Gandhi said that noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good; Burke said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Both concepts are still viable ... although expensive.
- Joseph Rose (whistleblower) (Glazer, p. 41.)
Whistleblowing involves speaking out against wrongdoing (ethical or legal). This can be handled by going through the standard organizational channels. If that is not effective or you have good reason to believe that it will make the matter worse, then one has to consider going outside the standard channels. This could be within the organization or, if necessary, outside it(such as reporting directly to a professional organization or governmental group). Try to choose the group that is most relevant, given the situation.
Before blowing the whistle, the individual who perceives an instance of moral or legal wrongdoing in his/her organization should consider the following:
1. Are the reasons valid for claiming that an alleged offense constitutes a serious and persistent wrong? How reliable is your information? (Avoid making judgments based on hearsay evidence.)
2. To what extent does this wrong cause harm?
3. Have you identified what the wrong and harm are?
4. Have you identified who is responsible for the wrong?
5. Is the wrongdoing of sufficient gravity to make it worth incurring unpleasant personal, professional, or organizational repercussions? Is the wrong continuing to cause harm?
6. If you plan to blow the whistle, first try to exhaust all reasonable channels within the organization before going outside of the organization. The goal is to minimize the harm from the infraction and the time it takes to correct the problem. But, in rare instances, reporting outside the organization may actually be the best option for minimizing the harm to those put at risk by the wrong.
7. Many professional groups have phone numbers you can call for guidance when you are confronted with a difficult issue like whistleblowing (For example, the Pennsylvania chapter of the A.P.T.A. provides such a service.).
A study by Myron Glazer identified three distinct types of whistleblowers. When making judgments about these types, remember that whistleblowing is risky. While we admire “Unbending Resistors,” this stance may be inappropriate given other personal obligations or practical considerations. Until whistleblowers are truly protected, each individual must decide the degree of risk they are willing to take:
Unbending Resistors - These individuals "protest within their organization about unethical or illegal behavior that they have observed. They maintain a strict commitment to their principles, despite efforts to cajole or coerce them." (Glazer, p. 33.) Ultimately, when their organization does not adequately address the problem although given the opportunity to do so, these individuals will turn to resources outside the institution which can resolve the problem.
Implicated Protesters - These individuals "speak out within their organizations, but acquiesce when they are ordered to conform. They find themselves drawn into illegal or unethical behavior, which they expose when they fear legal liability." (Ibid.)
Reluctant Collaborators - These individuals "become deeply involved in acts that they privately condemn. They seek public remedy and personal expiation only when they leave the organization." (Ibid.)
The path that an individual takes before he/she blows the whistle will depend on a number of factors, including the circumstances of the situation, the circumstances of the person's life, the person's courage, the person's self confidence, the threat of punishment, the person's evaluation of the risks and benefits of whistleblowing vs. keeping quiet, and other considerations.
References:
Banja, J. "Whistleblowing in Physical Therapy," Physical Therapy, 65:11 (1985) pp. 1683-1686 (and Errata in 66:4 (1986) p. 579.).
Glazer, M. "Ten Whistleblowers and How They Fared," Hastings Center Report, December 1983, pp. 33-41.