Managers Hot Seat Case 5: Whistle Blowing, Code Red Or Red I

Managers Hot Seatcase 5 Whistle Blowing Code Red Or Red Inkthe Mee

Manager’s Hot Seat Case 5: Whistle Blowing: Code Red or Red Ink? The Meeting D: Susan, how are you? S: Danny, I’m glad you stopped by. Did you get my email? D: I did. And I also got your voicemail. And I have to tell you I’m pretty angry about the whole situation because did you read it carefully? S: Sure I did am I’m very impressed with your work, I know you spent a lot of time on it. D: You know that’s all fine and great and everything like that, but Hillshire hospital is a horrible hospital. S: No, no wait, you shouldn’t go to that point yet. The findings, you know Walsh and I went over them together, are really not substantiated at this point. D: What do you mean they’re not substantiated? I did incredible research. S: I know you did. I know that you put a lot of time and effort into it, but they’re not substantiated, they’re not going to be able to stand out there on their own. So at this point it would really be very detrimental to what we are trying to accomplish, if any of that got out. Because it’s not proven yet. Do you understand what I’m saying? D: No I don’t understand what you are saying. You know, I have to tell you, my research has always been impeccable. And there is nothing about it that will not stand up, anywhere. S: Danny, the work that you have done, as I keep saying… D: Susan, people are dying. S: But we are not 100% sure of the cause factors here. D: What do you need to know? S: We need to know more. There has to be more research that is substantiated. This is one finding that we are looking at. D: My research shows that it far exceeds the accidental rate of harm to patients, in that hospital, 20%. S: Right and that could possibly be cause for concern at some point down the road. But at this point in time, let’s think about, what are your goals? What’s the most important thing that you are doing here for the hospital? D: To make sure that nobody is going to die. S: OK, that’s a secondary piece. We are all in favour of that. D: That’s not secondary. How can that be secondary? S: But what’s our business objective right now? Let’s not lose sight of that. Danny, what’s the business objective? D: You know I have been here for over 5 years; I have worked with you, at Woodland, for over 5 years. This is insane, you’re asking me to compromise and I cannot. S: No, no, Danny I’m not asking you to compromise. I’m saying let’s hold off until we are 100% sure that the research findings are further substantiated, that’s all we’re saying. I’m on your side. D: If you hold off, more accidents will happen. S: I understand that but do you realize that if we don’t get our funding, we can’t do any good work. We’ll have no money to go forward with a lot of the great things that this hospital stands for. D: I don’t know what you and Walsh are trying to pull… S: Listen, what Walsh and I, and what I hope you would be cooperating with us to do together is to move forward to restructure this hospital. Our long term picture is to put this organization back, to make it healthy, to get the funding that it needs to do all of the things that you are talking about. But do you realize… D: I understand that but as time goes by, people will die. S: But that’s not our goal Daniel. We have a very specific goal. We are here to make sure that the funding comes about so that this organization can clean up its act, and do all the things it should do. We’re not here… D: Susan, I have been here at Woodland for over 5 years, and I love my job. I love what we do. But you’re asking me to do something that is very compromising and I can’t. S: Danny, I understand your concerns. I appreciate what it is you’re saying. D: Susan, listen, can I talk for a second. The bottom line is, for me, if immediate action or some kind of resolution isn’t taken, how can you have any choice but to go to the media? S: Danny, the reality is that immediate action will not be taken. The only effect that immediate action will have is that it will backfire. All those things that you want to happen, they’re not going to happen. Do you realize that? D: I cannot sit on this. Shareholders have a right to know what is going on at Hillshire. S: They have a right, but at this point in time, it’s going to be a much more damaging situation, that maybe you haven’t really thought through. The goal of our job is to help these organizations do what Danny? What’s the goal of our work? D: Knowing what I know, I cannot… S: Danny, you’re not answering me. D: I understand. We are just going in circles. You’re not giving me any choices. S: I’m giving you choices. I’m saying keep doing what you’re doing and then we can proceed at a later point in time. But it’s unrealistic right now. D: Here are the options that I am giving you, and I’m giving you 2 Susan. So listen carefully. Either you go through the proper channels to alert the shareholder and the community about what it going on at Hillshire, or I’ll have no other alternative but to go to the media. Afterthoughts S: I think it was a difficult meeting because Daniel is very impassioned about what he does and I was really just trying to bring him back to the greater goal, the greater picture. I would really like to have another session with him. Maybe once he’s had the opportunity to think it over and calm down a bit more. Because I think the issue here is that he’s really emotionally connected to the work he does and sometimes I think it makes it hard for him to see the bigger picture. I think we really need to meet again. I think I would have kind of approached it pretty much in the same way but maybe make him feel more comfortable with the idea that he’s so valuable. Because I think that’s his sense that his work has no meaning or we are putting it aside, or really not paying attention to it. And we really are, but we just can’t act on it now. Well I guess the interest that I am trying to balance is the individual need for him to work at this and develop his work and feel valued with the greater goal of what the organizational goal is that I need to get this restructuring underway. We need the financing; we have to help the company. I don’t know what I can do to prevent him from actually going to the media because he has control as an individual to do what he wants. I’m just trying to make him understand that the greater good would probably be sabotaged by doing that. And I think ultimately, it will have a negative effect on all the things that Danny really wants to have happen, which is to help this organization do some really good work. But without the funding, they can’t, they can’t restructure, they can’t do any of the things that Danny is talking about. I can’t really force Danny from going out there and spilling his story to the media, you can’t really force a person not to do something. But I have an obligation as a manager in this company to let other people know that these are his actions or this is what he intends to do. My obligations to Danny are to develop his career, to do everything positive for him, and at the same time, balance that with the needs of the organization. So in this case, if he’s doing something that is detrimental to what the organization is planning to do, I can’t allow that to happen.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of organizational management and ethical decision-making, whistleblowing is a critical issue that often pits employee integrity against organizational objectives. The case of Susan and Danny at Hillshire Hospital exemplifies the complex dynamics that managers face when dealing with whistleblowing concerns, especially when such concerns threaten the organization’s reputation, funding, and long-term stability. This paper explores the ethical considerations, management challenges, and organizational implications inherent in whistleblowing, examining how managers can effectively navigate such scenarios to balance individual moral obligations with broader organizational goals.

Introduction

Whistleblowing involves an employee exposing unethical, illegal, or harmful activities within an organization, often risking retaliation or job loss (Vadera, 2020). In healthcare settings such as Hillshire Hospital, whistleblowing can be particularly sensitive due to the potential impact on patient safety, organizational reputation, and public trust. Managers like Susan are tasked with addressing these concerns thoughtfully, considering both ethical responsibilities and organizational responsibilities. The case highlights the tension between encouraging transparency and protecting organizational interests, emphasizing the need for effective ethical frameworks and managerial discretion (Near & Miceli, 2019).

Ethical Dimensions of Whistleblowing

At the core of whistleblowing lies a moral dilemma: whether to adhere to organizational loyalty or to prioritize ethical imperatives that protect patient safety and public health (Dungan, 2018). In the case, Danny’s research suggests that there may be a significant cause for concern regarding patient harm, which he believes warrants immediate disclosure. Conversely, Susan emphasizes the need for verified, substantiated evidence before taking action that could jeopardize organizational funding. This reflects a classic ethical conflict—balancing the duty to report wrongdoing with the responsibility to avoid false or premature claims that could harm the organization unfairly (Hettinger & Barbash, 2021).

Management Challenges and Organizational Implications

Managers face considerable challenges in managing whistleblowing issues. They must assess the credibility of the claims, protect the whistleblower from retaliation, and consider the potential repercussions of disclosure (Lynch & Romzek, 2018). In Hillshire’s context, Susan’s approach prioritizes organizational stability and long-term restructuring efforts over immediate disclosure. However, this raises questions about transparency and whether withholding potentially critical information might compromise ethical standards and stakeholder trust (Robertson & Stensaker, 2020). Moreover, the tension between organizational goals—such as securing funding—and employee safety exemplifies the broader conflict managers encounter daily.

The Role of Ethical Decision-Making Frameworks

Effective management of whistleblowing situations requires applying ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. A utilitarian perspective might justify withholding information if disclosure causes more harm than good, aligning with Susan’s cautious approach (Shaw, 2019). Deontological ethics, on the other hand, emphasize duty and rights, supporting Danny’s desire to expose the risks to patient safety regardless of organizational consequences (Fieser & Dowden, 2020). Virtue ethics encourages managers to act with integrity, courage, and compassion—qualities necessary for navigating complex moral terrain (Werhane, 2021). Balancing these perspectives can help managers make ethically sound decisions under pressure.

Strategies for Handling Whistleblowing Cases

Organizations should establish clear whistleblowing policies that protect employees while ensuring that claims are thoroughly investigated before disclosure (Coulson & Stenson, 2022). Confidential channels and independent oversight can help assess the validity of the concerns and facilitate ethical decision-making. In the Hillshire case, Susan might consider engaging an independent review panel to evaluate Danny’s findings objectively and explore options for transparent communication that do not jeopardize funding prematurely. Training managers in ethical decision-making and fostering organizational cultures that value transparency and accountability are also critical (Burritt et al., 2018).

Conclusion

The case of Susan and Danny illustrates the delicate balance between organizational interests and ethical responsibilities in whistleblowing incidents. Effective management involves assessing the credibility of concerns, applying appropriate ethical frameworks, and implementing policies that protect both the organization and the whistleblower. Ultimately, fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and moral courage can help organizations navigate these challenging situations and uphold integrity without sacrificing long-term viability.

References

• Burritt, R., Schaltegger, S., & Zvezdov, D. (2018). Sustainability accounting and reporting in healthcare organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1009-1023.
• Coulson, A., & Stenson, M. (2022). Whistleblowing policies and practices: Ensuring organizational integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 293-311.
• Dungan, P. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in whistleblowing: Balancing confidentiality and public interest. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(1), 23-45.
• Fieser, J., & Dowden, B. (2020). Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Hettinger, B., & Barbash, L. (2021). Ethical challenges in healthcare whistleblowing. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(3), 193-198.
• Lynch, M., & Romzek, B. (2018). Accountability and whistleblowing in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 210-220.
• Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2019). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1), 11-20.
• Robertson, J., & Stensaker, B. (2020). Transparency and trust: Organizational responses to whistleblowing. Ethics & Behavior, 30(2), 101-114.
• Shaw, W. H. (2019). Business Ethics: A Text and Cases Approach. Cengage Learning.
• Vadera, A. (2020). Ethical leadership and whistleblowing: Developing a framework for practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 743-754.