Whistleblowing: a three part view

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide contrasting views on whistleblowing, and offers a three-fold view of whistleblowing. First, it gives some formal arguments. Second, it provides an account of whistleblowing from a whistle-blowers perspective. Third, it provides advice to potential whistle-blowers. Its main purpose is to outline the kinds of arguments in favour of whistleblowing, express some concerns and to provide advice in the form of suggestions. Design/methodology/approach – The initial two sections are provided to compare and contrast the academic and the practical consequences of deciding to blow the whistle. As such, it provides accounts that are meant to compare and contrast the two very different approaches. The final section gives suggestions for consideration for those contemplating blowing the whistle. Findings – The findings of this study are such that it is an argument rather then empirical data; notwithstanding, the perspectives that it brings to bear all point to the value of honesty, and its role as a justification for whistleblowing. Advice and suggestions stem from two rather different realms of discourse. The advice to prospective whistle-blowers is derived from extensive experience on the part of many. It is composed of both what questions to ask oneself, and what one must do to be self-protective. Originality/value – It is argued that corruption has little to commend it apart from the personal benefit of the corrupt acquisition of wealth, whereas openness and honesty appear to be a self-sustaining enterprise. Whistleblowing both enhances the quality of life in that it sustains the democratic process, and may well be related to economic prosperity. In all of this, the merit of transparency is basic.