To blow the whistle or not to blow

A colleague sent his son to see a dentist, Dr A who recommended non-surgical treatment. Two years later the son had to see a different doctor when Dr A was on leave.

The new doctor discovered that the actual treatment was not done properly and recommended the start from scratch. My colleague was angry and frustrated for several reasons.

First because he trusted Dr A who worked in the same hospital, second because he dismissed comments from his son who mentioned on several occasions that Dr A’ s treatment does not seem to be working.

The third reason was, being a medical doctor himself, my colleague felt it was his duty to expose Dr A so he would not harm other patients especially when the harm is done through negligence which is often difficult to detect.

A whistleblower is a person, who could be an employee of a company, or a government agency, disclosing information to the public or some higher authority about any wrongdoing, which could be in the form of fraud, corruption.

The most famous whistleblower in modern history is probably Julian Assange who founded wikileaks in 2006 to publish leaked documents. Whistleblowers can be subjected to emotional and sometimes physical pain, from being called traitors to receiving death threats.

This is why some people prefer to keep quiet. So what makes whistleblowers take the risk?

From a psychological perspective, whistleblowing is a complex behaviour that is determined by several personal and organisational factors. At a personal level, whistleblowers often have specific personality traits like having a sense of responsibility, courage and a strong ethical orientation.

They have stronger moral judgement and personal norms that make them report the misconduct.

Research studies show that one’s age and work experience are also important as experienced employees with higher education and those working at an organisation that encourages reporting of misconduct were more likely to act as whistleblowers.

The person’s perception of misconduct will determine his reaction. When the misconduct is serious and has a negative impact on the company, customers or society people are more likely to report it, this is why medical errors are more likely to be reported.

Before reporting a misconduct, people perform personal cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the benefits of reporting outweigh the potential costs. Employees who feel they will be supported by colleagues, supervisors or other whistleblowers, are more likely to report wrongdoings.

We all know that our emotions influence our behaviour and decisions. So when we experience anger, frustration or outrage toward a particular misconduct, we are more likely to act as whistleblowers.

At an organisation level, having a clear system of reporting misconduct is more likely to encourage whistleblowing as employees feel confident that they will be protected from retaliation and discrimination.

Financial incentives are a strong motivator for people to speak out but at the same time this may increase ‘fake whistleblowers.’ So a clear system of investigating needs to be in place to minimise the misuse of the whistleblowing system for personal grudges or financial gain.