Ethics, Corporate Governance, organizations, whistleblowing, Vinten's summation
The aim of this paper is to provide a critical discussion of Vinten's summation of the whistle-blowing that For one thing the whistle-blowing path is not easy, and the bee-sting phenomenon may often apply. One has only one sting to use, and by using it, may well kill off one's career. In this assertion, Vinten is trying to associate the act/behaviour of whittle behaviour the bee-sting phenomenon. The bee-sting behaviour can only be used before the act jeopardises the whistle-blower's career. The case depicts an apparent dilemma that is often faced by genuine whistle-blowers in the course of attempting to rectify possible wrongdoings within the organizations in which they work.
[...] Similarly, an employee may be treated poorly by the management of a certain organization and decides to get back at his or her boss or the organization regarding such malpractice (Wortman, 2006). This employee may not complain about the poor treatment he or she is facing, but rather, any possible malpractice within the organization or by the boss (Ballantine 2000). The intentions of this employee are not good, but they ultimately contribute to the action of the law against such organization. The employee in this case may have a career with the organization get terminated or even face even worse treatment from the organization or the particular boss. [...]
[...] The whistle-blower from such a group usually has a great courage to speak out as compared to the rest. Other individuals within the same group even the superiors with the issue knowledge shy off for various reasons, which are all attributed to the difficult path of whistleblowing and the perceived bee-sting phenomenon. They thus decide to sacrifice their individual moral values against the societal moral values. The major reason is usually the protection of their careers, but the whistle-blower is ready to take the difficult path towards the bee-sting phenomenon (Dempster 1997). [...]
[...] Vinten's summation is very true to a great extent. The whistleblowing path is hardly easy because the whistle blower has to adhere the possible outcomes, which are mostly adverse, even after a single attempt. The negative impact of whistleblowing is attributed to the issue of organizational loyalty according to Jubb (2000, p.92). The conflict is usually attributed to the possible existence of difference between the organizational values and personal values. The same case would arise due to the difference between being loyal to the organization and being loyal to the society (Tsahuridu & Vandekerckhove, 2008). [...]
[...] If this happens within an organization in which an employee decides to report the organization to the authority regarding an adversely perceived wrongdoing to the society, the employee is seen as being guilt by his or her employer because of doing that with discharging the duty of being loyal to the employer. The employee in this regard would be considered guilty of imitating an activity that is hardly permitted morally by the organization (Lindblom, 2007). Whistleblowing might thus appear like an ethical problem that is rather peculiar. [...]
[...] Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the whistle and why? Industrial & Labour Relations Review, 113-130. Near, J. P Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-16. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. [...]
using our reader.