How do you think loyalty to an organization and/or obligations to follow a prescribed procedure factor into the situation?
What about the organization's obligation to meet the needs of their clientele?
I'm getting ideas for a paper I am writing. I'm especially interested in the public sector.
2006-09-21 05:19:26 · 12 answers · asked by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it is always a journey. that is an interesting idea... how do you determine your allegiance, and how much loyalty can anyone realistically be expected to give?
are you hoping to examine this from a standpoint of personal ethics and morals or from a more legal standpoint? is it more philosophical or mechanical?
2006-09-21 05:22:00 · answer #1 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what they're whistling about.
If it is someone who is angry with the organization for other reasons and blows the whistle solely to cause harm or embarrassment to the company, then they're just a jerk. However, I tend to believe that most whistle blowers are simply conscientious people who see injustice and want it to be corrected.
For example, if your company has a procedure that is not being followed, but it really isn't hurting anything, blowing the whistle only causes problems. However, if you know that someone is cooking the books, embezzling, covering up a problem that could cause the company great harm, or something like that, then you are doing a favor to everyone else who works there as well as the company's stockholders (if there are any).
Imagine if someone had the guts to blow the whistle on the Enron executives before things got out of hand.
2006-09-21 05:26:52 · answer #2 · answered by Robby216 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are hero. They are the people who we cant live without. Most public sectors offer services that are affordable to the citizen of many country and some idiots trying to enrich themselves should deserve what they get. Imagine how much companies can loose due to corruption.
2006-09-21 05:29:55 · answer #3 · answered by ngina 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm no longer in the slightest degree bowled over. If this type of provider is needed, the final investment could take delivery of to it to be certain that team are right examined on their perspectives approximately immigration and asylum seekers, right knowledgeable to do the activity, and right paid as experts. regrettably, by using its very nature, the activity is helpful to entice racists and bigots, however the recruitment technique could be robust adequate to weed them out.
2016-12-12 12:21:59 · answer #4 · answered by moncalieri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That all depends on the kind of whistles that are being blown and the severity of the problem.
2006-09-21 05:31:26 · answer #5 · answered by mysticideas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They provide a needed balance between the good of the organizatin & the good of society.
2006-09-22 16:05:54 · answer #6 · answered by ThomasR 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My experience is that many are self-serving maverick activists, who "blow the whistle" since they are planning to quit their organizations anyway, before they get fired.
2006-09-21 05:25:23 · answer #7 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe we all have the responsibility to report any conspicuous activity we are privy to!
NO ONE'S ABOVE THE LAW!!!! Even though the wealthy believe they are!!!
2006-09-24 03:49:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can't live with 'em or without 'em.
2006-09-21 05:21:11 · answer #9 · answered by hpneil 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like stupid.
2006-09-21 05:27:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋