Clasificación bacteriana

Most definitions agree that whistle blowing relates to perceived organisational wrongdoing. In order for a disclosure to take place, the whistle blower must witness an incident or practice, or set of incidents or practices, as incorrect and improper behaviour. This observation then causes the whistle blower to disclose the perceived wrongdoing (Miceli and Near 1992:156), and the disclosure may only take place once such a perception exists. However, the wrongdoing must also be perceived as important for the individual to disclose it (Gundlach, Douglas and Martinko 2003:117).

2.2.2.1 The disclosurer

Most definitions agree that the disclosurer must be an employee or former employee of the organisation within which the wrongdoing has occurred or is occurring (Near and Miceli 1985:4; Camerer 1996:45; King 1999:316). Former employees are included in this definition because individuals often leave an organisation as a result of whistle blowing. It is important to note that it is because of such individual's prior involvement in the organisation that he or she has developed a perception of organisational wrongdoing.

Whistle blowing, whether by an employee or former employee, is usually directed at an authority that may offer, or facilitate, a solution to correct the wrongdoing. Whistle blowers are typically employees who are subordinates and who aim to change the workplace for the better. As such, they may be seen as political agents (Rothschild and Miethe 1994:254) who want to

change the way things are done within an organisation. Because such subordinates in effect challenge their superiors there is often harsh retaliation.

2.2.2.2 Wrongdoing

Most experts see wrongdoing in an organisation as including unethical, illegal or harmful practices (Near, Rehg, Van Scotter and Miceli 2004:221) in the organisation of which the whistle blower is a part. In order for the wrongdoing to be disclosed, it is important that the research question of “what is meant by criminal and irregular conduct in terms of disclosing wrongdoing?” be addressed. Wrongdoing may include "… criminal activity, contravention of any statute, improper or unauthorised use of public and other funds, miscarriage of justice, the abuse of power, maladministration ..." (Uys and Senekal 2005:5).

Typically, two categories of wrongdoing are found in the literature.

Firstly, there is wrongdoing that Miceli and Near (1992:171) recognise as organisational crime, which is crime "… committed on behalf of an organisation by one or more of its employees, with the primary purpose of increasing organisational wealth". Organisational crime may also benefit the individuals involved, for if the organisation benefits, then certain individuals or groups within the organisation will benefit as well, for instance where there is contract fraud, money laundering, price fixing, or cost-cutting activities (Miethe 1999:27). As Miethe (1999:27) says, "... particular individuals may benefit from the misconduct, but the behaviour is supported by the organisation and is functional for the continued operation of the company". The organisation and the person committing the wrongful acts feel under threat, therefore, when accused. This is why many disclosurers will be either kept from reporting the wrongdoing, or treated very harshly if they do report it.

Secondly, some occupational crimes include acts of wrongdoing which are purely for self-interest (Miceli and Near 1992:171) – acts that occur "within a work-setting" and that are "motivated by individual need and lack

organisational support" (Miethe 1999:27). Miceli and Near (1992:171) state that occupational crimes "are committed primarily to increase individual wealth". It must be noted that syndicates functioning within a company to defraud it for direct individual and personal benefit may also be viewed as occupational criminals.

According to Miethe (1999:27), other activities include "counterproductive work activities (such as substance abuse on the job, coming to work late or leaving early; taking unauthorized work breaks), prohibited personnel practices (such as discrimination and sexual harassment), financial fraud (such as embezzlement and overcharging for business expenses, falsifying time cards), and poor production or service activities (such as defrauding customers by low quality service, abuse of clients)". Miethe (l999:27-28) adds that occupational deviance is not tolerated in most organisations.

2.2.2.3 Peer-reporting

Whistle blowers may come to act against their superiors or their peers. When whistle blowing involves the disclosure of information regarding a peer's illegal, immoral or harmful practices, it is referred to as peer-reporting. Research on group behaviour has found that members of the organisation generally react more negatively to peer reporters than to whistle blowers (Trevino and Victor 1992:40). Peer-reporting usually involves the reporting of individuals committing occupational crime, as such crimes are committed to directly benefit individual(s) who desire to increase their own personal wealth. Peer-reporting can also relate to organisational crime and does not focus on occupational crime only. Newly appointed employees are less likely to report a wrongdoing as they might fear fellow- employee or group retaliation or being ostracised (King and Hermodson 2000:323)

2.2.2.4 Reporting to the proper persons

Whistle blowers have two ways of reporting organisational wrongdoing, namely to authorities within the organisation, or regulatory authorities outside

the organisation (Uys 2005:8) and therefore two main forms of whistle blowing can be identified, namely internal and external whistle blowing (Near and Miceli 1996:509) (see sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3).

Internal whistle blowing refers to reporting to people or managers within the organisation who are higher up in the organisational hierarchy. Those who receive internal complaints may be direct line managers, human resource representatives, chief executive officers, members of an executive council or board of directors. Internal whistle blowing may be via existing communication channels such as hotlines or via unauthorised communication channels e.g. e-mail if that is the only way (Johnson and Wright 2004:69) .

External whistle blowing refers to the disclosure of information outside the organisation and includes media, politicians, public protectors, government bodies, regulatory bodies, interest groups and enforcement agencies (Miceli and Near 1994:774-775). According to Uys in Binikos (2006:22), the appropriate whistle blowing procedure is for the whistle blower to report firstly internally, and then, if that does not succeed, to approach an external law enforcement agency, and finally, if that does not work, to report to the media, or to politicians, both of whom may also be considered external complaint recipients. However, where the media and politicians have received complaints of and exposed wrongdoing, they are not seen as whistle blowers since they are not members of the accused organisations. They are merely a way in which the whistle blower, a member or former member of the organisation concerned, can report and hopefully remedy the wrongdoing.

Journalists and politicians may also be seen as whistle blowers if they expose crime and corruption within an organisation they belong to or represent. Harry Charlton (see 4.5.1.1) is a politician who became a whistle blower when he exposed the South African Parliament, where he worked as Chief Financial Officer. Charlton blew the whistle on fellow Members of Parliament and their travel agents who had abused travel vouchers, defrauding Parliament of an estimated R24 million. Not surprisingly, this scandal has since been dubbed Travelgate. If the whistle blower is aware and understands the correct

channels of disclosing wrongdoing, it can “be used to increase the level of understanding of disclosures of wrongdoing done in good faith.” (see section 1.5; 2.3.6 and 4.5.1.12).

2.2.2.5 In whose interest should the disclosure be?

Whistle blowing is said to be authentic when the disclosure of information is consistent with the greater good, i.e. in the interest of the public. If whistle blowing is seen as a tool to reveal fraud and corruption (Camerer 1996:49-50; Elliston 1982:168) rather than to gain personal benefit, then it is prosocial behaviour, since it is in the interest of the public. Malevolent whistle blowing (Uys in Binikos 2006:24), on the other hand, is when the whistle blower stands to gain personally, or when the individual engages in whistle blowing to leverage his or her position within the organisation, i.e. when prosocial benefits – if any – are secondary.

Whistle blowing is (a) deliberate action(s) that follows on the whistle blower's moral need to protect the organisation and the public from harm (Alant and Uys 1999:7). In terms of the PDA, every employer and employee is now regarded as having a responsibility to do something about crime and any other irregular conduct in the workplace (although employees are not obliged to disclose wrongdoing). The employer must ensure that employees who disclose such information are protected against retaliation or victimisation (see section 2.3.5). The PDA has far-reaching consequences for both employer and employee; the next section therefore looks at the provisions and certain prominent features of the PDA.

2.3 Legislative measures to combat corruption and facilitate whistle