• find and encourage civil disobedience

• need trust and empowerment - leaders shouldn’t blindly lead - we should trust that followers can act freely because they will uphold morals - civic responsibility 

• the US government has a history of lying which is upheld by political pressure. 

  • ex. Obama claimed that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda was going better than it was, but analysts could not express their real opinions without being encouraged to retire

  • hostile climates where commanders wanted to protect their own careers --> issues with self-interest, greed, high management pressure → culture of unjust orders 

• organizations should set realistic standards, so that employers do not feel compelled to lie

• moral courage of leadership! - they must be transparent and admit when something is not going right in the company, instead of fudging numbers → risk employment, reputation, relationships

• people’s moral standards change at work (job at stake) 

  • dehumanization to justify wrongdoings, “just doing our job” 

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence delves a little into ways that corporate culture can be adjusted so that whistleblowers are more accommodated. This includes leaders offering more flexibility to their employees/followers and having more trust in their judgment. This also entails ensuring that the means of reaching an end goal needs to be just as important as achieving the end goal, and that all ethical standards must be met. Corporations should be more transparent about their shortcomings, so that whistleblowers can freely detail ethical issues taking place.

• bottom up anti corruption practices (empowers general public and workers): encourages them to blow the whistle, support from NGOs 

  • when they see their peers empowered to blow the whistle, they want to as well

• counterargument: anti-corruption practices are actually detrimental to whistleblowing because the workers think that someone is going to blow the whistle, they don’t have to, bc all of these policies are in place

• WE NEED CHANGE IN WORKPLACE BC independent anticorruption commissions/agencies and legal initiatives are ineffective in instilling positive values in the workplace - they must actually be enforced

  • why this is needed on top of legal + outside support

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence explains how workplace values and ideals are instilled in workers that often promote complacency and thus are able to foster corruption in the workplace. Supporting whistleblowers will have a ripple effect and foster a sense that the organization will value honesty

• an open culture should be made where concerns and whistleblowing can be established and encouraged as a norm. 

• corporate leadership should redirect whistleblowing to improve safety, empower employees, and strengthen the camaraderie and unity of the organization 

• hierarchical and bureaucratic corporate structures usually do not have space to accept whistleblowers. these orgnaizations strive for conformity in the workplace and care little about the bottom level employees. They only reward leaders and dislike creativity and dissent in the employee level. → promote compliance, fosters poor ethics

  • “Bureaucratic organizational structures: many layers of management, going down from senior executives to regional managers to departmental managers”

  • “Hierarchical culture: relies on dif. levels of authority w/ chain of command connecting multiple management levels within the organization”

• companieso need to stop placing such a massive importance on maximizing speed, cost, efficiency, and short-term goals, instead of standards, ethics, and long term sustainability. 

• orgs need to encourage creativity and dissent in workplace → for integrity and safety

• dual authority matrix structure is the proposed best organizational structure for whistleblowing → creates organizations that are more flexible and creative 

  • one CEO, several branches of management, w/system kind of like gov. checks and balances

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence explains the problem in the actual organizational structure of many organizations. The hierarchical/bureaucratic structure does not bode well for employees by limiting their freedom and creativity, which thus limits the effectiveness of whistleblowing complaints. This evidence also explains about how the corporate structure can be adjusted to a “matrix model” which allows for a more mixed level management in which different branches of management sort of check each other, as opposed to the bureaucratic model of management that is simply tier-based top-down power scale. This different corporate structure can empower employees and allow for greater flexibility and creativity that can empower whistleblowers to safely speak their concerns.

All the sources reference the importance of external unbiased support groups, because they are unaffiliated with management and can help whistleblowers speak up to the public. In addition, they stress the importance of mental health services for whistleblowers, that they cannot receive in a company.

• organizations need to maintain an ethical culture for whistleblowers to prevent public embarassment

• organization should allow for internal whistleblowing → free and transparent discussions of ethical discussion within the company, before the public even has to know 

• screening procedures during hiring process to ensure strong morals in hirees 

• explicit ethical standards and honor code that is written out → rules must be clear! 

  • can’t just be written, must be enforced in HR, e.t.c.

  • to keep workers accountable, but also so that workers can keep organizations responsible! 

  • educational forums in organizations to regularly inform workers of important org. ethical issues/questions

• companies should create an ethical organization committee to work with whistleblowers directly 

  • ensure all org. processes are done with morals - should not be held in the leadershiip

• regular anonymous worker community surveys

• by assigning clear roles to employees on what to do in a crisis, this can prevent “bystanders” to these roles → thinking another worker will blow the whistle so that they don’t have to

  • the bystander effect: When there are more people around an injustice, an individual is less likely to help or get involved, because they assume that someone else will do the work for them. The same applies for whistleblowing scenarios. Thus, it is important for employees to have set roles and protocols to do, which will support whistleblowers so that there will be no inaction.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence details specific organizational reforms for government agencies and corporations that are directly addressed to leadership. This includes an ethics committee, enforced and explicit codes of conduct, detailed procedures for employees to follow in case of a whistleblower, e.t.c. These targeted procedures nad guidelines for organizational management will show workers that the company values good morals and ethics, encouraging them to feel safe to speak up.

• there has been a shift in recent years, that protecting a whistleblower is “good business”

  • internal complaints keep companies out of trouble

  • now, with all the social media platforms that WB can use, the breadth of their allegations can spread faster to wider audiences

  • causes bigger economic hardship for the org/business, rather than resolving it inside

  • this reduces the risk of retaliation - not a good idea to ignore a whistleblower anymore

• many whistleblowers are not aware the extent of their protections → need for more education programs in the workplace, along with the standard incoming worker trainings, so that all workers know their rights

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

it provides some relevant modern approaches to whistleblowers, with the advent of social media that gives whistleblowers more leverage over their companies, due to their ability to go viral on large platforms. It expresses the importance of WB education in workplaces, so that WB can be supported on what their protections are, which will allow them to speak up in the workplace

• codes of conduct + audits + training are ineffective

  • only 1.4% of workers whistleblow → too many bystanders, not effective policy

  • leads to more and more unethical misconduct and damaged company reputations

  • fear of consewuenes, preference for status quo, e.t.c.

• “diffusion of responsibiltiy” - the bigger the corporate, the more people will think that someone else will speak

• REFRAME

  • R: Redesign Reporting Tools (more streamlined, more immediate training (like SA), 0 tolerance policy, external accessible and anonymous hotlines w/opportunity for GROUP reporting)

  • E: Embed culture of safety (no toxicity, allow questions, non-judgemental dialogue in work, bosses who build team unity, encourage expression of concern, admit mistakes)

  • F: Frame w/positive messages (reinforce teamwork, empathy and inclusion → not solely business related, reframe whistleblowing as being kind to others → will save the company if they ever get caught anyways)

  • R: Reward w/non-monetary incentives (employers should initiate genuine gratitude for whistleblowers)

  • A: Amplify messenger voices: (have there be a messenger for WBs in the company)

  • M: Motivate w/stories of courage: (celebrate those who did right thing, in psychology terms, this acts similar to advertising → “mere exposure effect”)

  • E: Energize a conscience-based movement (add moral risk to WB movement, and make this a public commitment, so that the public can also hold the company accountable)

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

 it brings up a new perspective of group reporting as a way to provide new support to whistleblowers. Currently, many whistleblowing internal compliance systems and reporting systems only allow for individuals to whistleblow at a time. However, Walsh argues that this system should be revamped so that groups of employees can whistleblow together. This reduces the emotional strain and loneliness of being a whistleblower. It shows the importance of the employer in setting the work culture of a corporation that can be conducive to whistleblowing. A code of conduct is not enough, the employer needs to display openness, respect, and vulnerability, so that there is an environment where whistleblowers can feel free to express their concerns. The acronym “REFRAME” provides 7 guidelines for corporations and government agencies to follow. This is more than just revamping a code of conduct, it is creating an enforceable change in the work culture that can allow whistlebloweers to feel more free to report, without the mental and emtoional strain and worries that they shouldn’t speak up.

• explicit response system to WB reports - not winded answers and convoluted responses → a set established response system

• allowing one WB will have a ripple effect on the morals of the rest of hte workplace!  --> idea of moral courage

• pluralistic ignorance - this same bystander phenomenon that was mentioned before

• leaders need to lead in good manner

• promote that the journey is as important as the result - must remain ethical

• companies with strong cultures tend to hire employees who share their viewpoints

  • people need to be hired from different backgrounds to rid of social pressure and show all perspectives are valued

• most WBs just know something is wrong → they just don’t know what exact law is violated

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

it illustrates that many workers not only don’t have much knowledge ont he protections they receive as whistleblowers (which was established in earlier sources), but they do not even know the legal guidelines for the work that they are doing. Most whistleblowers just have a hunch that something is wrong, but they can’t identify the exact law that is being violated, which makes it more difficult and stressful for htem to reach out and report the unethical conduct. It also argues for stronger education for the laws of the work that workers do, as well as the laws of the WB protections, so that WB do not feel left in the dark if they ever try to report an issue. In addition, it refutes some other sources decision that reporting should be mandatory if someting unethical is observed, which provides some nuance to the kind of support of whistleblowers should receive. There shouldn’t be a mandatory path for whistleblowers to take, but rather a variety of secure and safe paths that they can take based on their choosing.

• misleading/absent media prevent people from knowing about these issues 

  • whistleblowers don’t have the side of the media

  • media doesn’t provide enough attention 

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

the media can provide essential support in helping a whistleblower's voice get heard to the general public.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

many government agencies that aid whistleblowers are biased, especially towards government whistleblowers (conflicting interests). the evidence also provides the idea of a peer support group for whistleblowers, a network of whistleblowers in which they can exchange support and advice, to reduce the loneliness that many whistleblowers feel.

• whistleblowers and whistleblower support groups should not only just help the whistleblower and identify problems, but also offer potential solutions and routes for action → nobody wants to be the cause of the problem

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

many current whistleblower support groups only confront the WB's company, and try to amplify the allegations to management. However, this evidence argues that it is also necessary for these support groups to help WBs find solutions, so that management is more willing to listen to them.

• the need for an ombudsman (an outside government employee who investigates and tries to resolve complaints) - an external involvement that receives whistleblower reports directly, instead of the whistleblower making allegations to the leadership directly. the ombudsman is also unbiased and will assist the whistleblower

  • reformed reporting systems (could include hotline + anonymity)

  • connection:  it details the plans of the need of an ombudsperson in corporations and government agencies. A centralized person for all whistleblower allegations and moral and ethical concerns who is not affiliated with the organization, so that all problems can be solved in an unbiased way without repercussions. a safe way for wb to bring up allegations, if they are worried abt repercussions

• there is a lack of targeted interventions and therapy that is specifc to the mental health scenario of whistleblowers

  • current support services often just focus on helping whistleblowers financially or helping them find work 

  • free access to social support, counseling, treatment - use doctors as a tretment

  • whistleblowers should undergo mental health screenings regularly 

CONNECTION: evidence addressing the lack of mental health support for whistleblowers. Many whistleblower support agencies and current protections offer them services for job security and financial remedy. However, whistleblowers have huge mental health crises, even as much as cancer paitnets, which highlights the gravity of the issue. The author argues for free mental health screenings and services for WBs as part of their protections, given that a minority of WBs actually see a psychiatrist.

• ex: in the military, soldiers MUST obey all “lawful” orders → big punishments (pay cuts, prison, e.t.c.)

  • only allowed to disobey if the order seems illegal

• followers lose both ways → Nuremberg Principle IV soldiers who carry out illegal orders will still be held accountable 

  • less repercussions by disobeying an unlawful order, instead of following an unlawful order, in the long run

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence delves a little into ways that corporate culture can be adjusted so that whistleblowers are more accommodated. This includes leaders offering more flexibility to their employees/followers and having more trust in their judgment. This also entails ensuring that the means of reaching an end goal needs to be just as important as achieving the end goal, and that all ethical standards must be met. Corporations should be more transparent about their shortcomings, so that whistleblowers can freely detail ethical issues taking place.

• whistleblower reports take a long time to be reviewed

  • during that time, whistleblowers are treated horribly

  • results only sent to leadership, who may not do anything with it or tell the whistleblower

• although there are laws, like the NO FEAR Act, whistleblowers often have to pay for legal advice to make full use of these protections 

  • often costs between $10,000 and $100,000 - financial strain + job demotion/loss = double financial strain 

  • has rippling effects into marriages, family choices, livelihood, retirement, e.t.c.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence delves into issues regarding the legal process for whistleblowers. The process is too slow and financial rewards for whistleblowing, as well as financial aid, are not enough to compensate for financial damages.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

this evidence discusses issues w/the legal process, esp. for gov. whistleblowers. gov whistleblowers are unable to directly reach congress for their reports to be reviewed, which allows for many of their cases to be dropped. in addition, they need more anonymity protection so that legally they can be protected

• at NIH, there is a severe underreporting of research misconduct → not enough WB protection

• research misconduct regulations just express moral standards, and do not explicitly mention WBs  -  this was drafted in 2000 though

  • authorization of more aid for WB - job security, financial reward, reputation management 

  • punishing orgs that hurt WB

    • probation, cutting funding, public exposure of their wrongdoings 

  • WB bill of rights → although this was never passed b/c of pushback

• counterargument - too much protection is bad --> must be aware of fake whistleblowers → used for ruining rep. of an org

• create new more involved institutions to certify that research is done without misconduct → places weight and burden out of a whisttleblwoer 

• more regular audits 

• organizatinos should submit written protections for WBs to Federal funders and regulatory agencies 

  • w/specific evidence of what was done to a whistleblower to ensure that the work is being done and enforced 

• random auditing 

• get rid of internal org. incentives to prevent WB from speaking out → should make laws to require WBs to speak out if they know the research will hurt animals/humans

  • if harm is doen, there should be an investigation to see who knew/who should’ve known that there was research misconduct 

• more ferederal legal protections for WB - penalty to orgs. for retailiating WB within a certain time 

• adding more prosecuting for research misconduct → scientific fraud is not as criminalized as financial fraud

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

provides many legal punishments for organizations who attempt to retaliate against whistleblowers and more laws in place to keep whistleblowers in check. In contrast to other legal proposals that protect whistleblowers, this one punishes the companies.

Sources 1,3,7 look for ways to streamline the legal process and speed it up for whistleblowers. On the other hand, source 8 explores punishments for organizations that punish whistleblowers. It shows two different legal approaches that can be used to support whistleblwoers.