Whistle-blowing is ethically ambiguous.
Today’s ethics of organization debate pays great attention to the duty to be a “whistle-blower” and to the protection of the whistle-blower against retaliation or suppression by his boss or by his organization. This sounds high-minded. Surely, the subordinate has a right, if not indeed a duty, to bring to public attention and remedial action his superiors’ misdeeds, let alone violation of the law on the part of a superior or of his employing organization. But in the context of the ethics of interdependence, whistle-blowing is ethically quite ambiguous.
To be sure, there are misdeeds of the superior or of the employing organization that so grossly violate propriety and laws that the subordinate (or the friend, or the child, or even the wife) cannot remain silent. This is, after all, what the word “felony” implies; one becomes a partner to a felony and criminally liable by not reporting, and thus compounding it. But otherwise? It is not primarily that to encourage whistle-blowing corrodes that bond of trust that ties the superior to the subordinate. Encouraging the whistle-blower must make the subordinate lose trust in the superior’s willingness and ability to protect people.
ACTION POINT: The Sarbanes-Oxley law encourages whistle-blowing from insiders in the case of corporate corruption. How will this legislation affect the bond between superior and subordinates?
The Ecological Vision
* Source: The Daily Drucker by Peter F. Drucker