My essay focuses on the eternal dilemma "to be or not to be a whistleblower" which has become a major problem for nowadays employees who often assist to irregularities without knowing what to do. The purpose of my paper is to prove that whistle blowing is a perfectly ethical and healthy practice which doesn't imply that the employee who makes the decisive step of disclosing information is disloyal to his organization.
             First of all, an individual who intends to point his finger at organizational misconducts should decide whether to talk or to keep quiet after taking into account several issues. One of the primary aspects refers to the amplitude of consequences, i.e. the number of people harmed and the intensity of the negative impact. Furthermore, an employee should know for sure that the respective effect will take place and that people will suffer because of it. On the other hand, the person who is tempted to blow the whistle must consider temporal immediacy. Thus, if the consequences are imminent, the employee must haste the disclosure process. Additionally, he must make a decision according to the physical and emotional proximity. This means that whistleblowing is more motivated when an employee has a close relationship with potential victims or when the information he holds refers to the impact on a nearby town, for instance. Another issue he should touch upon is the intensity of the misconduct. As England (2007) states:" stealing $1000 from one person is more unethical than stealing $1 from 1000 people".
             In other words, before disclosing information, an employee must make sure he has a strong case which can be supported by solid proofs when required.
             Referring to whistleblowers, some people consider them to be 'martyrs' because they have the courage to unveil unethical conducts while others call them 'snitches' because of their presumed eager to achieve personal fame. Still, ...