In the late 1990s and the early years of the new millennium, the news was inundated with several corporate scandals as a result of accounting frauds or "cooking the books" by large American Corporations such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Xerox and others. The news was shocking enough and it brought Corporate America into the limelight since the deeds were caused not by ordinary rank-and-file employees but those at the helm of power, the C-level management. In some of these cases, there was a whistleblower or two and if it wasn't for these individuals, the bad deeds would have gone unchecked. The whistleblowers were at first pariahs of the corporate world and were often labeled as "shit-disturbers," "chain rattlers," "squealers," or "ungrateful and disloyal people." Whether the whistleblowers had altruistic or self-serving motives, the fact remains that whistleblowing is part of the check and balance of an organization to ensure that "they are doing right by their actions." "Whistleblowing, in casual usage, means speaking out from within an organization to expose a social problem or, more generally, dissenting from dominant views or practices. Whistleblowing is speaking out in the public interest, typically to expose corruption or dangers to the public or environment. (Martin, 1999)"
             In reporting misdeeds or malfeasance, whistleblowers actually put their reputation, job and sometimes life on the line especially if the wrongdoings they reported are grave criminal acts. As with the case presented: "You and your co-worker notice that the chief accountant of your medical company has been sending false financial information to the government. As a result, your company has been getting payments from the government which it is not really entitled to get. Your co-worker asks you: 'Should we blow the whistle?'" The basic premise of morals and ethics as stat...