Whistleblowing

"Our lives begin to end the day we become

silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
 Overview
 What is Whistleblowing?
 When and how to blow the whistle
 Risks
 Statistics
 Ethical Dilemma
 Case Study: Challenger Disaster
 2002: The Year of the Whistleblower
 What is Whistleblowing?
 Whistleblowing is…
 'raising concerns about misconduct within an
organization or within an independent structure
associated with it'
(Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life)

 'bringing an activity to a sharp conclusion as if by the

blast of a whistle'
(Oxford English Dictionary)

 'giving information (usually to the authorities) about

illegal and underhand practices‘
(Chambers Dictionary)
 When to Blow the Whistle
 Knowledge of inappropriateness
 Making proprietary software available to public
 Back door/booby-trap in code
 Embezzlement or redirection of funds

 Bad claims
 Unrealistic date projection
 Advertising hype

 Knowledge of impending doom

 What to think about
 The “mom” test:
 “I’m going to be in this industry a long time. Will
this damage my reputation with my boss,
colleagues, future customers or employers?”

 The personal responsibility test:

 Weigh personal obligations to family and etc. that
can only be met if you have an income.
 “Will harm avoided by greater than harm incurred?”
 How to Blow the Whistle
 Do it anonymously
 let the evidence speak for itself and protect yourself if
possible
 Do it in a group
 charges have more weight and won’t seem like a personal
vendetta.
 Present just the evidence
 leave interpretation of facts to others.
 Work through internal channels
 start with your immediate supervisor or follow the standard
reporting procedure
 Work through external channels
 go public (biggest risk)
 Risks of Whistleblowing
 WB rarely works out well for the
whistleblower
 Viewed as a “rat” who ratted out the company
 Resented by coworkers

 Serious contemplation of job change or personal

problematic activity (drinking, drugs, self-

destructive behavior)
 Depends on the organization for a job, the job

makes money, the family needs money to survive

 Statistics
 Polling Group:
 233 individuals polled, 40% responded
 Average age: 47

 Employed for 6.5 years at job

 Almost all lost job

 Statistics
 Negative Effects:
 51% of gov’t employees lost their job
 82% harassed by superiors
 69% watched closely after blowing the whistle
 63% lost job responsibilities
 60% fired
 10% attempted suicide

 Positive Effects:
 20% felt their actions resulted in positive changes
 More than 50% (of responders) would do it again
 Ethical Dilemma
 The Mum Effect--reluctance to blow the whistle
 Audit report may contradict the best judgment and vested interests
of the powerful players backing a project; fear of reprisals

 The Deaf Effect--reluctance to hear the whistle

 “I wrote lots of reports. I escalated things as much as I could, but in
the end, they said, ‘We really appreciate your efforts, but thanks, but
no thanks’”

 The Blind Effect--reluctance to see the need to blow the

whistle
 Established audit functions do not operate effectively because they
try to conceal the information from management
 Case Study: Challenger
January 28, 1986

Space Shuttle Challenger

exploded 72 seconds into
its flight, killing all 7 crew
members. The flight received much media
attention because a teacher, Christa
McAuliffe, was on board.
 Challenger: What Went Wrong
 Explosion caused by O-ring
failure between segments of
the booster rockets.

 Several employees of the

manufacturer, Thiokol, had
been aware of the O-ring
deficiencies.

 No one listened to the

engineers who knew about
the problem
 Challenger: Major Players
 Roger Boisjoly, seal specialist at Thiokol
 Directed task force for a year to study the evidence
that hot gases eroded O-rings
 Allan McDonald, manager of solid-rocket motor
program
 Larry Mulloy, NASA official, manager of booster
programs
 George Hardy, NASA official
 Challenger: Timeline
 July 31, 1985
 Boisioly wrote a memo saying, “it is my honest and
very real fear that if we do not take immediate action
to solve the problem [the company could] stand in
jeopardy of losing a flight.”
 No conclusive evidence to back up memo
 Challenger: Timeline
 January 27, 1986, the day before lift-off
 McDonald was worried about temperatures dropping to 22
degrees overnight.
 14 engineers “fought like hell” to get permission to present to
NASA
 All 14 Thiokol engineers recommended postponing the launch
 Mulloy and Hardy challenged the recommendation
 Mulloy: “When do you want me to launch, next April?”
 Hardy: recommendation “appalled” him
 Thiokol: Management reversed the recommendation for
postponement

What kind of dilemma was Thiokol forced into?

 Challenger: The Explosion
 O-rings partially failed
on ignition (picture)
 Melted metal sealed
the gap
 Hit a wind shear,
causing the booster to
flex and the seal to
dislodge
 Loss of cabin
pressure
 Flames led to
explosion
 Challenger: Timeline
 After the explosion
 McDonald
 Went public
 Demoted by management
 Public outcry and Congressional investigation led to a reversal of that
decision and a promotion instead
 Became spokesman for Thiokol and new rocket boosters
 Boisjoly
 “I hope and pray that I have not risked my job and family security by
being honest in my conviction”
 Never worked on a shuttle again because it was too painful
 Wondered if there was more he could have done, even though the
record shows he minced no words
 Reassigned by management with altered responsibilities
 Took leave of absence, a year later went on disability
 Challenger: Timeline
 Later Repercussions
 Boisjoly sued Thiokol for $1 billion in personal suit
 Dismissed because Thiokol’s actions were ruled not to have
been designed to cause him distress
 Biosjoly sued Thiokol for $2 billion under False Claims
Act
 Filed on premise that Thiokol falsely certified safety and
knew that the rockets they supplied to NASA were defective
 Dismissed in 1988: Judge ruled that decision to launch was
not a false claim, but an engineering judgment with which
other engineers disagreed, and that NASA also knew the
facts behind the allegations, and was not deceived
 Challenger: Questions
 What effects did Boisjoly and McDonald face when they
blew the whistle?

 Why did NASA not listen to the engineers?

 Why did Thiokol to reverse its decision even though they

knew it was incorrect?

 Would you have blown the whistle differently than

Boisjoly and McDonald? If so, how?

 Did McDonald go public at the right time?

 2002: Year of the Whistleblower

Cynthia Cooper Coleen Rowley Sherron Watkins

WorldCom FBI Enron
Sherron Watkins
 Former Vice President of Enron
Corporation

 Alerted then-CEO Ken Lay in August

2001 to accounting irregularities within
the company

 Warned that Enron 'might implode in a

wave of accounting scandals.'

 Testified before Congressional

Committees from the House and Senate
investigating Enron's demise.

 Lauded in the press for her courageous

actions, but left her job at Enron after a
few months when she wasn't given
much to do
Coleen Rowley
 FBI staff attorney

 Wrote 13-page memo to FBI Director

about pre-9/11 intelligence in May 2002

 Testified for the Senate Judiciary

Committee

 Concerned the FBI was becoming more

bureaucratic and micromanaged

 Helped government focus on better

intelligence management

Fanny Pack
Cynthia Cooper
 WorldCom’s Director of Internal Audit

 Her team discovered $3 billion in questionable

expenses

 Met with 4 executives to track down and explain

the undocumented expenses

 Disclosed findings, WorldCom stock frozen,

corporate credit rating went from B+ to CCC-

 Remained as VP of Internal Audit, not

promoted, no gratitude, resented by employees