Comparison paper
USER11111
whisteblowingrole-playingexercise1.pdf
10.1177/1052562905280838JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING
UNSAVORY PROBLEMS AT TASTY’S: A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING
Debra R. Comer Hofstra University
Gina Vega Merrimack College
This article presents a role-play exercise to make the topic of whistle-blowing personally salient to undergraduates. Students identify with the prospective whistle-blower, whose decision affects several stakeholders. The protagonist merely suspects her manager of stealing, until she hears concrete evidence of his thefts from her assistant manager, who does not want to take action. The exercise helps prepare students to decide how to act if they observe workplace wrongdoing, demonstrates that different ethical frameworks may point to dif- ferent decisions, promotes examination of possible consequences of whistle- blowing, and highlights how organizational factors affect employees’ ethical behavior and the outcomes of their behavior.
Keywords: whistle-blowing; role-play; ethical decision making; experien- tial exercise; stakeholders
Whistle-blowing has been defined as “the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be
251
Authors’ Note: We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Janet Gillespie, Robert Chwaliszewski, Charles Fornaciari, and two anonymous reviewers, and the research assistance of Audrey Damour. We also thank Hofstra University’s Frank G. Zarb School of Business for supporting our research through a grant to the first author. A previous version of this article was presented in New Haven, Connecticut, at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 30 No. 1, February 2006 251-269 DOI: 10.1177/1052562905280838 © 2006 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society
able to effect action” (Miceli & Near, 1992, p. 15). Whistle-blowing encom- passes anonymous and identified reports to either internal or external parties (e.g., to hierarchical superiors or governmental agencies) and refers to either an isolated episode of reporting or a protracted process (Miceli, Rehg, Near, & Ryan, 1999). Furthermore, Near and Miceli (1996) have clarified that whistle-blowers should have “some reasonable supposition of success” that the party and/or parties to whom they report will be able “to terminate the current wrongdoing or prevent future wrongdoing of a similar type” (p. 510). Whistle-blowing has been viewed as an increasingly significant means by which employees can control organizational misconduct and exert political resistance in the workplace (Miethe & Rothschild, 1994; Rothschild & Miethe, 1994, 1999b). Alford (1999, 2001), in contrast, has focused on whistle- blowing as the display of organizational power against the individual employee (see also Martin, 1999). He has argued that, for all practical pur- poses, whistle-blowing has occurred only when the report results in reprisal. Otherwise, the “employee has done his [or her] duty to the corporation, and that is that” (Alford, 1999, p. 266).
Whistle-blowing is an important topic in the undergraduate management classroom. It is not at all unlikely that students will observe an incident of misconduct during their careers, given the pervasiveness of wrongdoing in public and private organizations (Keenan, 1995; Miethe, 1999; Murphy, 1993; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999b; Vinten, 1993). Therefore, they need tools to assist them in determining what to do if they learn of illegal and/or immoral behavior at their workplace. Indeed, the subject of whistle-blowing provides an excellent illustration of how an individual’s ethical decision- making process and outcome depend on the particular framework he or she uses. Briefly, a deontological and/or formalist decision framework considers an action as ethical (or not) to the extent that it upholds fundamental rights or principles, whereas a utilitarian and/or teleological decision framework con- siders an action as ethical (or not) to the extent that its consequences yield the greatest good (see Brady, 1990; Brady & Wheeler, 1996; Sims, 2002). An axiological framework emphasizes feeling and values, such that an act is eth- ical (or not) to the extent that the actor helps and cares for others and attends to interpersonal relationships (Brady, 1999; see also Gilligan, 1982). (See Table 1; for further discussion, see Appendix A.)
In addition, a discussion of whistle-blowing facilitates students’ recogni- tion of the ramifications of their actions (see McLain & Keenan, 1999, for a
252 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
Management. Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to Debra R. Comer, Department of Management, Entrepreneurship, and General Business, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549-1340; e-mail: [email protected].
discussion of the possible gains and losses associated with alternative re- sponses to wrongdoing). Alford (1999, 2001) has faulted educators for ignoring the consequences of individuals’ ethical decisions. Undergraduate students, especially traditional ones, in their late teens or early 20s, need to learn that although whistle-blowers “have enormous potential to detect and control waste, fraud, and crime in the American workplace” (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999b, p. 112; Winfield, 1994, made the same claim about vigilant employees in the United Kingdom) and may experience such benefits as enhanced feelings of self-efficacy and satisfaction from revealing wrong- doing (Miethe, 1999), they may also encounter reprisal. It is regrettable to note, ever-increasing legislation designed to protect whistle-blowers does not appear to safeguard them from retaliation (Alford, 1999, 2001; E. S. Callahan & Dworkin, 2000; Miceli et al., 1999; Miethe, 1999; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999b). Fear of retaliation may prevent some observers of workplace wrongdoing from reporting it (Keenan, 1995). As Rothschild and Miethe (1999b) noted, however, more than a few employees are naïve whistle- blowers. Assuming that their employer will be pleased to learn of misconduct and will act swiftly to end it, they are distraught when their earnest efforts to eliminate wrongdoing instead result in reprisals against them. Their cowork- ers may shun them, supervision may become stifling, and in some instances, they may (either quite immediately or more slowly and insidiously, depend- ing on the situation; Alford, 2001) lose their jobs and even be blacklisted in their industries.1 Hence, retaliation can lead to financial distress, emotional and physical health problems, and marital and family strife for whistle- blowers (for a discussion of outcomes of whistle-blowing and statistics on
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 253
TABLE 1 Ethical Frameworks
Definition Example
Deontology and/or formalism
The basis of moral behavior is duty; an ethical action upholds fundamental rights.
All commissions of a crime are equally condemned; the wealthy or well connected garner no special treatment.
Utilitarianism and/or teleology
The consequences of conduct determine its morality; an ethical action yields the greatest good.
Bribery might be acceptable if it benefits a majority of orga- nizational stakeholders.
Axiology and/or relationships
An ethical action cares for indi- viduals and preserves inter- personal relationships.
Closing an unproductive factory could be unethical if the fac- tory is a poor community’s prime employer.
the prevalence of types of retaliation, see Miethe, 1999; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999b; see also Alford, 1999, 2001, for a depiction of the whistle- blower as a scapegoat, sacrificed to warn other employees against bringing their personal values into the organization; Dworkin & Baucus, 1998, for an analysis of differences in retaliation patterns for internal versus external whistle-blowers; and Glazer & Glazer, 1999, for an exploration of whistle- blowers’ courage “to withstand withering criticism of their credibility, com- petence, and integrity,” p. 277). Prospective whistle-blowers have, therefore, been advised of the importance of weighing doing what they believe is right against the negative repercussions they may face (Miethe, 1999; Sprague, 1998).2
The prevalence of whistle-blowing, the effectiveness of a whistle-blowing attempt to correct (and/or prevent future) wrongdoing, and the severity and likelihood of retaliation have been linked to organizational factors. For exam- ple, individuals who spot wrongdoing are more apt to report it internally than externally if they work in organizations that encourage communication (King, 1999; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999b) and institute policies and chan- nels specifying how to respond to observed wrongdoing (Keenan, 2000; Miceli & Near, 1994) and if they believe their top managers are ethical (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999a). In addition, the reports of employees whose immediate supervisors and top managers support them are more likely to lead to resolved wrongdoing and less likely to lead to reprisal (Casal & Zalkind, 1995; Miceli et al., 1999). In contrast, successful resolutions are less common and reprisals are more common and more severe when the observed misdeed is more pervasive and systemic in the organization (Miceli et al., 1999). Thus, addressing the topic of whistle-blowing also helps illuminate for students that aspects of organizational structure can encourage or dis- courage the ethical behavior of employees (see James, 2000; Schminke, 2001).
In sum, a discussion of whistle-blowing can benefit students in several ways. Yet teaching this worthwhile topic to undergraduate management stu- dents requires making it personally salient to them. Asking students “If you knew that a classmate had cheated on an exam or bought a term paper from a Web site, what would you do?” promises to generate a litany of unflattering terms for those who report others’ misdeeds, which, in turn, prompts a pro- ductive discussion of the strong cultural bias against whistle-blowing. (Miethe [1999], who has explored the roots of antiwhistle-blowing sentiment in American society, noted that other cultures also have negative views about—and uncomplimentary terms for—those who report on others’ mis- conduct.) Yet, even though the example of cheating is one to which under- graduates can relate, using this topic to teach whistle-blowing has limita-
254 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
tions. Students do not perceive cheating as a serious crime (Bunn, Caudill, & Gropper, 1992; see also D. Callahan, 2004) and generally conclude that no real harm or suffering arises when a dishonest classmate goes unpunished (although students attending an institution with a strong honor code may feel differently; see McCabe & Treviño, 2002; see also Allen, Fuller, & Luckett, 1998, regarding differences in business students’ moralistic attitudes toward cheating). On the other hand, a student whose “snitching” (“ratting,” “tat- tling,” “squealing,” etc.) is discovered will almost certainly encounter unpleasant consequences. Therefore, there is often no compelling reason for blowing the whistle on a classmate. Plucking actual whistle-blowing inci- dents from the headlines (e.g., Lacayo & Ripley, 2002/2003) can reveal to students the serious implications of reporting (vs. not reporting) organiza- tional wrongdoing and, thereby, prevent the “so-what?” reaction raised by the example of student cheating. However, students may have difficulty relat- ing to whistle-blowing situations that involve serious widespread health and safety considerations and/or multibillion-dollar stakes. As Miethe (1999) remarked, the “newsworthy” cases that find their way into the public eye are not representative in terms of their enormity. More prevalent are the less severe forms of organizational misconduct that require employees to decide daily whether to blow the whistle (Miethe & Rothschild, 1994). These less sensational incidents lend themselves well to introducing whistle-blowing to undergraduate management students3 and to remedying misconceptions that whistle-blowers are odd or unstable individuals.4
The Exercise
OVERVIEW
Seeking to make the topic of whistle-blowing personally relevant and meaningful to undergraduates, we have developed a role-play exercise, based on the fictionalized and embellished experience of a former student of the first author. The decision of the prospective whistle-blower, a part-time busi- ness student working as a first-line supervisor at a restaurant, (a) involves an organizational scenario in which students can readily picture themselves and (b) does matter, to a number of stakeholders, including the supervisor’s friend. The protagonist merely suspects her manager of stealing, until she hears concrete evidence of it from her assistant manager, who does not want to take action. In addition, the supervisor perceives that the company has an old boys’ network, and her assistant manager presumes that their miscreant male manager has allies in high places. The exercise thus also addresses
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 255
political aspects of whistle-blowing decisions and outcomes and the need to base decisions on perceptions rather than facts. The role-play involves a meeting between the supervisor, who is confused about what she should do; and her assistant manager, who tries to persuade her not to report their manager’s stealing.
GUIDELINES FOR INSTRUCTORS
We designed this exercise to introduce the topic of whistle-blowing to tra- ditional undergraduate students in an introductory (general) management course, as part of their unit on ethics and social responsibility. In particular, the exercise is intended to help prepare students to decide how to act if they observe wrongdoing at their place of employment; demonstrate to them that applying different ethical frameworks may point to different decisions; pro- mote their consideration of the possible consequences, for themselves and their organizations, of whistle-blowing or not; and highlight how organiza- tional factors affect employees’ ethical behavior and the outcomes of their behavior. Therefore, we recommend that instructors administer the exercise before discussing whistle-blowing but after students have learned frame- works for ethical decision making. The exercise may also be used in a course on ethics, human resources management, or organizational behavior to illus- trate decision making and/or organizational power and politics.
Step 1. (5 minutes) Distribute Figure 1 to all students. Give the Emily Brown role to one half of the students and the Ginger Bethlehem role to the other half (see Appendix B).
Step 2. (15 minutes) Form two types of four-to-six-member groups: (a) those consisting of Emily Browns and (b) those consisting of Ginger Bethlehems. Instruct (a) Emily groups to prepare how they will try to con- vince Ginger to report John’s stealing and (b) Ginger groups to prepare how they will try to convince Emily not to report John’s stealing.
Step 3. (15 minutes) Form dyads, each consisting of one Emily and one Ginger. Have the dyads role-play a meeting between Emily and Ginger; or, alternatively, ask one dyad to volunteer to role-play the meeting in front of their classmates.
Step 4. (20 minutes). Reconvene as a class to debrief. Have the dyads report what happened in their role-plays and discuss the specific arguments
256 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
made by Emilys and Gingers. Or, if the alternative Step 3 is used, have stu- dents first indicate the arguments made by the Emily and Ginger role-players and then have them report any other arguments they prepared in Step 2. (“What arguments did Emily and Ginger role-players make?”) Be sure that students recognize the effect of organizational politics on individuals’ behav- ior and the consequences of their behavior (e.g., Blake is John’s old college buddy and may support John even if he believes Emily, the company seems to devalue women and may discount Emily’s and Ginger’s accusations, Emily and Ginger could face retaliation if Emily reports John’s wrongdoing), and the challenge of making a decision with incomplete information (Emily has only secondhand evidence of John’s thefts, she does not know all of the rele- vant factors that contributed to the decisions to transfer Connie and John, and she cannot predict with certainty whether Blake will support John). (“What factors entered into the role-players’ arguments?”) Also underscore the implications of using a particular ethical decision-making framework. (“How can you apply different ethical decision-making frameworks to these arguments?”) According to a deontological and/or formalist framework, Emily is morally obligated to do whatever she can to stop John’s dishonesty and his unjust blaming of innocent employees. Therefore, she must report John’s wrongdoing to Blake and, if necessary, to Richard. (It could be argued that Emily’s reporting would violate Ginger’s right to maintain anonymity. However, because Ginger disclosed her observations to Emily voluntarily, before requesting secrecy, she waived this right.) Emily’s appropriate response from an axiological perspective is the same. Her friendship with Martin, her concern for the other employees, and her sadness about the decline of her beloved store guide her to report John’s stealing. On the other hand, Emily’s morally correct behavior is less clearly prescribed by a teleo- logical and/or utilitarian framework because the consequences of her actions, for her, and for John, Ginger, Martin, Blake, and other employees, are not fully predictable. Table 2, a convenient summary of the possible effects of Emily’s alternative behaviors on various stakeholders, may be used as a handout during the debriefing.
Instructors may also explore with students the effectiveness of emotional appeals versus rational persuasion. (“How did Emily attempt to convince Ginger to change her mind? How did Ginger attempt to convince Emily? How successfully did they convince each other? Why?”)
After instructors have debriefed the exercise and completed their discus- sion of whistle-blowing, they may give students a handout with guidelines on what to do before blowing the whistle (see Table 3).
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 257
258
T A
B L
E 2
P os
si b
le E
ff ec
ts o
f E
m il
y’ s
B eh
av io
r on
V ar
io u
s S
ta k
eh ol
d er
s
If E
m il
y d o es
n o th
in g
If E
m il
y re
si g n s
If E
m il
y re
p o rt
s Jo
h n
E m
il y
W il
l ex
pe ri
en ce
i nc
re as
in gl
y ne
ga -
ti ve
a tt
it ud
es a
nd d
is pl
ay w
or s-
en in
g pe
rf or
m an
ce .
W il
l ha
ve t
o fi
nd a
n ew
j ob
. M
ay s
uf fe
r w
it hd
ra w
al o
f co
-w or
ke rs
. M
ay e
ar n
gr at
it ud
e an
d re
sp ec
t of
c o-
w or
ke rs
. W
il l
pr ov
ok e
G in
ge r’
s re
se nt
m en
t. W
il l
in cu
r Jo
hn ’s
a ng
er a
nd m
is tr
ea tm
en t.
M ay
i rk
B la
ke .
M ay
e ve
nt ua
ll y
re si
gn d
ue t
o un
pl ea
sa nt
ne ss
. M
ay r
ec ei
ve e
xt ri
ns ic
r ew
ar ds
f or
d ra
w in
g B
la ke
’s a
tt en
ti on
t o
Jo hn
’s m
is m
an ag
em en
t. Jo
hn W
il l
co nt
in ue
s te
al in
g. W
il l
ha ve
t o
re pl
ac e
E m
il y
(a nd
, l ik
el y,
M ar
ti n)
. M
ay h
av e
to e
xp la
in t
he ir
d ep
ar tu
re t
o B
la ke
.
W il
l su
ff er
d am
ag ed
r ep
ut at
io n.
W il
l no
l on
ge r
be a
bl e
to s
te al
. M
ay b
e te
rm in
at ed
. M
ay h
av e
cr im
in al
c ha
rg es
b ro
ug ht
a ga
in st
hi m
f or
s te
al in
g co
m pa
ny f
un ds
. G
in ge
r W
il l
re ce
iv e
ex pe
ct ed
r ai
se .
M ay
b e
fi re
d or
c ha
rg ed
w it
h co
m -
pl ic
it y
if J
oh n’
s th
ef ts
a re
i nd
e- pe
nd en
tl y
di sc
ov er
ed a
nd pr
os ec
ut ed
.
M ay
b e
as ke
d to
p ar
ti ci
pa te
i n
fi nd
in g
E m
il y’
s (a
nd M
ar ty
’s )
re pl
ac em
en t(
s) .
W il
l ha
ve p
oo r
re la
ti on
sh ip
w it
h Jo
hn i
f he
d is
- co
ve rs
t ha
t sh
e to
ld E
m il
y ab
ou t
hi s
st ea
li ng
. M
ay b
e ce
ns ur
ed o
r ev
en t
er m
in at
ed .a
M ay
b e
pr om
ot ed
t o
su cc
ee d
Jo hn
i f
he i
s fi
re d.
M ar
ti n
W il
l pr
ob ab
ly r
es ig
n. W
il l
pr ob
ab ly
r es
ig n.
M ay
r ep
or t
Jo hn
’s s
te al
in g
(i f
E m
il y
do es
n’ t)
. W
il l
fe el
v in
di ca
te d.
W il
l be
g ra
te fu
l to
E m
il y.
M ay
c on
ti nu
e at
T as
ty ’s
.
259
B la
ke W
il l
ha ve
t o
de ci
de w
he th
er t
o pr
ot ec
t Jo
hn o
r fi
re h
im .
M ay
l os
e R
ic ha
rd ’s
r es
pe ct
. M
ay l
os e
hi s
jo b.
M ay
e ar
n re
sp ec
t of
e m
pl oy
ee s
an d
R ic
ha rd
fo r
fi ri
ng J
oh n.
O th
er em pl
oy ee
s W
il l
co nt
in ue
t o
ex pe
ri en
ce d
et er
io -
ra ti
ng m
or al
e du
e to
J oh
n’ s
un fa
ir a
cc us
at io
ns .
M ay
l os
e th
ei r
jo bs
i f
Jo hn
’s m
is -
m an
ag em
en t
re su
lt s
in l
ay of
fs o
r a
cl os
in g.
W il
l no
l on
ge r
be u
nf ai
rl y
an d
fa ls
el y
ac cu
se d.
M ay
e nj
oy b
et te
r w
or k
co nd
it io
ns .
M ay
h av
e im
pr ov
ed j
ob s
ec ur
it y.
a. A
lt ho
ug h
G in
ge r
is no
tl eg
al ly
re qu
ir ed
to re
po rt
w ha
ts he
sa w
,a s
an as
si st
an tm
an ag
er sh
e ha
s a
fi du
ci ar
y re
sp on
si bi
li ty
to T
as ty
’s no
tt o
al lo
w Jo
hn to
fi lc
h fu
nd s.
Student Reactions
Both versions (having all dyads and having only one dyad role-play) of the exercise have been administered in several introductory management classes and business ethics classes. The exercise has fully engaged students. Preparation for the meeting has been animated, with contributions from even the usually taciturn class members. The role-plays have been even livelier, as student actors don role-appropriate speech, paralanguage, and body lan- guage as they play their characters. Indeed, Emily role-players raise their voices and gesture dramatically while making emotional appeals to Ginger to do the right thing. Ginger role-players, in contrast, maintain their composure (apparently aware that effective managers regulate their feelings; see Brown, 2003) as they present rational arguments. Generally, Emilys are unable to incite Gingers to report John’s stealing, just as Gingers are unable to persuade Emilys against blowing the whistle. We have observed that an impassioned appeal that seems overly zealous may freeze reason into position, rather than melting it; whereas reason, when perceived as coldhearted, may frustrate and thereby further inflame emotion, rather than cooling it off. Indeed, ill-timed attempts to initiate change often create resistance (Lewin, 1997).
The exercise also appears to have an impact on students. Judging from performance on exams later in the term, the exercise has apparently boosted understanding of the implications of whistle-blowing and of the difference between ethical decision-making frameworks. Because of logistical reasons, it is not always feasible to schedule the exercise. Students in classes that have
260 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
TABLE 3 Before You Decide to Blow the Whistle
1. Check that your primary motive for whistle-blowing is to halt wrongdoing and/or to prevent future harm — not to settle a personal score with the wrongdoer(s).
2. Be sure that you have concrete evidence. Do not act on unsubstantiated suspicions or sup- positions.
3. Make copies of any important documents and put them in a secure location away from your workplace.
4. Seek the advice of an employment attorney with experience in whistle-blower protection laws.
5. Decide whether to blow the whistle internally or externally. 6. Understand that you may experience any (or all) of the following negative repercussions:
harassment by superiors and/or coworkers, job loss, career difficulties, financial distress, and health problems.
7. Consult your family members to prepare them for what may lie ahead and to ensure that they support your decision.
experienced this exercise do appear to be more likely to respond correctly to objective short-answer questions about whistle-blowing and ethical decision- making frameworks. Although we have not formally gathered data, we conclude, tentatively, that the exercise is effective for teaching students to appreciate the ramifications of whistle-blowing and to apply these different frameworks. Finally, former students have told us that the exercise has helped them to make sense of and respond to their own workplace situations and give advice to friends and coworkers.
Appendix A Ethical Decision-Making Frameworks
Deontology and/or formalism is the ethics of duty and principle (see Brady, 1990; Brady & Wheeler, 1996; Sims, 2002). It focuses on the intentions of specific actions and the universal laws or principles that guide human actions (rather than on the out- comes of these actions). These universal laws closely resemble the Golden Rule and apply in all situations (see Hartman, 1997; Sims, 2002). As Rabbi Hillel (B. Talmud, 1935) taught, “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary” (Shabbat 31a). The deontological perspective empha- sizes equal respect for everyone. Therefore, a deontologist makes no exceptions for individual cases, but applies rules or laws consistently (e.g., all cases of lying are wrong because trust must be preserved, and all cases of stealing are wrong because personal property rights must be upheld). Whistle-blowing is morally appropriate be- cause it discloses legal and/or ethical violations.
The utilitarian and/or teleological perspective focuses on “utility,” or desirable and useful ends. According to this perspective, the moral position is the one whose outcomes result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people (see Brady, 1990; Brady & Wheeler, 1996; Sims, 2002). Such a consequence-oriented viewpoint can be regarded as the prototypical business decision-making framework, inas- much as it focuses on the traditional bottom line. Depending on the desirability of the expected outcome(s), it might or might not be ethically appropriate to blow the whistle.
Axiology requires that we articulate our standards before deciding what is ethi- cally appropriate and then follow the path that is congruent with our personal values and attachments. A focus on feelings and cooperative, trusting relationships guides ethical decision making. When applied to business ethics, the axiological perspective is generally known as stakeholder theory. Decision makers take into account the impact of an action on all interested and affected parties (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Maximizing profits to shareholders is not the only decision-making criterion (Freeman & Evans, 1988). Instead, concern is also shown for the least powerful and most needy, particularly when practiced by women (Gilligan, 1982). Whether to blow the whistle depends on whom the action is likely to benefit or harm.
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 261
Appendix B Role-Play Materials
Emily Brown
Emily Brown, a part-time undergraduate business administration student, has been supporting herself and paying tuition at Teaberry University for the past 5 years by working at Tasty’s, a family-style restaurant. During the past 3 years, she has been a supervisor there. Tasty’s, which runs 37 franchises in the northeastern United States, has experienced some financial difficulties in the past year. About 6 months ago, as a result of declining revenues, Tasty’s closed several stores in the district where Emily works. Many employees lost their jobs; their more fortunate coworkers were offered
262 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
Richard Mann,
Division Manager
John Tadmore,
General Manager
Blake Peters,
District Manager
Ginger Bethlehem,
Assistant Manager
Emily Brown,
Supervisor
Food Preparers and
Waitstaff
Figure 1: Chain of Command at Tasty’s NOTE: Emily Brown is one of eight supervisors at her store; Ginger Bethlehem is one of two as- sistant managers there.
jobs at stores that remained open. Emily’s store survived the recent spate of closings; but her general manager, Connie O’Hare, was transferred to a store outside the dis- trict. Before her transfer, Connie had been general manager at Emily’s store for 8 years. Her subordinates had enjoyed their jobs and worked hard. They were proud that their Tasty’s was one of the strongest performers in the district and attributed their store’s continuing viability in large part to Connie’s managerial talent.
Replacing Connie as their general manager was John Tadmore. John had been the general manager at another Tasty’s for barely 2 years at the time of his transfer to Emily’s store. John, whose own store had closed, was delighted by the transfer, which cut his commute in half. Emily, for her part, was infuriated that John was actually ben- efiting from the closing of his store, whereas Connie was being shuffled around with- out any regard for what she—or her subordinates—wanted. She chalked up Connie’s transfer to the old boys’ network at Tasty’s, which has no female division managers and only a handful of women at the level of district manager (see Figure 1). The scar- city of women in top leadership positions had been the only feature of the company that bothered Emily, who, until recently, had otherwise considered Tasty’s an ideal employer.
Within the 1st month of John’s arrival, the store was showing signs of neglect. Or- ders were not placed on time; the employee schedule was always finished late and fre- quently contained gaps and/or overlaps; and the level of grime and grunge had hit an all-time high. Perhaps most troubling, money seemed to be disappearing. Registers were short on a regular basis by U.S.$20 or more, the change fund (kept in the safe) was often missing money, and bank bags were coming up short. In her 5 years at Tasty’s, Emily had never witnessed a situation like this one. Despite her lack of any solid evidence, she suspected John of stealing from the store. Meanwhile, John was accusing others. He blamed a light bank bag on a new employee and a $40 register shortage on Martin Pine, one of Emily’s closest colleagues. Perturbed and feeling helpless, Emily turned to Ginger Bethlehem, her assistant manager.
E: Ginger, I need to talk to someone about what’s been going on in the store. G: O.K. Have a seat. I’m listening. E: Since Connie left, everything’s been going downhill. Scheduling is a mess, the
store is not as clean as it should be, and, of course, there’s the mysterious dis- appearing money. John has been blaming other people of stealing, but I think he is the real thief!
G: Emily, I’ve never seen you so upset! E: Well, John has been unfairly accusing innocent people. Martin is a good friend
of mine. I’ve known him for more than 3 years, and I know he would never steal. Period, let alone from the store. He loves his job as much as I do, or, as much as I did, anyway. Did you know Marty was thinking about leaving?
G: No, I didn’t know that. That’s too bad. He’s a solid performer. E: I can’t prove anything, Ginger, but I’d bet that John is the culprit. I mean, the
way he’s so quick to blame others. You’re an assistant manager; can you talk to him about this?
G: What could I say that would make a difference? Listen to me, Emily. Last Thursday, at the end of the night, John and I were getting ready to close up. I
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 263
was exhausted, so I headed toward the ladies’ room to splash some water on my face to perk up for my drive home. But I noticed my right earring was miss- ing, so I started crawling around, looking for it. When I finally found it, I heard some sounds at the register. I stayed crouched down, so John couldn’t see me. But I could see him. He took three bills from the stack of twenties and stuffed them in his back pocket.
E: John thought he could get away with it because he thought you were in the bathroom.
G: Exactly. E: What did John say when you told him? G: Told him?!?! What, are you kidding me? John is doing my performance
review next month, and I’m not going to say or do anything to ruin my chances of getting the raise I deserve.
E: Have you spoken with Blake Peters? G: The district manager?! Why do you want me to stir up trouble? Besides,
Emily, Blake and John went to college together. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that that’s how John got to be our general manager after his store was closed.
E: But you don’t know for sure. Don’t you think Blake should know? John’s get- ting away with stealing, and he’s ruining our store and driving away capable employees. It’s not fair!
G: Who told you life is fair? Well, I have to get back to my paperwork now. Please, Emily, do us both a favor and forget I told you anything.
Emily left Ginger’s office, more upset and confused than she’d been before en- tering. She recognized that maybe Ginger was right—that it wouldn’t accomplish anything to speak with Blake. However, knowing that John was hurting the store and people in it was eating away at her. She wondered whether she should try talking to Blake, or whether it made more sense to go over Blake’s head and speak with Richard Mann, her division manager. For years, Emily had loved working at Tasty’s. Now, she dreaded going to work.
YOU are Emily. A few hours after speaking with Ginger, you recognize that you just can’t tolerate the present situation anymore. You go to Ginger’s office to try to convince her that John’s stealing must be reported.
Ginger Bethlehem
Ginger Bethlehem, one of the highest ranking women in her division of Tasty’s, a family-style restaurant chain, felt responsible for the success of her store. It hadn’t been an easy climb to attain the position of assistant manager, and the mounting pres- sures at work were exhausting her physically and emotionally.
Tasty’s, which runs 37 franchises in the northeastern United States, has experi- enced some financial difficulties in the past year. About 6 months ago, as a result of declining revenues, Tasty’s closed several stores in the district where Ginger works. Many employees lost their jobs; their more fortunate coworkers were offered jobs at stores that remained open. Ginger’s store survived the recent spate of closings; how- ever, her general manager, Connie O’Hare, was transferred to a store outside the dis-
264 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
trict. Before her transfer, Connie had been general manager at Ginger’s store for 8 years. Her subordinates had enjoyed their jobs and worked hard. They were proud that their Tasty’s was one of the strongest performers in the district and attributed their store’s continuing viability in large part to Connie’s managerial talent.
Replacing Connie as their general manager was John Tadmore. John had been the general manager at another Tasty’s for barely 2 years at the time of his transfer to Ginger’s store. John, whose own store had closed, was delighted by the transfer, which cut his commute in half. Ginger, for her part, was infuriated that John was actu- ally benefiting from the closing of his store, whereas Connie was being shuffled around without any regard for what she—or her subordinates—wanted. She chalked up Connie’s transfer to the old boys’ network at Tasty’s, which has no female division managers and only a handful of women at the level of district manager (see Figure 1).
Within the 1st month of John’s arrival, the store was showing signs of neglect. Or- ders weren’t placed on time; the employee schedule was always finished late and fre- quently contained gaps and/or overlaps; and the level of grime and grunge had hit an all-time high. Perhaps most troubling, money seemed to be disappearing. Registers were short on a regular basis by $20 dollars or more, the change fund (kept in the safe) was often missing money, and bank bags were coming up short. Ginger knew that John was stealing from the store; however, John was accusing others. He blamed a light bank bag on a new employee and a $40 register shortage on Martin Pine, one of the supervisors who reported to her. One evening, Ginger returned from a break to find Emily Brown, another of her supervisors, waiting for her.
E: Ginger, I need to talk to someone about what’s been going on in the store. G: O.K. Have a seat. I’m listening. E: Since Connie left, everything’s been going downhill. Scheduling is a mess, the
store is not as clean as it should be, and, of course, there’s the mysterious dis- appearing money. John has been blaming other people of stealing, but I think he is the real thief!
G: Emily, I’ve never seen you so upset! E: Well, John has been unfairly accusing innocent people. Martin is a good friend
of mine. I’ve known him for more than 3 years, and I know he would never steal period, let alone from the store. He loves his job as much as I do, or, as much as I did, anyway. Did you know Marty was thinking about leaving?
G: No, I didn’t know that. That’s too bad. He’s a solid performer. E: I can’t prove anything, Ginger, but I’d bet that John is the culprit. I mean, the
way he’s so quick to blame others. You’re an assistant manager; can you talk to him about this?
G: What could I say that would make a difference? Listen to me, Emily. Last Thursday, at the end of the night, John and I were getting ready to close up. I was exhausted, so I headed toward the ladies’ room to splash some water on my face to perk up for my drive home. But I noticed my right earring was miss- ing, so I started crawling around, looking for it. When I finally found it, I heard some sounds at the register. I stayed crouched down, so John couldn’t see me. But I could see him. He took three bills from the stack of twenties and stuffed them in his back pocket.
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 265
E: John thought he could get away with it because he thought you were in the bathroom.
G: Exactly. E: What did John say when you told him? G: Told him?!?! What, are you kidding me? John is doing my performance
review next month, and I’m not going to say or do anything to ruin my chances of getting the raise I deserve.
E: Have you spoken with Blake Peters? G: The district manager! Why do you want me to stir up trouble? Besides, Emily,
Blake and John went to college together. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that that’s how John got to be our general manager after his store was closed.
E: But you don’t know for sure. Don’t you think Blake should know? John’s get- ting away with stealing, and he’s ruining our store and driving away capable employees. It’s not fair!
G: Who told you life is fair? Well, I have to get back to my paperwork now. Please, Emily, do us both a favor and forget I told you anything.
When Emily finally left her office, Ginger was deeply troubled. Naturally, it upset her that John was hurting the store and people in it. However, at the same time, she truly believed that reporting on John’s stealing would be a huge mistake, one that could only make matters much worse for a lot of people—including Emily and herself.
You are Ginger. You regret that a few hours ago you confided in Emily, who is more naïve than you’d thought. You are about to call Emily, to try to convince her that John’s stealing must not be reported, when she appears at your office door.
Notes
1. “How well a society or organization treats its valid whistle-blowers may be taken as an indication of how genuinely ethical and civilized they are” (Vinten, 1994, p. 19).
2. In the wake of corporate scandals, the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 promises to heighten scrutiny of financial service firms and deliver stiffer penalties to violators (Stanko & Zeller, 2004). Thus, an officer who refrains from blowing the whistle on his or her company may face a harsh outcome. In addition, although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act explicitly extends whistle- blower protection to employees, its efficacy to restrain retaliation remains to be seen (Miceli, 2004).
3. Adams, Harris, and Carley (1998) and Kayes (2002) similarly urged management educa- tors to prepare students for the everyday ethical challenges they will confront early in their orga- nizational careers.
4. McCutcheon (2000), Near and Miceli (1996), and Rothschild and Miethe (1999b) have concluded that whistle-blowing is not associated with personality. In contrast, Alford (1999, 2001) has asserted that whistle-blowers are unique and has attributed the inability of currently available personality instruments to identify them to their very rarity. He has depicted whistle- blowers as wounded moral narcissists, whose strong sense of right and wrong compels them to expose wrongdoing, in the belief that their actions can effect positive change. Likewise, Grant
266 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
(2002), emphasizing whistle-blowers’ high moral sensitivity, referred to them as saints of secular culture.
References
Adams, J. S., Harris, C., & Carley, S. S. (1998). Challenges in teaching business ethics: Using role set analysis of early career dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1325-1335.
Alford, C. F. (1999). Whistle-blowers: How much we can learn from them depends on how much we can give up. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(2), 264-277.
Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Ithaca, NY: Cor- nell University Press.
Allen, J., Fuller, D., & Luckett, M. (1998). Academic integrity: Behaviors, rates, and attitudes of business students toward cheating. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 41-52.
B. Talmud Shabbat 31a (1935). London: Soncino Press. Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. New York: Macmillan. Brady, F. N. (1999). A systematic approach to teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Eth-
ics, 19(3), 309-318. Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 15(9), 927-940. Brown, R. B. (2003). Emotions and behavior: Exercises in emotional intelligence. Journal of
Management Education, 27(1), 122-134. Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B., & Gropper, D. M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic
analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. Research in Economic Education, 23(1), 197-207.
Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. New York: Harcourt.
Callahan, E. S., & Dworkin, T. M. (2000). The state of whistleblower protection. American Busi- ness Law Journal, 38(1), 99-175.
Casal, J. C., & Zalkind, S. S. (1995). Consequences of whistleblowing: A study of the experi- ences of management accountants. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 795-802.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evi- dence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Dworkin, T. M., & Baucus, M. S. (1998). Internal vs. external whistleblowers: A comparison of whistleblowing processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1281-1298.
Freeman, R. E., & Evans, W. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In N. E. Bowie & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 97- 106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glazer, M. P., & Glazer, P. M. (1999). On the trail of courageous behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 69(2), 276-295.
Grant, C. (2002). Whistle blowers: Saints of secular culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(4), 391-399.
Hartman, L. P. (Ed.). (1997). Perspectives in business ethics. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
James, H. S., Jr. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 43-58.
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 267
Kayes, D. C. (2002). Dilemma at 29,000 feet: An exercise in ethical decision making based on the 1996 Mt. Everest climbing disaster. Journal of Management Education, 26(3), 307-321.
Keenan, J. P. (1995). Whistleblowing and the first-level manager: Determinants of feeling obliged to blow the whistle. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 571-584.
Keenan, J. P. (2000). Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud: A study of executives and managers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 12(4), 199-217.
King, G., III. (1999). The implications of an organization’s structure on whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4), 315-326.
Lacayo, R., & Ripley, A. (2002/2003). Persons of the year: Coleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins. TIME, 160(27), 30-33.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Martin, B. (1999). Whistleblowing and nonviolence: Activist paradigm. Philosophy and Social Action, 25(3), 5-18.
McCabe, D., & Treviño, L. K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 37-41. McCutcheon, L. E. (2000). Is there a “whistleblower” personality? Psychology: A Journal of
Human Behavior, 37(2), 2-9. McLain, D. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). Risk, information, and the decision about response to
wrongdoing in an organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(3), 255-271. Miceli, M. P. (2004). Whistle-blowing research and The Insider: Lessons learned and yet to be
learned. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(4), 364-366. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implica-
tions for companies and employees. New York: Lexington Books. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1994). Whistleblowing: Reaping the benefits. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 8(3), 65-72. Miceli, M. P., Rehg, M., Near, J. P., & Ryan, K. C. (1999). Can laws protect whistleblowers?
Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 129-151. Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistleblowing at work: Tough choices in exposing fraud, waste, and
abuse on the job. Boulder, CO: Westview. Miethe, T. D., & Rothschild, J. (1994). Whistleblowing and the control of organizational miscon-
duct. Sociological Inquiry, 64(3), 322-347. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistleblowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management,
22(3), 507-526. Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Whistleblowing as resistance in modern work organiza-
tions. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organiza- tions (pp. 252-273). New York: Routledge.
Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999a). Disclosing misconduct in work organizations: An empirical analysis of the situational factors that foster whistleblowing. Research in the Soci- ology of Work, 8, 211-227.
Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999b). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retalia- tion. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 107-128.
Schminke, M. (2001). Considering the business in business ethics: An exploratory study of the influence of organizational size and structure on individual ethical predisposition. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 375-390.
Sims, R. R. (2002). Teaching business ethics for effective learning. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Sprague, R. L. (1998). The painful legacy of whistleblowing. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 13(1), 71-75.
268 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2006
Stanko, B. B., & Zeller, T. L. (2004). The new age of financial reporting. Business and Economic Review, 50(3), 3-12.
Vinten, G. (1993). Whistleblowing: An issue of social policy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 13(5/6), 53-109.
Vinten, G. (1994). Whistleblowing—Fact and fiction: An introductory discussion. In G. Vinten (Ed.), Whistleblowing: Subversion or corporate citizenship? (pp. 3-20). New York: St. Martin’s.
Winfield, M. (1994). Whistleblowers as corporate safety net. In G. Vinten (Ed.), Whistleblow- ing: Subversion or corporate citizenship? (pp. 21-32). New York: St. Martin’s.
Comer, Vega / A ROLE-PLAY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWING 269
