Effective Whistleblower Protection in Public Sector

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The concept

Whistle blowing is a strategy that is adapted by the public and private sector to expose any kind of malpractice in the organization (Preston, 1994). Due to the complexities that are involved in the entire procedure, it became important for the government to implement an act that would protect employees and other individuals that may expose such malpractices. Despite the protection that the whistle blowers are assured of, there is still much fear among them whether to report such practices or not (Bishop & Preston, 2000). Whistle blowing may not be as easy as any body may think it to be considering the possible consequences that may accrue.

Whistle blowers do not only face a risk of loosing their jobs but also spoiling the relationships between them and their colleagues. There are also not guaranteed of the fact that they will be taken seriously or the investigations will be carried out in an appropriate way (Martínez-Vázquez, 2007). Most people see negative things happening in their organizations and wish that they would expose the culprits, they may however not be able to do so considering the likely consequences that they may have to face.

Protection

Protection of the whistle blowers is considered to be an important measure that will restore sanity in public sectors (Head, 2008). There are many reported cases of corruption and misuse of public funds that requires real people to expose them. Efforts of reporting such malpractices even by the very willing parties are not easy due to the environment that they are exposed to (Preston, 2002). People that have a full knowledge of their ill practices will be careful especially when dealing with other parties.

They will handle their things in secret and once they realize that their secret is out, they may issue threats or even bribe the party to prevent them from reporting them. Most of the people that have been discovered to be involved in malpractices are usually top company officials that hold demanding positions. They usually have certain influences on their junior staff and will do anything to prevent them from reporting (Brown, 2008). At times the staff may also be caught up in similar situation as they are made to make signatures or rather approve entries that they know they are not correct.

The Dilemma

Due to such situations that the possible whistle blowers are found into, it becomes difficult for them to report (Vandekerckhove, 2006). It may reach a time when they have participated a lot in such crimes that they fear if they report the matter, they may be found in situations where they will also be guilty. They may not have benefited from any such practices which raise a need in them to report the matter. They are however threatened by their bosses and told that if they report the matter, it will still come back to them because of their signatures (Pieth, 2007).

They may also lack adequate information on how the law protects them against any form of retaliation or if they know, they may not understand d to what level and how long the protection may be granted (Bode, 2008). Such issues usually occupy their mind and make them to keep quite instead. Some employees that may feel that the malpractices in their organizations are more than they can handle may decide to walk out of the company without any say (Brown, 2008). However, such walking away may also be interpreted differently by the bosses who may decide to take action before they are reported.

Protection organizations should give to current employees when they blow whistle

Blowing the whistle can save a company of a lot of inconveniences and losses that could have jeopardized their activities. It should hence be an activity that should be encouraged among all company employers. There are employers who may be willing and ready to report their colleagues who are out to disorganize the organization. They however need to be assured that such reporting will not pose a risk to their carrier and social life (Whitton, 2005).

All they require is for the organization to assure them that the investigations into the case will not be taken for granted and that they will receive the necessary protection. Cultivating a culture of whistle blowing is never an easy task considering the risks that the whistle blowers are exposing themselves to. Whistle blowers are mostly considered to be traitors by their colleagues who may not want to associate with them. Most of them that have the ability to blow the whistle may choose to keep quite for the sake of their social and career life. It will hence require the company to employ a number of measures to motivate them to blow the whistle when necessary.

Promise them legal protection

The organization should assure the employees that may want to blow the whistle that legal protection will be guaranteed to them. This can be done by letting them know that there are legal procedures that have to be followed which will also ensure that they are safe from any harm (Horrigan, 1998). Some of the company employees may actually not understand that the case will be handled in accordance with the court of law and feel that it will fall in wrong hands. Once they are sure that it will not only be about the company but also involve legal procedures, they will be able to open up and hence saving the company from possible losses.

Rewards

Employees will always want to feel appreciated for every effort that they may employ to save the company. If the effort involves the employee saving a company from bigger losses, then the employee will want a bigger reward (Burke & Richter, 2007). This is a strategy than can encourage employees to be on the look out for any loopholes by their colleagues to destroy the company and report the same to the concerned authority. This will also motivate the employees to know how much they can sacrifice for a similar reward. Some of such rewards may include promotions or good holiday packages. With such kind of alertness in the organization, employees are likely not to engage in such malpractices with the full knowledge that somebody may be watching them out.

Immediate investigation into the case

Employees may not be free to blow the whistle if they are not sure that they will be taken seriously. They have been cases where an employ has raised concern by blowing the whistle but no seriousness was attached to the case. This leaves them wondering whether they did the best thing or not. It discourages them from raising any other concern incase they encounter a similar situation (Sampford, 1998).

Even though every case reported by the whistle blowers may not necessarily be true or right, they need to be assured that something is being done to it. It is usually better for the investigations to be carried out and found false rather than ignoring them. Ignoring employees that have blown the whistle may risk their social standing at their places of work and make them to be stigmatized. Even if their suspicions are nullified, they should still be appreciated for showing concern. This will motivate them to keep alert and report any kind of suspicion they may encounter.

Conclusion

Whistleblower is usually an endangered individual who needs maximum protection from the organization. It takes a lot of courage for an employee to expose a colleague simply because they care about the organization. Most of them are much aware of the dire consequences that they may be faced with depending on the direction the case will take. They are however very few individuals that will dare take such an action due to the environment that they are surrounded with. Many companies have collapsed or rather robbed off their investors millions of money because they lacked daring individuals to expose the matter (Vallabhaneni, 2008).

This therefore means that a company that may have such a courageous person or desires to have one if not many should personally assure them of such protection. Employers should also be treated as shareholders rather than workers of the company, this will enable them to feel free and actively run in the running of the organization which will include blowing the whistle when necessary.

Reference List

Bishop, P. & Preston, N., (2000) Local Government, Public Enterprise and Ethics. London: Federation Press.

Bode, I., (2008). The culture of welfare markets: the international recasting of pension and care systems. London: Routledge.

Brown, E., (2008). Whistleblowing in the Australian public sector: enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organizations. New York: ANU E Press.

Burke, F. & Richter, W., (2007). Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics. New york: Rowman & Littlefield.

Head, B., et al. (2008). Promoting Integrity: Evaluating and Improving Public Institutions. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Horrigan, B., (1998). Government law and policy: commercial aspects. London: Federation Press.

Martínez-Vázquez, J., (2007). Fighting corruption in the public sector. California: Emerald Group Publishing.

Pieth, M., (2007). The OECD convention on bribery: a commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Preston, N., (1994). Ethics for the public sector: education and training. London: Federation Press.

Preston, N., et al. (2002). Encouraging ethics and challenging corruption: reforming governance in public institutions. London: Federation Press.

Sampford, C., (1998). Public sector ethics: finding and implementing values. London: Federation Press.

Vallabhaneni S., (2008). Corporate Management, Governance, and Ethics Best Practices. California: John Wiley and Sons.

Vandekerckhove, W., (2006). Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility: a global assessment. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Whitton, H., (2005). Managing conflict of interest in the public sector: a toolkit. New Jersey: OECD Publishing.

Click Here To Order Now!