Overview:

There are reasons why some people would want to show indifference or even turn a blind eye towards unethical or wrongful acts of a serious nature happening in their workplace, by not speaking out or prefer to remain silent. There are so many issues of vital importance to consider before an employee may decide whether or not to confront his or her employer about any illegal act(s) witnessed in the workplace. Some of the issues include the ascertainment of whether there is a whistleblowing policy in the organisation; or whether the working culture (ethos) operating in the organisation encourages these unethical actsor otherwise; or whether there are provisions or procedures under the legal framework, either internally within the code of conduct of the company or externally in society in which the company operates in that protects whistle-blowers from reprisals, intimidations and persecutions.at these people that that prefer to stay silent It would be reasonable to say that these people who prefer to stay silent rather than speak out (basically what the research question is about) follows the consequentialist ethical theory that is based on selfinterest, that is, what is best for me; either for fear of reprisal or worse still, the loss of their job or in some cases lives. On the other hand, there are selected few, under the same consequentialist ethical theory, that would, in the public interest, decide to confront their employers about the wrongful acts they have witnessed, irrespective of the consequences that might follow. From the aforementioned, it is then not out of place to say that the decision to speak or not to speak out is more or less based on the individuals divergent moral judgement. But this research study was based on the reasons why individuals would rather prefer to remain silent.

Secondary Data: To ensure the carrying out of a thorough and successful research study and also an in-depth analysis of the research problem, it was paramount that an appropriate research technique was selected. A qualitative evaluation technique was used, which involved the gathering of information from published articles of the events that took place and from financial websites of organisations involved in the research study; academic literatures written about case studies of whistleblowing and ethical theories; and other important press releases covering the issue of whistleblowing. It should be worth mentioning that empirical evidence has shown from previous research studies carried out on related issue, that data collection methods like, the questionnaires; interviews would not have been suitable for this kind of research study.

Sample Population:

Information was collected from case studies of whistleblowing events that occurred in some selected American Companies, as it is evidenced that the issue first gained initial prominence and popularity on the other side of the Atlantic.

Assumptions and Limitations:

This research study was carried out under the following assumptions: Sample selected is a true representation of the population under consideration.

Information collected from the various sources used is factual and with minimal error as ascertainable.

Some limitations and constraints encountered while carrying out this research include: Time available to carry out a thorough and in-depth research study The inability to gather empirical evidence in support of the research study.

In order to ensure a thorough and an in-depth analysis, care was taken to ensure that the method adopted in evaluating the issue of whistleblowing in the workplace effectively describes and highlights those ethical or pragmatic reasons why workers would prefer to remain silent rather than speak out upon witnessing a wrongful act or series of wrongful acts of a serious nature in their workplace

Findings:

In conducting this research study on why workers would prefer to remain silent rather than blow the whistle, it was discovered that in all cases there are well-laid out and detailed procedures to be followed by an individual who has decided to blow the whistle on his or her employer. The onus is on the individual to prove (which in most cases, is very difficult) that the said act(s) or practices is really unethical and is bound to affect the long term interest of the company as well as the public at large. In most cases, it was discovered that because of the power play in the top hierarchy of most organisations, together with the fact that the culture operating in most organisations encourages theses unethical practices, most of the complaints are often squashed or discouraged at the embryonic stage, and should the employee persist in his or her quest to ensure justice is done, he or she will be marked down as renegade or traitor by colleagues. Secondly, the employee is sometimes not sure if there are enough protection under the to shield him or her from any blow back or reprisal

from the employers, hence the easier way out is for them to stay silent and continue in the status quo. It would be worthy of note to state that the act of whistleblowing, as noble and brave as it might seem, but in an office environment it is often regarded as wrongful act. There is always that understanding that if there is an issue that has to be addressed, especially important issues that borders on unethical or illegal acts of a serious nature that may affect the image and credibility of the company one way or the other, then it has to be channelled through the right authorities, channel, or personnel like an ombudsperson, who will then be responsible for investigating or resolving complaints, which may further hinge on whether the company operates in a culture that is intolerant to unethical behaviours. Also, in most cases, it has been discovered that the claims of whistle blowers are not always genuine and sometimes employees embark on it for their selfish reasons. This reason further contributes to discourage those employees that would have summed up courage to confront their employers of the illegal acts they witnessed, to shelve the idea of speaking out. In considering the various aforementioned whistleblowing cases enumerated above, it would be noteworthy to stress that these are the few cases where the employee decided, against all difficulties and oppositions to speak out and confront their employers, making public the related unethical practices. Each of the individuals decision not to turn a blind eye on the wrong doings in their various places of employment, but to bring it to light was based on a singular motive to right a wrong, or rather, make a difference in the public interest. This is consistent with the postconventional stage of Kohlbergs ethical theory of cognitive moral development, where the individual decision maker is influenced by what is in the best interest of the society at large. They were also influenced by the context or situation in which they found themselves a workplace where ethical issues were disregarded (Ethical Moral Framing); and the importance of the issue in the minds of each whistle blower in the above-mentioned cases either in relation to the impact or consequences relating to unethical issue under consideration or whether the decision affects a few people heavily or has a small effect on many (Ethical Moral Intensity). For the fact that our research study is based on the reasons why individuals would prefer to remain silent rather than speak out upon witnessing unethical practices, our analysis will be concentrated on the consequences that befell these individual as a result of their confrontations with their employers, which furthers qualifies as cogent reasons why employees would rather prefer to stay silent and not speak out upon witnessing a wrongful or unethical act or acts of a serious nature happening in their workplace. It must then be emphasized that there is no better way to critically appraise the issue than to consider and analyse each case study separately (case by Case).

The Case of Jeffery Wigand: It was never Jeffrey Wigands ambition to become a central figure in the great social chronicle of the tobacco wars. All he wanted was to use his knowledge and expertise to promote a smoke-free, healthy environment but found himself working in an organisation with a culture of unethical practices, engaged in manipulating the quantity of cancer-causing element in the products they produce for selfish ends. As a human being with moral values, he felt that was not right, in fact it was criminal and against the public interest, so he decided to make public the issue. From that moment, his life would no longer be the same; he was dismissed from his job by his employers, he

no longer felt safe in his own home as he began to receive death threats. He was also being sued from everywhere by his former employers for damages and some of the cases and harassments went on for years. This is a situation few people would love to be in, no matter how noble or brave the act of whistleblowing might seem to be, and this would further reinforces the resolve of most employees not to speak out upon witnessing unethical practices in their work place.

The Case of Karen Silkwood: If there was nothing in the case of Jeffrey Wigand to strike fear in hearts of would-be whistle blowers, what happen to Karen Silkwood, the technician working in the Chemical Plant is enough to convince them that it is better not to speak out and stay than to lose ones life just for becoming a whistle-blower. All she did was to confront her employers and made public the fact that they have violated health and safety guidelines in the operations which to a normal person is detrimental not only to the image and future prospect of the company, but also to the safety of the entire public as a whole. She was first infected (under mysterious circumstances), and tested positive for plutonium contamination, and days later she was killed in a mysterious motor accident. The was an example of how far people can go in order to seek reprisal against whistle-blowers, and I believe that is enough to silence any would-be whistle-blower

The Case of Michael Woodford: Michael Woodford was the first non-Japanese person to be appointed as the CEO of a Japanese Multi-national Company, Olympus; a position many believed he did not deserve at that time. In spite of all these, he gave all away and turned a whistle-blower, which led to his summarily dismissal. This is a position where many would turn a blind eye to whatever is happening in the company in order to keep their job and everything that goes with it.

In all the above mentioned cases, it was clear that, the three whistle-blowers tried to follow the normal internal procedures with whistleblowing in their various companies; but the culture operating in these companies did not have regard for ethical issues, and even when there were legal provisions covering these acts that were carried out, the consequences that befell the whistleblowers could have been prevented if they had remain silent, instead of speaking out.

Conclusion: From the above enumerated points case studies and ethical theories, it can be seen that, becoming a whistle-blower in the modern day society has a price. No matter how noble or brave the act of

whistleblowing might be, it is the blow-back that most people are not ready to accommodate; the consequences that follows might in some cases be fatal, as illustrated in case of Karen Silkwood. These and other happening are cogent reasons why, till this day, workers would rather prefer to remain silent rather than speak out, upon witnessing unethical practices happening in their work place.