevention for whistleblowing is whistle blowing. Cases of external whistleblowing have arisen due to what employees view as a lack of a means to vent out their concerns. Creating an internal policy would create a channel for employees to communicate their concerns. The policy should establish the feeling that the reported concern would be worked on to gain the confidence of the employees. The policy should also assure employees that there would be no reprisals if the reports concern is genuine. It is often the lack of internal policy that leads employees to look for means outside the organization.
Whistleblowing also has some negative consequences most especially on the employee who raises the concern (Kohn 67). A good example is Bunny Greenhouse who faced demotion after exposing a contractor working with the US Army Corps (National Whistleblowers Centre). The Greenhouse case eventually yielded a positive result as she was awarded compensation and the case led to the No Fear Act of 2002. The Act gave the government agencies the mandate to protect whisteblowers. Whistleblowing without concrete evidence by the employees may also be counterproductive.
Most of the security-related organizations hide under the pretext of protecting national security; however, that should not be done at the expense of breaking the law. Indeed, some laws empower these organizations to conduct their duties legally. Whistleblowing is a new reality that organizations must contend with in an era of cheap and convenient means of mass communication. It is especially the case in a time of increasing cases of unethical behavior especially by senior executives. The organizations should, therefore, adapt to the phenomenon rather than challenge it. Furthermore, creating avenues for employees to be transparent does not in any way undermine the traditional governing structure of an organization.
Works Cited
Kohn, Stephen M. The Whistleblower's Handbook: A Step-by-step Guide to Doing What's Right and Protecting Yourself. Guilford: Globe Pequot, 2011. Print.
National Whistleblowers Centre. Supporting Employee Whistleblowers. Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube. 30, Jul 2009. Web 20, Feb 2016.
