Resultados de señales paramétricas tipo sweep

One perspective on whistle blowers is that they are altruistic. Altruistic concerns point to the virtue of unselfish concern for the wellbeing of others, says Holtzhausen (2012: 14). The

33 altruistic reason for whistle blowing is the need and desire to correct the wrongdoing which is bringing harm to the interests of the organisation, consumers, colleagues, or the society as a whole (Holtzhausen, 2012: 26). Another perspective is the motivational and psychological viewpoint as discussed briefly in 2.2.7. above. It is difficult to prove that only altruistic motivations lead to whistle bowing as the act of whistle blowing may result in some form of benefit for the whistle blower. The benefit may come in the form of monetary reward of which the whistle blower may or may not have been aware. The PDA makes provision for this unknowing act. Some organisations sometimes offer a reward in exchange for information about wrongdoing in the organisation (Holtzhausen 2012: 27). An individual whistle blower may also receive benefits, either knowingly or unknowingly, from an outside individual or organisation that offers the reward as a form of appreciation for reporting misconduct. On the other hand, the whistle blower may be guided by personal motives and vendettas such as revenge against an individual, a group of individuals, or an organisation.

Organisational commitment and cognitive moral development are two other motivations for whistle blowing put forward by Mathews (1987: 1). An employee builds a relationship which is based on loyalty. This loyalty is closely linked to their personal beliefs and own moral systems. When an employee is placed in a position whereby they have to question their own moral code as well as their organisational commitment, the employee will always choose to adhere to their own beliefs and disengage from any position which negatively impacts their beliefs. Mathews further explains that findings cited in Miceli (2009: 277) indicated that men are more likely to report misconduct than women, and whistle blowing is more likely to occur when the observer of the wrongdoing holds a professional position. Miceli also found that the motivations for whistle blowers depend on the channels for reporting the misconduct, whether they exist or not (as per the PDA), and also what the perceived likelihood of retaliation might be. This paper, through its study, found that there is a theoretical relationship between whistle blowing and the two individual attributes of organisational commitment and cognitive moral development. It is argued here, that both these variables, independent of each other, will have a positive effect on the likelihood that an individual will report misconduct.

Kleinhempel (2011: 2) argued that whistle blowing went against loyalty to an organisation, with sayings like “don’t wash your dirty laundry in public” supporting this notion among the general public. Whistle blowing brought back memories of informers in countries with authoritarian episodes in their past, like Nazi Germany. The line separating unethical

34 individuals or informants and whistle blowers are thin and often blurry. The main distinction lies in the disclosure and what it entails and also the whistle blower’s motivation. The question is whether hiding misconduct is ethically more adequate than its exposure, therefore evaluating the consequences of one’s actions. Reporting any wrongdoing, mainly internally, provides an organisation with the possibility to take remedial steps or, at least, to diminish potential negative consequences (Kleinhempel 2011: 2).

Kleinhempel (2011: 2) explains that if the wrongdoing has actually happened and can be proved, and proved substantially, then the matter is relatively simple: the more relevant and truthful the deed, the more warranted the whistle blowing intensions. Duska (as cited in Lal 2013: 3) agrees with Kleinhempel (2011: 3) by saying that the purest motivation for whistle blowing is altruistic: the whistle blower reports a misconduct to remedy a wrongdoing, to avoid or repair the damage done to the organisation, its employees or customers, and, by extension, to society at large. This is selfless motivation, but whistle blowing can sometimes bring significant financial gain for individuals who blow the whistle. In the United States, for example, the False Claims Act provides monetary incentives for whistle blowers, which were expanded by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2011.

Though organisations themselves offer rewards to whistle blowers, not every motivation that is not altruistic is necessarily financial. Revenge or blackmail, the hope of a promotion or any other workplace-related benefit, and even the fear of losing one’s job if a wrongdoing is disclosed externally and the organisation falls prey to a scandal, are also strong motivations for whistle blowers. Ultimately, every individual will need to make a careful assessment of the criteria mentioned above to make the right decision and evaluate its possible outcome.

Most often, individuals choose to blow the whistle when organisations around them favour a culture of transparency, having and making use of open-door policies and procedures to protect whistle blowers. Research has shown that employees feel more inclined to report wrongdoings when they are pleased with their organisations and believe that management is fully committed to ethical values (Kleinhempel 2011: 3). Attitudes may change as a result of management’s behaviour and according to personal standards, and are also shaped by external factors, such as local culture and beliefs. Some individuals require more support than others; some are driven by monetary incentives, as mentioned above, while others are more concerned with justice or decide to blow the whistle if they have a user-friendly, convenient tool to do so. The most common motivation not to report misconduct is a belief that the

35 organisation will fail to take any corrective measures and that details will not remain confidential, threatening whistle blowers’ professional and personal lives.

Whistle blowing does not only entail an ethical dilemma, but also a question as to whether reporting a specific wrongdoing amounts to a betrayal or a benefit for the organisation and society. Blowing the whistle is much bigger than just the individual and the organisation, or even the legislation such as the PDA; it also affects the community at large. On the other hand, organisations are increasingly becoming more consciously aware that transparency and good business practices both provide sound competitive advantages and minimize public risks, and also their associated costs, either from ethical convictions, to gain an edge over competitors or to avert risks, corporate behaviour is changing and legislation such as the PDA is becoming more prominent and valuable. Business organisations are rolling out compliance programs with specific rules to protect whistle blowers from any form of retaliation (Ramofoko 2001: 1).