Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Study 3
Case Study 3
Some consider whistle blowers as noble characters willing to sacrifice themselves professionally
and personally to expose wasteful, fraudulent practices that can harm the welfare of the
republic. While others say that these whistleblowers are disgruntled employees who maliciously
and recklessly accuse individuals they feel have wronged them in order to attain their own
selfish goals.
In connection with Glenda’s solution to her accusation, I disagree. If Glenda pursues her
decision, she will be a subject of retaliation by her employee. Typically, her employer will
discharge her for being a whistle blower. To make it worst, let’s take Glenda to be a contractual
employee or an employee-at will, meaning she does not have a specific term of employment.
The employer can fire her anytime without having to cite a reason. Her action can disrupt a
Let’s take these into consideration, Glenda has no substantial evidence to confirm the
wrongdoing because; (1) she was just given some quickie consultant report showing that the
environmental impact will be minimal; and (2) the words from her Division Chief to do what she
First, consultant reports are provided by experts for organizations or groups that do not have
the time and the expertise on how to treat the subject or the problem. Consultant reports
present experimental work on the problem; these covers a series of findings or generalizations
based on expert insights. Simply, it is an examination for a class of problems from an expert’s
view addressed to the non-expert who stands to benefit from the information.
Second, the Division Chief asking her to do what she was being told and that the orders are
from the powers does not constitute any fraud and even if it is by any means an illegal order,
Any accuse that Glenda has for her Division Chief or the whole organization will not be
recognized because there is no clear statutory basis and the case will be dismissed if the
employer did not really violate any public policy. Glenda’s case will be refused and unrecognized
because there really is not mandated legal wrongful act identified. In addition, her blowing the
whistle can be used against her for reasons of seeking financial gain, fame or fortune.
Speaking directly to Senator Enriquez will do her harm; let’s say, Glenda doesn’t really want to
be a whistle blower but talking to the Senator without any intentions of sharing it to the public
made her one. Why? Because what she told to the Senator or any other national official could be
a primary reason of self-interest and can be used by the official for their own sake, perhaps, to
be more known to the public and to a gain loyalty from the people.
For me, Glenda should really raise the concern to the next higher position after her Division
Chief. The problem should be communicated first internally thus giving the management an
Second, the management must let their employees believe that their concerns will be taken
seriously because being hostile to the concern can also cause unfortunate results to the
company. If employees feel an unresponsive management, they would take the information
Lastly, when employees raise their concerns, they must have confidence that they will not suffer
possible wrongdoing within the organization, who honestly expresses their concerns and they
They do not have the right to disrupt the workplace because it seems fidelity to one’s agency, to
one’s superior, and to colleagues stressed in countless ways. But at the same time, they are not
expected to keep silent when they are aware of probable wrongdoing, or when they are asked
to do something they feel violates the law or the welfare of the people.
the employee’s rights are respected. Whistleblowing policies should increase the chances both
whistleblowers and those who are targeted by their accusations will be treated with equality.