CASE ANALYSIS ON WHISTLEBLOWING
Posted by santw001 on Apr 20, 2022 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
Case Analysis on Whistleblowing
The video “Collateral Murder?” recounts the happenings of July 12, 2007, when the United States military decided to act based on reports that there were small arms of fire in a Baghdad suburb. During this incident, the US military claimed that they could not identify the gunmen. As such, they dispatched the Apache helicopters to the location. By mid-morning, reports revealed that a dozen Iraqis had been killed. Two of the dead people were Reuters News Agency staff members (“Collateral Murder?” 2010). A video that the whistleblower, WikiLeaks, released revealed what transpired during the event. The video showed the US aerial attacks as well as the audio conversation between the ground soldiers and the pilots. The camera used by the US soldiers could not identify whether the object they saw was an RPG. The thing they mistook as RPG could be a camera tripod or rocket-propelled grenade launcher. So, they decided to fire at the object because of panic since they feared an RPG could knock down the helicopter. Unfortunately, they killed and injured innocent people because of acting on a false report. The US soldiers even killed the wounded people against the war engagement rules (“Collateral Murder?,” 2010). Therefore, the forces were engaging in collateral murder, probably due to incompetence or collateral exaggeration. These soldiers even aimed at a van having children. A 2007 investigation by the US about the incident cleared all the soldiers involved in the indiscriminate murder. However, the video of the incident revealed otherwise. A whistleblower within the US military released the video. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that contractarianism shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States and that her actions were a moral case of whistle-blowing.
The first central concept in the journal article “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty” by Wim Vanderkerckhove and Ronald Commers is loyalty. Loyalty basically refers to the willingness of a person to sacrifice. Vanderkerckhove & Commers (2004) highlighted that organizations might meet accountability by appealing to the employees to be loyal. Loyalty is important because it enhances organizational effectiveness by keeping the commons. With loyalty, the employee will promote the organization’s interests. Vanderkerckhove & Commers (2004) argued that loyalty is the attitude aimed at the object, learned attitude, explicit external referent, and bilateral. The other central concept in the article from Vanderkerckhove is rational loyalty. Rational loyalty requires people to determine whether their actions contribute to the organization’s explicit mission, goals, and values. If a person finds themselves in the state where the organizational behavior turns away from their explicit mission, values, and goals, rational loyalty would require them to blow the whistle (Vanderkerckhove & Commers, 2004). Although rational loyalty requires the employee to show loyalty to an organization, an employee has no obligation to show loyalty to an organization which engages in behavior contrary to what is described in the mission statement. For instance, if an organization’s mission statement bans the use of company assets in politics, then if an organization decides to participate in politics, an employee can whistle blow.
The concepts of loyalty and rational loyalty apply to the case of exposure of the United States Army’s collateral murder in Iraq. The United States is a nation that champions human rights. The US Army is a respectable army that often carries out its operations professionally while protecting human rights. However, the happenings of July 12, 2007, in Iraq were appalling. A well-equipped Army decided to act on a false report to murder innocent Iraqis. The US forces involved in the attack panicked and chose to murder unarmed civilians, which was contrary to the precepts of the US Army. After a public outcry, the US investigated the event to determine if its soldiers had erred. Regrettably, the investigations cleared all the United States military personnel involved in the attack. So, the public believed that these soldiers did not commit mistakes. However, the classified video released by whistleblower Bradley Manning showed that the soldiers had committed errors. Furthermore, it revealed how the US aircrew falsely asserted that they encountered firefights and laughed at the bodies of the people they killed. All these show that the United States forces in Iraq had contravened the rules of engagement and deserved to be punished. Considering that the troops’ actions in the raid contradicted the US Army’s values, Manning’s act to release the footage showed that he acted out of loyalty.
Manning found out that the actions of the United States forces in Iraq had diverted from the organization’s explicit values and goals. So, she decided to blow the whistle to alert the public that her organization was not acting according to its guiding principles. Manning’s actions should be considered whistle-blowing because she made the information known to the public. She had no obligation to release the footage, but Manning deemed it right to disclose the video to prevent future collateral murder by the forces meant to bring peace and protect people in war-torn nations. Accordingly, Manning did not owe loyalty to the United States since the US forces in Iraq had engaged in behavior that counters the type of behavior defined in the US Army’s mission statement. Also, Manning’s actions constituted a moral case of whistle-blowing since her whistle-blowing was morally required to prevent severe hurt to others with little expense to herself.
Based on contractarianism, it can be argued that Manning acted rightly by releasing the video. Her actions align with the first element of contractarianism – the state of nature. Manning knew that the justice rules were necessary so that all individuals could benefit from the cooperation (her obligation to serve humanity). Accordingly, she released the video because she wanted all people to have a good life. Manning’s action also meets the second element of contractarianism – the characterization of potential contractors. Contractarianism assumes that individuals are the best judges of their interests as well as the means to meet their wants. Thus, Manning’s action was right since she was the best judge of her interests, and the path she took was right to satisfy her interests. Even without the interests of the US Army, she managed to act morally. The contractarianism ethical tool holds that individuals are mostly self-interested, but a rational assessment of a best strategy for realizing the maximization of self-interest would make them act in a moral way. Manning decided to disclose the classified footage to maximize her interests. While pursuing her interests, she ended up acting morally. Her actions, therefore, constitute a moral case of whistle-blowing.
The first key concept in the “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” essay by Julinna Oxley and D.E. Wittkower is loyalty. According to the authors, loyalty is a type of care in the business context. At the same time, business loyalty requires performing tough actions and going beyond the conventional law of agency or stated job requirements (Oxley & Wittkower, 2011). Knowing that loyalty is the expression of care makes us fathom that it is not a rational requirement or duty to pursue mutual self-interest. Therefore, loyalty encompasses a disposition and feelings that exceed what a contract demands. Oxley & Wittkower (2011) posited that care ethics advocates for restricted obligation to show loyalty in the business. This type of loyalty varies depending on the type of caring connection. Although loyalty is the expression of care, Oxley & Wittkower (2011) noted that not all forms of expression of loyalty may be considered appropriate. So, the people must distinguish between inappropriate and appropriate loyalty. In this connection, these authors opined that the more an organization’s goals, practices, and interests express the care for its employees, environment, and consumers, the more the employee will be loyal to an organization.
Another essential concept from Oxley and Wittkower is the connection between loyalty and whistle-blowing. Oxley & Wittkower (2011) highlighted that loyalty is an abstruse inspiration for whistle-blowing. Because of loyalty, an employee may get motivated to blow a whistle if their organization participates in uncaring activities concerning the environment, its consumers, or its employees. In such a case, loyalty will be interpreted as appropriate loyalty. However, if loyalty is used to silence the whistleblowers, this is inappropriate loyalty.
In the case of Manning, she showed appropriate loyalty to the United States since she was motivated to release the footage showing the US Army personnel killing unarmed civilians in Iraq. The actions of the military personnel were not warranted, and they depicted their uncaring activities. Being a US Army intelligence analyst, Manning knew what the soldiers were allowed to do during combat and what they should not. She decided to leak the classified video in a bid to reform the US Army’s practices so that they could promote caring. Manning had no duty to express loyalty to the US Army to conceal lies. Oxley & Wittkower (2011) postulated that loyalty goes beyond fiduciary duties. Even though Manning may have subscribed to the promise or loyalty oath of confidentiality, she had no obligation to show loyalty to an organization that massacred innocent lives and its troops laughed at what they had done. Manning’s actions expressed her genuine motivation of concern and care for the victims of war crimes.
Examining Manning’s actions from the contractarianism perspective, it can be noted that her actions were right. First, Manning’s actions exemplify impartiality and fairness. Possibly, Manning wanted the US Army to act with fairness and impartiality when interacting with other people. Thus, choosing to expose the mistakes they committed in Iraq was a resounding warning that any evil has to be exposed, and the US Army should not tolerate it. In addition, even without the other-directed preferences, Manning’s actions were moral since they represented positive, altruistic preferences. Manning had the urge to go beyond what her employment contract required to express concern and care to all people. Her selfless act proved that Manning was a caring person who did not want the mistakes of her colleagues to go unpunished. Since loyalty depends on the nature of a person’s relationship with a person, Manning’s actions show that she cared more about the people affected by the US soldiers` actions. Thus, her caring can be construed as ethical caring because it sought to reform the injustices within her organization. By whistle-blowing, she made the US Army stick to its values and objectives in Iraq of bringing peace and not killing unarmed civilians.
Manning’s action to release the footage in the video showing what occurred on July 12, 2007, in Iraq was an act of loyalty. Her actions showed appropriate loyalty since the actions of the soldiers who killed unarmed civilians contravened the US Army’s explicit mission statement, values, and goals. She expressed rational loyalty by exposing the injustices carried out by the US forces involved in the incident. Manning also knew that she did not owe the army loyalty to conceal evil as a soldier. Instead of espousing inappropriate loyalty, Manning decided to release the footage in the video to show that she stood for appropriate loyalty. Killing unarmed civilians is unwarranted, and it is not protected. So, Manning was offended by the investigations exonerating the military personnel involved in the murder of the Iraqis. Although some may argue that her actions portrayed her as a disloyal person to the US Army, it must be acknowledged that loyalty encompasses feelings beyond the contractual relationship. Appropriate loyalty is based on care and concern for the community, fellow employees, and even the environment. Thus, any action that harms the community, environment, and employees should be exposed.
References
Collateral Murder? (2010). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk
Oxley, J., & Wittkower, D. (2011). Care and loyalty in the workplace. Issues in Business Ethics, 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9307-3_12
Vandekerckhove, W., & Commers, M. (2004). Whistle blowing and rational loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 225-233. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:busi.0000039411.11986.6b