Business Ethics: Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty

Introduction

Moral side of relationships between an employers and employees provides a pivot for further firmness of the company. This statement invigorates a newbie at the workplace to follow the features of trust and loyalty to an employer. However, there comes an objective as for the validity of such kind of relationships in contemporary reality. The question is about whistle-blowing and its use and characteristic implementation at the workplace.

Most of the people who are in position of either an employer or an employee are divided into supporters and critics of whistle blowing at work. In this respect a respectful approach should be applied to work out the truth about the case. Current practice states that whistle blowing is morally correct. On the other hand, there are some problematic issues which stop people from whistle blowing. Some terms take place in this case, among which the concept of loyalty takes grabs special attention. Thus, whistle blowing is problematic at workspace as it is against employee loyalty.

Main body

1st Reason to prove the argument

Historically, it came out to be that people are seeking for their “place under the sun.” It means that when a man finds such a place (work), he/she stick it in order to have some benefits in life. In more academic terms it is similar to observing the scope of economic prospects which are needful for a person in life. The main source for material amenities is a workplace. R. Edward Freeman argues that a firm should provide relationships with primary and secondary stakeholders based on trust.¹ In turn employees by means of loyalty to their employer and company at large prove their dedication to their work as something more than just an employment contract.

“Managing for stakeholders” means to shape the relationships between the underlined stakeholders in terms of further positive growth.² Thus, there certain problems in making a conscientious employee follow the way of a whistle blower. In order to save official place for the sake of different reasons (family, personal well-being, etc.) an employee would not act as a whistle blower knowing further negative outcomes for the company functioning on the whole. Thus, it is a risky step which makes the firm’s reputation doubtful for the secondary stakeholders, particularly.³ The probable lively case study stating the problem of whistle blowing is described below.

The main problem of current whistle blowing is not in the fact that it is moral or amoral, but in fact that it is senseless in corporations built on inner mutual relation of senior staff to having cases of improper actions which served initially to guarantee the firmness of the position at work.⁴ It is when some of the senior staff complains the board chairman about a scope of unlawful and unfair actions on the part of a GM. This person identifies himself/herself.

Thereafter, the board chairman delays for several months. After some time a whistleblower and those who supported him/her were either resigned or transferred elsewhere, for the CEO did not reply on the offence, and the decision was not weighed on time to prevent the dismissal. Neither HRM nor the CEO are interested in processing the investigation as it lacks objective information and the key persons involved in it would never complain against themselves. That is the reason of why “90 percent of the whistleblowers were fired or demoted” according to the collected studies in the US.⁵

2nd Reason to prove the argument

In this case the researchers Ronald Duska and Milton Friedman argue that there are no points to state the superiority of an employee’s loyalty to the company, for each company needs workers who in turn need money. In this respect the main objection to the concept of loyalty at work considers the assumption that “companies are not the kind of things that are properly objects of loyalty.”⁶ On the other hand, there is a statement about the social responsibility of a company that means an executive takes responsibility for provide safe and unbiased environment at the workplace.⁷ There is a solely obligation to increase profits, and that is all, as it might be seen.

However it is not correct to think this way. The loyalty within the workspace grows in accordance with cultural, traditional incentives. In turn, it encourages each employee to grow in personal loyalty toward the firm, as it guarantees probable advancement in the future. Thus, one owes loyalty to a firm which in general terms “feeds” one and supports in living. However, the success of whistle blowing is referred to rationality of actions to be planned initially.

Michael Davis recommends taking a look at the complicity theory to justify whistle blowing based on two reasons:

1. Moral complicity presupposes moral wrongdoing, not harm;
2. Complicity invokes a more demanding obligation than the ability to prevent harm does.⁸

However, these terms are not fully compatible in addition to the employment and working day by day. There are some mechanisms which are superior to what the public claims to be improper actions or cases of harassment, etc. The value of living and values secured by a company are above all. The complicity theory, therefore, is aimed to avoid the three paradoxes of whistle blowing, namely:

• Paradox of missing harm;
• Paradox of burden;
• Paradox of failure.⁹

Nevertheless, these paradoxes do not motivate people in general, as it is taken by an employee for granted when some wrong features emerge in the workplace, but which are not to be discussed or to draw public attention to such facts. The case study concerned with Matsushita Company in Japan provides a scope of features stating for loyalty as the main obstacle to whistle blow.¹⁰

Since the very outset this company provided cultural prospects closer to Confucian wisdom in promoting relationships at the workplace. Employees are very loyal to the company, as it trains and guarantees lifetime employment.¹¹ Thus, the employees become obliged to the company, and it is normal for them. Matsushita draws from the employees that they work hard for the generous success. Otherwise, no one can benefit from doing nothing.¹²

The company takes care of its staff by providing different incentives supporting the technological advancement by the company itself as well as better standards of living for people working there. “Loyalty and obligation here means better division of labor and lack of professionals’ lost.”¹³ This is why loyalty is one among the highest prerogatives shared within the company. However, after the economical crisis young specialists insisted on more challenging career prospects, as they considered loyalty to come into nothing.¹⁴ However, whistleblowers in the company risk at becoming outsiders and totally disgraced by the staff up to intentional discharge. The main reason is long-lasting tradition of keeping the reputation of the company unstained.

Conclusion

Summing up everything discussed in the paper, one should agree that loyalty to the company is the great obstacle for whistle blowing to take place. In this respect claims by Duska and Friedman do not matter much, for they represent subjective estimation of the problem without being applied to real practical use. The case studies discovered in the paper represent lively situations which prove the idea of whistle blowing to be rather problematic in terms of corporate reputation and stability of relationships. Investing in each employee, a company expects appropriate feedbacks. Moreover, the confirmation of whistle blowing, as a moral step by Michael Davis seeks an explicit evaluation on the side of morality but not personal well-being of an employee or group of employees.

Once again, whistle blowing is problematic at workspace as it is against employee loyalty. This norm should be taken into consideration as it refers to the practical domain and fits the surveys collected out of 223 whistle blowing studies.¹⁵ Thus, an observer should not think much of the moral side of the issue, as there are still no effective measures in securing whistle blowing in civilized countries. On the other hand, public opinion is a huge formation which is merely undergone particular reduction in its influence on decision making.

Works Cited

Davis, Michael. “Some Paradoxes of Whistle-Blowing.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. 147-155.

Duska, Ronald. “Whistle-Blowing and Employee Loyalty.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. 155-159.

Freeman, R. Edward. “Managing for Stakeholdres.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. 56-67.

Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business is too incerase its profits.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. 51-55.

Lau, Daniel. “Case Study 1: Matsushita’s Culture Changes with Japan.” 2008. LTL Technology. Web.

Teen, Mak Yuen. WHISTLEBLOWING: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. 2007. Web.

Footnotes

1. R. Edward, Freeman. “Managing for Stakeholdres.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008) 61.
2. Freeman 61.
3. Freeman 61.
4. Mak Yuen, Teen. WHISTLEBLOWING: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. 2007. Web.
5. Teen 3.
6. Ronald, Duska. “Whistle-Blowing and Employee Loyalty.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008) 156.
7. Milton, Friedman. “The Social Responsibility of Business is too incerase its profits.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008) 51.
8. Michael, Davis. “Some Paradoxes of Whistle-Blowing.” Beauchamp, Tom L. Ethical Theory and Business. 8. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008) 149.
9. Davis 151.
10. Daniel, Lau. “Case Study 1: Matsushita’s Culture Changes with Japan.” 2008: 1. LTL Technology. Web.
11. Lau 1.
12. Lau 1.
13. Lau 1.
14. Lau 1.
15. Teen 3.