Whistleblowing: role of organizational culture in prevention and management: an ethical culture is necessary to prevent and manage whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing is often the result of an organizational culture that lacks the accountability for its espoused values Whistleblowing is an effort by a member or past member of an organization to deliver a warning to the public concerning a serious wrongdoing or danger created or masked by the organization (Ahem & McDonald, 2002; Bolsin, Faunce, & Oakley, 2005; Davis & Konishi, 2007). Whistleblowing results from a malfunction of the ethical environment of the organization to focus on its accountability for the safety and welfare of the patients. Individuals believe they must take a stand for the wrongdoing in the organization. Organizations that wish to protect themselves from public embarrassment stemming from whistleblowing need to establish a sound ethical culture. In this article, the type of organizational culture that would prevent the need for whistleblowing, as well as mechanisms to manage the whistleblowing process when it is needed, will be addressed. In a previous article on whistleblowing, the ethical justifications for the action, information on legal protections, and ways to reduce the risks and negative consequences often experienced by the whisdeblower were discussed (Lachman, 2008). What Does the Literature Say Is Important? Several authors suggest ways to structure the organization to eliminate the need for whistleblowing, with discussion of needed polices to manage whisdeblowing internally (Callahan, Dworkin, Fort, & Schipani, 2002; Grant, 2002; Greene & Latting, 2004; Near & Dworkin, 1998; Weiss, 1998). Grant (2002) indicated a belief that whistleblowing would not be necessary if the organization provided a safe way to discuss and manage ethical concerns. An organizational system needs to be transparent to be effective; the primary reason people do not report wrongdoing is that they think nothing would be done to rectify the situation (Near, Rehg, Van Scotter, & Miceli, 2004). Weiss (1998) presented steps to manage employee concerns by developing internal grievance procedures, encouraging and rewarding use of these procedures, appointing senior executives to be responsible for investigating and reporting wrongdoing, and assessing large fines for illegal actions. Near and Dworkin (1998) suggested that a more pragmatic option would be to have legal protection for whistleblowers, unlike the existing laws that fail to protect the individuals. Stories of ruined careers, stress-related illness, and even broken marriages abound in the literature about the impact of whistleblowing. Greene and Latting (2004) offered eight suggestions, beginning with establishing screening procedures to assure only morally responsible people are hired. They also suggested having written polices on the organization's ethical standards, including the steps employees should take if violations are witnessed. They recommended forming an organizational ethics committee to identify risk and advise management. Three of their ideas support an ethical organizational culture: ensure that adherence to high ethical standards is seen as everyone's responsibility; evaluate performance at least partially on

adherence to standards; and establish a policy of "no tolerance" of ethical violations, with frequent statements about this policy from management. Finally, they suggested periodic meetings to identify situations ripe for ethical violations and connect these to training for prevention. Callahan and colleagues (2002) suggested that organizations must focus on three trustbuilding tactics--accountability, reliance, and aspiration--to cultivate helpful internal whistleblowing procedures. These principles provide people and mechanisms to reach the outcome of an ethical organizational culture, and they help balance the need for profit with unbiased management of all organizational members. Accountability is possible only when the rules are clear and management is willing to hold all to these explicit expectations. An ombudsperson would be helpful in achieving accountability because such a person symbolizes openness to opposition. This individual would be the internal recipient of employees' reports that could include accusations of wrongdoing, potential ethics/code of conduct violations, safety problems, human resource issues, and ideas for training. The very existence of this centralized outlet may encourage internal reporting, rather than external whistleblowing. When employees know they can stop wrongful conduct, both morale and organizational loyalty improve (Callahan et al., 2002). Reliance is about employees being able to trust the written and oral polices and standards. A code of ethics must be in practice, not only existing on paper. Employee participation in code development creates a code that is focused on the dilemmas most likely to occur. Central to this reliance is protection from retaliation, regardless of the issue or persons involved (Callahan et al., 2002). Aspiration aims for excellence in ethical principles, rather than compliance with rules. The citizens of the organization, when bonded by empathy, solidarity, and integrity, respond differently to threats to the well-being of each other and to threats to organizational integrity (Callahan et al., 2002). Whistleblowing in Nursing Literature Thus far most of the suggestions came from general business, legal, and ethics literature. What specifically does the nursing literature say about the importance of organizational culture and polices in preventing and managing whistleblowing? Attree (2007) found multiple disincentives to reporting. First, nurses lacked confidence in existing reporting systems. They noted that a closed organizational culture often provided significant repercussions for raising concerns. Nurses in this study portrayed management in three acute care organizations as hindering openness. Attree (2007) also discussed facilitating factors for reporting where stating concerns was seen as professional duty; also potential risks and near misses were reported and accepted as constructive.

Fletcher, Sorrell, and Silva (1998) also indicated a belief that institutional ethical failure in accountability leads to whistleblowing. They identified whistleblowing as a last resort to protect clients or employees, or to avoid organizational self-destruction. They noted the clash of values inherent in whistleblowing: loyalty to clients or personal values versus loyalty to the organization. I suggest, however, that loyalty to an unethical organization violates basic professional duties, such as truth telling, self-determination, and mutual respect. Provision Three of the Code of Ethics for Nurses (American Nurses Association, 2001) acknowledges the nurse's ethical responsibility:
... to implement and maintain standards of professional nursing practice ... Nurses should also be active participants in the development of polices and review mechanisms designed to promote patient safety, reduce likelihood of errors, and address both environmental system factors and human factors that present increased risk to patients (pp. 13-14).

According to this provision, then, it is not only the ethical obligation of nurses to follow existing safe practices, but also to identify and address sources of system factors error. I believe Fletcher and colleagues (1998) recognized the heart of the problem when they noted that organizations have focused on the biomedical ethical issues and the business transactions in health care, but not on the ethical climate of the organization. They suggested that whistleblowing results from a failure of organizational ethics. Their remedy was "... identifying the common values and beliefs so that employees and patients are able to recognize the organization's core values and hold the organization accountable for them" (Fletcher et al., 2008, p. 6). However, these values and beliefs need to be not only in the organization's mission statement and code of conduct, but also immersed in human resource, business, and patient care polices. Published procedures for resolving ethical disputes that will arise because of diversity in health care organizations also are needed for an ethical climate. Ray (2006) identified whistleblowing as an ethical failure at the organizational level. When an organization has lost its moral compass, bureaucratic structures, paternalistic control, and cover-ups take precedence over transparency, accountability, and dialogue. An ethical culture places constraints upon certain activities, but also prescribes what the organization must do in situations of ethical conflict. Ray (2006) also argued for a variety of infrastructures to foster ethical analysis in policymaking and structures to hold the moral compass steady. Examples of such structures include ethics committees, integration of ethics structures with quality control structures, community survey to evaluate the organization's ethics, and designated executives for maintaining organization's ethics. I believe the entire management team is responsible for the organizational ethical culture, but the CEO sets the moral standard. After consulting to more than 400 health care organizations, I know that acts of immorality at the top set the tone for the organizational culture (e.g., CEO commits adultery or sexual harassment, or is arrested for DUI or tax evasion). Recommendations for Creating an Ethical Organizational Culture

The articles reviewed have many similarities in their recommendations. I will identify five recommendations, beginning with the most global and working toward the needed infrastructure to support an ethical culture. The suggestion is that whistleblowing would not need to occur if the organization operated in an ethical manner. However, because no organization is perfect, I also will include infrastructures to deal with ethical violations. 1. Develop a code of conduct or credo that emphasizes the values guiding the organization and for which there is no compromise. Listen to the credo of Johnson and Johnson (http://www.jnj.com/connect/about-jnj/jnj-credo/). They demonstrated during the Tylenol[R]contamination incident that these words meant something. Though they lost millions of dollars, the organizational culture put doing the right thing above profits. 2. Develop an organizational ethics committee whose mission is to create whatever infrastructures are necessary to have organizational values at the center of all dealings. The ethical character of the organization, just like that of an individual, needs to amplify integrity. In a moral community, no gap exists between the espoused values and the action. Beyond the executive team, some group has to be responsible for creating the necessary interfaces and polices that continuously and consistently guide the decision making of the organization. If a separate committee is not possible, then the clinical ethics committee authority should expand to include organizational ethics. At the minimum, a monitoring approach that covers pressure points thoroughly and communication conduits that allow timely reporting and correction are imperative. 3. Ongoing educational forums should incorporate education on organizational ethical issues. This would help staff understand the difference between personally held values and those that the organization has developed. For example, the individual nurse may believe that artificial hydration and nutrition always should be given to a patient in a persistent vegetative state, but the organization's values support the autonomous decision of the patient in an advance directive. 4. "Get aggressive about passivity" is not only the title of a Harvard Business Review article (Gentile, 2005), but a phrase that crystallizes the role of each employee in supporting an ethical climate. In this culture, employees would not be ruled by the "bystander effect," where people are aware of wrongdoing but fail to intervene. The terms "diffusion of responsibility" and "bystander apathy" followed the landmark studies attempting to understand the 1964 brutal murder of Kitty Genovese in front of her building in the respectable New York City neighborhood of Kew Gardens (Gansberg, 1964). This young woman was stabbed to death at 3:20 am on March 13, 1964. Her screams for help after several stab wounds awakened 38 of her neighbors and initially frightened away her assailant. No one called the police for over 30 minutes after the initial attack. The studies that followed indicated that people are more likely to help when they were alone. When others are present, people assume someone else will act. In this diffusion of responsibility, professional nurses can discard their individual sense of responsibility, deceiving themselves into believing that something is management's responsibility. Patients can ill afford this passivity. The profession needs nurses with the moral courage to speak up when they encounter an ethical problem. To make such action

safer, organization-wide education on conflict resolution and a recognized reporting system are necessary. 5. Establish a clear, published procedure for all individuals to follow when they believe the present practice is irreconcilable with the organization's values and principles of care. This could include a hotline, an ombudsperson, or a credible and trusted person within the organization. Employees will be less fearful of retaliation and more likely to express concerns with an existence of a specific, formal channel for reporting. For greatest impact, reporting channels should allow anonymous communication, keep nonanonymous reporters informed of what action was taken, and have an appeal procedure for anyone who felt he or she suffered retaliation for whistleblowing. Conclusion An ethical culture is necessary to prevent and manage whistleblowing. Many authors address the importance of creating an organizational culture that supports ethical values through a code of conduct. In addition, infrastructures are needed to make the values and principles believable to the employees who should support them. Whistleblowing is often the result of an organizational culture that lacks the accountability for its espoused values.

One definition of whistle blowing is exposing a company's fraud, injustice, illegal or

unethical conduct or abuse by an employee of that company. Thomas Riesenberg (2001) writes in Business Lawyer that the Securities Exchange Act definition of "illegal acts" includes maintenance of non-fraudulent but quantitatively inaccurate books and records, weak internal controls, or violations of the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Commission even suggested that "personal misconduct" of a corporation's officers or directors meaning misconduct unrelated to business activities--is included within the definition (p. 1417). Whistle blowing is justified in situations in which companies take actions that are illegal or unethical. Whistle blowing is justified because society benefits from the activity. Whistle blowing is a selfless act. There are numerous examples in the literature of individuals whose careers ended in ruin because they chose to act ethically and "blow the whistle" on their employer's illegal or unethical activities. There are moral and ethical issues surrounding whistle blowing. The most obvious issues relates to loyalty. Specifically, an employee owes a 'duty of loyalty' to their employer. In one sense, whistle blowing is an act of disloyal. There is also the question of trust and the protection of confidential information. Again, employees have a duty to their employer to safeguard confidential information, but whistle blowing often requires the em

What is Whistle Blowing? Whistle blowing is the exposure of misconducts, wrong doings, and violations of law and breaches of public trust that has been cover-up under various reasons. The motive for the exposure is to require accountability of public bodies and private entities.

What Justifies Whistle Blowing? The description of whistle blowing brings out two important components relevant to the practice of democracy: 1) Exposure of misconducts, wrong doings and violations of law and breaches of public trust; 2) Requirement of accountability of public bodies and private entities. Do the citizens of a nation have the right to know any misconducts, wrong doings and violations of law and breaches of public trust which is hidden from them? Answer is yes, the citizen should have been informed in the first place. The fact that pertinent information was hidden from their knowledge and awareness raises questions of political transparency. And why should the public (citizen) know? The public should have been informed, because, firstly, it is part of accountability which is required of public bodies and private entities operating in democratic environment. Transparency and accountability in the communication of information which is pertinent to public (citizens') knowledge for them to make informed decisions is vital. Uninformed decisions can be disastrous.

An example would be invading another sovereign country. It is a severely significant national decision. If the public (citizens) are uninformed about the actual reasons of why their country is invading another, they would not be able to make informed decisions either in support or rejection, through their elected representatives. So, any decision made, would not be a real consensus of the public. When things go wrong in the implementation of acts like invasion of another country, the public cannot be held responsible for any negative outcome of wrong decisions. The sole responsibility goes back on those who covered-up pertinent informations that would have made a difference in the publics' decision making. Thus, whistle blowing that informs the public (citizens) of what was illegally hidden from them, and that, which brings about accountability of those involved in the cover-ups is justifiable. The public (citizens) has the right to know and the right to expect accountability in the practice of democracy. Prosecution Of Whistle Blowers, Is It Justified? Whistle blowers, who do public service, by bringing back transparency and accountability, restoring the publics' (citizens') right and power to make informed decisions, are acting out of conscious. What is acting out of conscious? BBC gives an example of Clive Ponting who acted out of conscience. A " jury refused to convict a senior civil servant, Clive Ponting, who revealed the real operational details of the sinking of the Argentinean battle-cruiser Belgrano during the Falklands War. The jury accepted Ponting had acted out of conscience, with integrity, and would not let the law to be used to punish such an act." Check this article out for detail to know what is

acting out of conscience? The link is: So, if any law is used to prosecute whistle blowers who did a public service by acting out of conscience, it would tantamount to a miscarriage of justice to them. It would also be a form of political intimidation of the public (citizens) who in the first place was led astray. In such a context, the prosecution of whistle blowers under any law is unjustifiable. Whistle blowing is justifiable in the practice of democracy. It restores the power of the public (citizens) to make informed decisions, which many times are taken from them through deceit and manipulations that are totally undemocratic. If any prosecution of the law is to be carried out, it should be on those who acted against the public (citizens) trust. It is definitely not against those who restored the public trust. In this matter, the judiciary and judicial system of a democratic country should be the vanguard in protecting whistle blowers and the citizens.

Whistle blowing policy

Members of staff may be the first to spot anything that is seriously wrong within the council. However, they might not say anything because they think this would be disloyal, or they might be worried that their suspicions are not justified. They may also be worried that they or someone else may be victimised. Members of the public may also have concerns. That is why we have produced this Whistle Blowing Policy to help staff and the public to contact us with their concerns. We are committed to being open, honest and accountable. Our Standards Committee has a role to play in promoting high standards and it wants you to be able to raise any serious concerns you have. This policy aims to make sure that if you want to raise any concern, you can do so with confidence and without having to worry about being victimised, discriminated against or disadvantaged in any way as a result. Fuji Xerox Singapore is committed to the highest standards of openness, integrity and accountability. Her management strives to promote these values and therefore invites anyone who has just cause to raise any serious concerns in this area within a secured and comfortable climate. Under normal conditions, staff members may be the first to realize a breach of these standards, an incident of malpractice or wrongdoing within the establishment. Often time such a concern might, however, be suppressed merely because of a misdirected sense of staff loyalty, a concern that the suspicions are not justified or simply a fear of being discriminated, harassed, disadvantaged and/or victimized resulting from the report. Members of the public may also share similar views.

For this reason, a Whistle Blowing Policy is instituted to allay the fears of and to address the needs of staff members and the public in contacting us with their concerns. This expressed policy aims to assure that interested parties wanting to raise any concern may do so with confidence and without the fear of reprisal. The policy further provides the avenues for interested parties to raise concerns and receive feedback after their report as well as address the option of escalation. This procedure applies to all employees, former employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents of Filtronic plc and its subsidiaries (Workers). The purpose of this procedure is to provide a framework to promote responsible whistle blowing. Whistle blowing is the reporting by workers of any malpractice or illegal act or omission by other workers. Filtronic has established by this procedure a channel for communication of concerns that is independent, so far as is practicable, from the management of the Company.

Relationship of this Procedure to the Companys other Policies and Procedures

Filtronics policies and procedures on grievance, discipline, harassment, etc. should be used in most situations. The use of this procedure should be restricted to where you reasonably believe one of the following has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur:

A criminal offence, including fraud, bribery or corruption; Disregard for legislation, particularly in relation to health and safety at work; Malpractice, or ill treatment of a customer by a senior member of staff; Damage to the environment; Any other serious irregularity; or Deliberate concealment of any of the above.

Whistle blowing should not be used in place of Filtronics grievance procedures or be a route for raising malicious or unfounded allegations. Only those who use this policy in good faith will be protected under it (see below). Whistle Blowing - Two Key Questions

Should you blow the whistle? How should you blow the whistle? What is Whistle Blowing?

Whistle blowing is the release of information by a member (or former member) of an organization that is evidence of illegal or immoral

conduct in the organization, or conduct in the organization that is not in the public interest So Whats Wrong with Whistle Blowing?

Whistle blowing conflicts with obligations to act in the interest of your employer and not to reveal confidential information Whistle blowing can upset the relationships of loyalty and trust that organizations rely upon to take effective actions as a group A Whistle Blowers "Checklist"

Is the situation serious enough to warrant whistle blowing? Do you have enough facts, and do you properly understand their significance? Are there any established internal channels available? What is your responsibility based upon your role in the organization? What are the chances for success? What is the best way to blow the whistle? What is the Best Way to Blow the Whistle?

To whom should the information be revealed? How much information? Should it be revealed anonymously?
This can be safer - although your name may come out anyway, as when legal testimony is ultimately necessary But it also lacks some credibility - anyone can make an anonymous charge

Stick to the key issues

Do not go on a crusade Do not engage in personal attacks The organization may try to paint you as a crazy misfit - dont make it easy to do

Have a plan of action and stick to it Is There a Right to Blow the Whistle?

There are laws protecting federal employees

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989

Some private employee protections

National Labor Relations Act of 1935 Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Other Acts with anti-retaliatory provisions

And...

Is There a Right to Blow the Whistle?

False Federal Claims Act of 1863 (amended 1986)

o
Whistle blowers can get a percentage of the monetary value of the fraud they uncover by defense industry contractors

State laws, too, but most protection is only for state employees Reasons Against Protecting Whistle Blowers

A law recognizing a right to whistle blow is open to abuse

Incompetent employees could use it to protect themselves It could be misused for revenge

Such a law would make managerial decision making much more difficult and companies much less efficient What should the legal protection be?
Allowing the employee to keep her position might create an untenable situation

Reasons For Protecting Whistle Blowers

Utilitarian
Protecting whistle blowers will encourage persons to reveal harmful conduct, and so increase happiness

Kantian
A person ought to be protected against any punishment for taking a morally required action

Components of a Whistle Blowing Policy

An effectively communicated statement of responsibility A clearly defined procedure for reporting Well-trained personnel to receive and investigate reports of wrong doing A commitment to take appropriate action A guarantee against retaliation