At first the plan was for the Seattle-area group to discuss judgment for the month but that seemed too broad. So with the help from the effervescent Carrie Dugan, we narrowed it down to The Judgment of Whistleblowers and what we learned follows. For the purposes of this article, whistleblowers will sometimes be called WBs and whistleblowing sometimes called WBing.
The Judgment of Whistleblowers is both about the judgment of them and by them. As preparation for this article, based on a recommendation from former Director of Enterprise Strategy at Microsoft, David Slight, I watched the new movie Official Secrets about Katherine Gun’s experiences whistleblowing against Great Britain prior to George W. Bush’s Iraq later-to-be-determined-illegal Iraq war. Mrs. Gun was later vindicated but suffered great stress during the process.
Other friends also contributed information to me for the topic: my old friend, Dr. Matt Ashbach, was complained against and Kevin McCrea had a chance to WB, he did not, and he now regretted it.
The bulk of the content in this article was formed between me and Seattle Patent Attorney, Jonathan Olson. Editing by Jonathan as well.
There is a lot in the news lately about WBs: they blow at Google, Microsoft and Julian Assange may be extradited. WBing is nothing new but it seems now mainstream and perhaps even normal to do. That does not mean it is not without its risks and downsides. But is it becoming more popular? Are the risks for doing it lessening as the scope of our Internet expands?
Whistleblowing is when insiders or members of an organization who witness activity by the organization that does not align with their own moral compass make a stink or complaint. This puts them in a situation of own risk and sometimes peril. Many new channels where opposing views can be expressed and promoted now exist through new forms of media and the internet. And the voices are perhaps more numerous, louder. Hushing them may be becoming more difficult. And that may be good.
A concern arises where large mega-corps like Google, media outlets like MSNBC and Fox and governments like the USA routinely filter and control messages. Of course they filter based on their own interests and important information cannot and does not flow freely through the channels. And when algorithms start to take over those operations it becomes systematic, routine and normal to do. But this isn’t good. Programming our processes with bias results in predictable yet negative or unfair outcomes.
The culture of an organization and whistleblowing are closely tied: WBing is essentially saying that something is wrong with the culture (the lowest form of behavior that is tolerated) and insisting that it be corrected. Often the base organization resists the new proposal as if it were a disease or virus that threatens its existence.
Whistleblowers are change agents. They are not okay with the status quo and take it upon themselves to raise hell and a stink. It is worth it to them and they are given a large enough incentive and see the importance of the outcome big enough to pursue. They do not accept the reality that they have been given and prefer to replace it with an alternative.
The containing organization of the WB, whether it is their immediate boss, a government, etc. decides what it will mean for the WB to blow and pursues consequences and a response.
What goes through the head of a WB when they B? Many might say they had “no choice” but to do it, it was “the right thing to do” and they “couldn’t help themselves”. It is reminiscent of people who perform other heroic acts like rescuing someone from an imminent danger; they often say that “anyone would have done the same in this situation”. But would they have? One point of difference for the whistleblower is that often others are standing by and avoiding the same opportunities and risks that the WB ultimately takes.
The way by which the WB comes out with their news is another aspect: they could share or leak it to a media outlet, a reporter, a friend, the public or a competitor, for example. The consequence is a new channel that covers the dialog which had been blocked or limited. The more closed an organization is, and the more controlling it is of its information and channels, the more harm it may suffer in a leak. The more rigid it is with its control of information, the less agile it is when it needs to face a threat.
Scenarios exist where the whistleblower is false or a cheat: their whistleblowing may be a lie or mistake. Parties may disagree over what is material and true. Some whistleblowers are not successful with their WBing, for example many environmental activists oppose certain activities. Some people may consider them outsiders or irrelevant. There are often ways to shun and deflect news merely by disparaging its source.
Another aspect is difference between the whistleblower’s persona (their personality, background, intention, etc.) and the potentially harmful whistle-blown message (substance, facts, importance, etc.). This is like asking “Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?” Media plays an interesting role in this dilemma and there are many scenarios where the veil needs to be pierced and the source revealed to determine the import of the statements. Yet other times the whistleblower can remain anonymous (if they are lucky and perhaps skilled). In the case of the Watergate which released in 1974, the source Deep Throat was not identified until 2005, 31 years later.
Being a WB implies some form or deceit and surprise where there was at some point trust involved between the containing organization and the whistleblower. At least short-term harm to the relationship between the WBer and the WB entity is almost certain to occur.
The WB may “test reality” when they whistleblow. Like a scientist, they may have an interest in seeing if their hypothesis is indeed valid. The may be willing to incur personal risk to test their hypothesis.
“Brand-standing” (thanks, Jonathan for this one) is a seemingly new theme and important trend in this realm. At a high level, organizations like Nike who backing people like Colin Kaepernick on political issues like racism are exhibiting brand-standing. As if it was not bad enough for individuals and media outlets to take on large organizations and governments, now we have other major corporate entities entering the fray with significant impact.
The process and timeline experienced by the whistleblower may look something like this: entering the organization, discovering the information, experiencing anguish and fear, feeling courage, performing small tests, being encouraged, actually disclosing, blowback, remorse, suffering ostracism or other punishment, and then some final vindication or other outcome. By no means is whistleblowing a small undertaking or decision for the WB. And in many cases it can change their life forever and perhaps for the worse.
The whistleblower’s identity can matter as well, as can their perceived incentives. In order for them to do well with potential WBing, they need to be thinking about a larger and better outcome for some group or society at large. This can be difficult to predict.
Unlike mere critics or competitors; a WB needs to be an insider. Libel, slander, and ordinary shade-throwing go on all the time and this is not WBing. Being a martyr is also not WBing if the intention is necessarily to take oneself out in a jihadist-like way. Jihadists may be WBs of a form but that’s for another time. Listen to Sam Harris’ podcast episode “What Do Jihadists Really Want?” for more information.
Whistleblowing need not be entirely grave or severe; there are funny examples where small white lies are detected and surfaced.
Thanks to Jonathan Olson, Matt Ashbach, Carrie Dugan, Kevin McCrea and others for their information on this article. I hope you have learned more about the anatomy and structure of whistleblowing and whistleblowers.
