FULL PROJECT – EVALUATE THE WHISTLE BLOWING POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA
Click here to Get this Complete Project Chapter 1-5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Preamble
This chapter deals with the various scholarly works and publications on whistle blowing policy. From the review, it is evident that so many authors have written extensively on this subject matter of our investigation. And these authors have in one way or the other emphasized the impact of whistle blowing policy on the fight against corruption, particularly in Nigeria. In this study, we shall review some of the works of these authors which are relevant to the subject being investigated.
2.2 Empirical Review of the Previous Work in the Area of Study
Generally, Nigerians still doubt the sincerity of the government or the Intention’s behind the whistle blowing policy and are relevant to participate in the programme because of the lack of clarity around the moral justification for blowing the whistle as well as the administrative and implementation processes that were designed to manage the programme. As De Maria (2005) points out, corruption in Africa has been so routinized and organizationalized that whistle blowing policies are predominantly nonsystematic corruption, thereby rendering them inefficacious. Corruption has become so organized in many countries, including Nigeria that very few people in government, schools, businesses and society in general still have the moral standing to crack the moral whip against perpetrators of malpractices in their midst (Taiwo,2015).
The term “whistle blowing” was developed originally from Bobbes(British police officers and later, American police officers) blowing their whistle to alert the public to criminals. History has it that later, private organizations would use their own whistle to alert and inform the law enforcement agents of thievery and other criminal activities (Word origins,2012). However, according to Near and Miceli(2013), whistle blowing can be seen “…. as the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practice under the control of their employers , to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action.
On this note, whistle blowing is seen as a positive social behaviour as a result of this, the whistle blower takes action to prevent the wrongdoing within a firm, with the aim of benefiting individuals within and outside the organization. To Dozier, and Miceli(2013) whistle blowing is a kind of pro-social behaviour, as the act includes both selfish(egoistic) and unselfish (altruistic) motives on the part of whistle blowers. They added that whistle blowers’ actions are NIR purely altruistic, but to certain extent, the actions may also have motives to obtain personal benefit and reward.
2.2.1 Whistle- blower Conceptual
According to Gobert and Puch(2000), whistle blower can be refereed to as “….. an individual within an organization who reveals negative information about the organization, its practices or its personnel. The information may relate to abuse of power , fraud, mismanagement, waste, corruption, racial or sexual harassment, or health and safety dangers”.
A whistle blower is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest and illegal activities occurring in a government department, a public or private organization or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in various ways, a violation of law, regulation and or a direct threat to the public interest such as fraud, health/safety violation and corruption (Hannigan 2009). Miceli, Near, and Dozier (2013) describe whistle blowers as committed members of the organization who feel compelled to report wrongdoing by their own sense of moral behavior.
However, this act is not always seen positively by organizations. A whistle blower is characterized as reluctant dissenters, moved neither by altruistic nor selfish concerns , but rather by tide of events over which they feel they have little control. Backa and Keiner (2008) refer to a whistle blower as a person who exposes falsehood and corruption, although he or she is aware of the potential negative outcomes of this act, which may include loss of job. The whistle blowers are vulnerable, not only to the organizational reprisals, but also to the chastisement at the hands of the organizational members, who react and most likely show retaliation against whistle blowers.
Thus, whistle blowing is not a risk-free decision or initiative for any individual as it can entail a direct and undesired consequences for the person raising voice against some wrongdoing.
2.2.2 Channels of Reporting Wrongdoings
There are two channels of reporting wrongdoings – internal and external whistle blowing (Eaton and Makers, 2007); Near and Miceli, 2013). Read and Rama (2003) also identified two types of whistle blowers in an organization namely: internal and external whistle blowers. They are of the opinion that internal whistle blowers are habitually more aware of unethical acts but may be in threat of consequences of blowing the whistle, namely: loss of job or being ostracised within the organization. While external whistle blowers are those external to the organization who may have less to threat from the consequences of whistle blowing, but may not have as much at stake about the absence of unethical acts in a particular organization, or may not be aware of the extent of unethical acts.
Boodeleau (2011) asserts that though channels of reporting wrongdoings are internal and external, yet external disclosure in public sector by whistleblowers should be discouraged and limited to internal misconduct. Clark(2013) also argues that whistle blowing mechanism in public sector should be limited to internal channels of reporting for effective performance. The paper advises those who are charged with the responsibility to strengthen internal whistle blowing mechanism. Taken further, an external disclosure would circumvent internal mechanism in place. To allow the ministers or the Auditor General to identify and rectify the problem, provided the flow of information is Paramount, if those who are are charged with the responsibility are the really transparent to the public and acceptable to the National Assembly.
2.2.3 Public Sector and Effective Whistle blowing Mechanism
Public sector is established for the provision of social amenities as well as a means of generating revenue for the government to meet state’s responsibility and need. Therefore, the best to achieve this is by fighting all wrongs and corruption which erode public sector benefit and reporting all illicit and illegal activities to appropriate authority. According to Brown (2008), who wrote on whistle blowing in the Australian public sector enhancing the theory and practices of internal witness management in public sector organization, whistle blowing is a means of achieving and maintaining public integrity provided it is widely recognized across the public sector.
Besides, Brown (2008) states the reasons why whistle blowers are interested in reporting illicit activities, especially in public sector, namely:
- When they are motivated by the circumstances to do so;
- They are confident that actions would be taken; and
- There is protection for whistle blowers.
To OCED (2011), effective whistle blowing mechanism can only be achieved if there are effective legal protection and clear guidance on reporting. Therefore, whistle blowing protect brings the following benefits, namely:
- It facilitates and encourages whistle blowing;
- It assists authority to monitor compliance and detect violations of anti corruption law;
- It is an open organizational culture even where workers are not only aware of how to report but also have confidence procedures,;
- It assists government to prevent and dictate bribery and kick backs in commercial transactions;
- It promotes public sector integrity and accountability, and supports a clear business environment.
2.2.4 Challenges and Prospect in Whistle blowing
Whistleblower suffers in various ways, including ostracism, harassment, punishment, punitive transfers, reprimands, and dismissal. Bosses and top managers are responsible for many attacks of whistle blowers but coworkers often join in or do nothing often due to fear that they could be the next victim. Premeaux and Bedenan(2003) are of the view that employees hesitate to raise voice as this might lead to retaliation. Poverty and unemployment are rampant in these countries and whistle blowing can result in job loss (Vinten, 2000). The risk of corruption is significantly sensitive on environment where the reporting wrongdoings is not supported or protected.
Brown (2008) researched on whistle blowing in Australian public sector enhancing the theory and practices of internal witness management in public sector organizations, recommends that internal whistle blowing mechanism should be given attention in order to achieve effective result. Clark(2013) wrote on external whistle blowing in the public service, a necessarily messy practice, argues that external whistle blowing should not be practised, and recommends the strengthening of the internal reporting mechanism to limit external disclosures made in the public service.
2.3 Theoretical Framework of the Study
The decision to blow the whistle is usually a dangerous one. Given the fact that the whistle blower may be exposed to sever harm and all kinds of risks, the natural question that arises here is, “what should motivate an individual to blow the whistle or report an act of misconduct in his or her organization, even at the risk of reprisal attacks and unpleasant consequences”? Put differently, why should a Nigerian blow the whistle? Is it a moral duty to report wrongdoing and at what point should an individual place his or her safety above the dictates of moral obligations? Can the morality of whistle blowing be questioned if the underlying motivation is spurred by vengeance or the lust for the bounty?
In addressing these questions which are of fundamental concern to this research study , the ” Universal Dignity Theory of Whistle blowing” (UDTW) put forward by Hoffman and McNulty (2010) provides the framework for the theoretical analysis. As a response to the postulations of Richard De George’s Seminal work on business ethics and whistle blowing in organizations, published in 1986, UDTW questions the morality of whistle blowing from a stakeholder’s perspective. Seeking to improve on the shortcomings of De George’s ethical theory of whistle blowing, the Universal Dignity Theory of whistle blowing (UDTW) is anchored upon the premise that “All Human beings have intrinsic worth or dignity by virtue of their humanity, and no individual or group has the moral authority to deny others their inherent dignity”. Therefore, the basic principle underlying UDTW is that ” whistle blowing is both permissible and a duty to the extent that doing so constitutes the most effective means of supporting the dignity of relevant stakeholders. The conditions proposed for whistle blowing according to Hoffman and McNulty (2010), UDTW are as follows:-
- Compelling evidence of nontrivial illegal or unethical actions done by an organization or its employees that are deemed to violate the dignity of one or more of it’s stakeholders.
- A lack of knowledge within the organization of the wrongdoing or failure by the organization to rake corrective measures. If the above justification or conditions were met, whistle blowing will be ethically called for, unless the following exempting conditions from whistle blowing prevailed.
- One would be conditionally exempted from the duty to blow the whistle if one had credible grounds for believing that by doing so one would be putting oneself or others at risk of serious retaliation.
In addition to passing the ethical test, a whistle blowing policy is also expected to address the question of the safety and protection of the whistle blower from retaliatory attacks which ought to be of great concern in a country like Nigeria where cultural resistance to “snitching” is still very profound. Here, the prescriptions of De George’s Ethical Theory of whistle blowing (ETW) and UDTW provide interesting insight and a good explanatory framework. According to ETW, the whistle blower is required to blow the whistle only when such an action is worth the risk that he or she may be exposed to. Although the suggestions sound fair the problem is that the two conditions given for blowing the whistle are too subjective and may be different dir any whistle blower to determine, thus rendering the are hard to rationalize.
Besides, the theory appears to leave the whistle blower to deal with the danger of going public as long as he believes that the sacrifice is worthwhile. In that sense, whistle blowing can be seen as symbolizing, the act of martyrdom which should he pursued by only individuals on a messianic mission – a description that hardly cuts the whistle blowers in Nigeria.
Beyond the morality of whistle blowing and the protection of individuals who report wrongful conduct, the communication strategies used in promoting public awarenesses, understanding, acceptance, participation and support for the policy in Nigeria is perhaps the most important success factor. The frame theory provides an interesting framework for the understanding of the relevance of communication strategies in the effectiveness and persuasiveness of policy initiatives. Although the origin of the theory can be traced to the work of Gregory Bateson in 1955(Ardevel-Abreu, 2015), it us described as an extension or second level of Agenda setting Theory(McCombs, Llamas, Lopez- Escobar and Rey, 1997; McComvs,2006).
Get the Complete Project
This is a premium project material and the complete research project plus questionnaires and references can be gotten at an affordable rate of N3,000 for Nigerian clients and $15 for International clients.