CSC 379 SUM2008:Week 5, Group 1

Avoiding the Need for Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is a term used to denote an activity whereby an individual within a group (a company, a university, etc) presents a public report detailing a (typically) unethical action that has taken place within their group. The report is presented to the public because the individual has presumably already reported the violation via internal channels, and no action has taken place. By making the violation public, pressure is applied to the group to rectify the problem.

Problems With Conventional Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is not without its disadvantages, however. The primary problem with whistleblowing is that the whistleblower almost always faces retaliation. This can range anywhere from facing hostility at work to being sued by the company for breach of confidentiality. Whistleblowers may even face demotions, reassignments, or in the worst case may lose their jobs. In rare instances, threats to their well-being or families may also occur. There is therefore a strong disincentive to remain silent about an illicit activity, should it be discovered. While laws are in place to protect whistleblowers, knowledge of their existence is limited, and whistleblowers may only find out about them after the statute of limitations has expired.

But preventing or stopping that illicit activity is the morally and ethically correct course of action, and steps to do so can only be taken after the knowledge can be communicated to the people with the power to take action. And if the severity of the problem is great enough that it may result in loss of life, the whistleblower would even have a moral obligation to report his or her findings, regardless of the consequences.

To balance the simultaneous needs of allowing whistleblowers to file their grievances and protecting them from retribution, alternatives are necessary. The below sections attempt to list and explain these alternatives.

Whistle-blowing and codes of morality

Duty to the public is the first principle of the code of the National Society of professionals. Given that, a great deal of responsibility engineers are to carry. The fourth principle describes the duty of the employer as: ‘‘the health, safety, and welfare of the public are to be placed first’’ (Harris et al., 2005, p. 183). Therefore we can derive the conclusion that whistle blowing is mandatory in certain situations.

Duality of engineering ethics

The ethic courses that are being offered in the engineering school, usually discusses different cases and inquire what should an engineer do. The cases are usually a mixture of different issues such as scientific, humanistic, and social issues. Then they try to come up with a solution that covers all aspects of the case. However codes of conduct are principles that engineers pursue them as their duties. There are two different aspects to it; What should an engineer do from an ethical point of view that is his/her duty, and what should he/she do from a non-ethical point of view, that is technical concerns. Therefore the whistle blowing in many situation will be obligatory.

Issues with heroism. Because of the whistleblower’s pure intention and the danger that they bring to themselves, one would conclude that this is heroism. But since whistleblowing is an ethical obligation, one can not be hero by living up to his/her duties. Whistleblowing has been referred to as a heroic act by so many people that it seems people have forgotten that it is an obligation by our morality.

Assignment Description

Examine the ways an organization can help employees resolve concerns internally, and thereby avoid the need for external whistleblowing. How do these practices, such as anonymous reporting hotlines, apply to the work environment of a software engineer?

Due to ineffective or nonexistent feedback processes within an organization, many important concerns never reach anyone who is willing or able to take action. Employees may forgo making complaints due to processes that are hard to use, or because the company culture has no way to report anything, except to one’s immediate superior.

What can be done to reduce the need for external whistleblowing? Are there proven cultural fixes? Technological fixes? If someone has a less serious concern, which (s)he considers too insignificant to take the risk of external whistleblowing, how could this be actively addressed before problems arise? Is there an ethical obligation on the part of organizations to adopt practices that encourage effective internal whistleblowing? Please explain your answers.

• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119949153/abstract
• http://www.springerlink.com/content/t61246w14l64k416/
• http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=367211.367274
• http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk15/lecture.html
• http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/basics/whistle/
• Whistle-Blowing and Morality Mathieu Bouville