Introduction: Whistleblowing as Specific Measures
Despite the established rules and the specific behavior accepted in most companies of the world, the cases when the corporate rules are violated and the need in whistleblowing arises are rather frequent.
Because of the growing dependency of the departments of a certain company on one another, certain faults in working can cause considerable complexities, which requires informing the managerial and demands the whistleblowing tactics.
Because of the issues that the Loyal Agent Agreement touches upon, the process of whistleblowing might be considered a breach of people’s rights, which drives to the conflict of interests within certain companies.
Hence, the concept of whistleblowing and its relation to the Loyal Agent Agreement must be considered. In addition, the legacy of whistleblowing in the light of the Loyal Agent Agreement postulates must be tackled.
Main Discussion: Is Silencing of the Problematic Situation Demanded?
In the situation that demands whistleblowing and the immediate actions from the rest of the employees, one should take into consideration the implications of the Loyal Agent Agreement. On the one hand, it cannot be doubted that the agreement manifests the rights and freedoms of employees.
On the other hand, the Loyal Agent Agreement contains the issues that can be interpreted as the prohibition to take immediate actions towards the negligence or incompetence at work. Taking a closer look at the Loyal Agent Agreement, one can see distinctly that the above-mentioned concern has certain grounds to base on.
Making it clear that the prohibition of whistleblowing demands certain altruism and the necessity to sacrifice one’s own benefits, Michalos emphasizes that the soundest course of actions for a company agent would be to overlook the flaws of the staff: “Again, self-preservation is not altruism.
To serve an evil master in the interests of survival is not to serve in the interests of altruism, and users of LAA are supposed to be motivated by altruism” (Michalos 4).
Michalos offers the point of view that is quite hard to argue against. Indeed, one must admit that in modern business world, most people are motivated by egoism, which is commonly considered as a standard. However, it is also worth taking into account the point of view that Poff offers.
According to the latter, even in the sphere of business where the contest for a profitable job proposal or a promotion to the higher position is considered a priority, the basic aspects of humanity are not to be forgotten: “We have no evidence to believe that individuals as a rule become morally impaired what they work” (208).
Nevertheless, Poff agrees that to some extent, Michalos is completely right: “The agent’s primary interest is precisely the same as that of her or his principal – namely, apartheid” (208). Hence, it can be considered that the Loyal Agent Agreement does restrict the agent’s powers.
Another important issue that must be touched upon when talking about the issue in question is that “whistleblowing involves an accusation” (Elliston 212).
The aforementioned presupposes that the agent who undertakes the decision to inform the managerial of the incompetent actions can be posed as the one telling on a member of the team of employees. Hence, the necessity to reconsider the idea of whistleblowing as a disreputable action must be admitted.
Thus, it must be concluded that the Loyal Agent Agreement does demand certain dissembling of the employees flaws, which drives to the conclusion that the Agreement limits agents’ powers.
Since the professionalism of the latter demands that they both considered the benefit of the company and maintained objectivity towards the staff, it is recommended that the Loyal Agent Agreement should offer agents more freedom to care about the company.
Conclusion: On the Necessary Steps to Be Made
Considering the above-mentioned, one must admit the fact that Loyal Agent Agreement does presuppose certain restrictions towards whistleblowing. However, judging from what Poff says, the conflict is far from being sharp; in addition, the authors claim that the solution for the given situation can be found.
Indeed, the issue is rather complicated, and Loyal Agent Agreement certainly must be reconsidered. Maintaining the equity towards the employees and at the same time serving the benefits of the company, namely, following the directions of the head of the corporation, an agent can handle the complexity.
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that at present, most agents are between two fires, tied hands and feet by the Loyal Agent Agreement and at the same time motivated by the willingness to fulfill their duties and make the company prosper.
However, it cannot be doubted that to achieve high level of objectivity in the given situation, the people who tackle the issue of whistleblowing must represent a disinterested party.
Works Cited
Elliston, Frederick A. Anonymity and Whistleblowing. Business Ethics in Canada. Ed. Poff, Deborah C., and Waluchow, Wilfred J. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall, 2004. Print.
Michalos, Alex C. “The Loyal Agent’s Agreement.” Business Ethics in Canada. Ed. Poff, Deborah C., and Waluchow, Wilfred J. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall, 2004. Print.
Poff, Debora C. “The Loyal Agent’s Agreement Revised.” Business Ethics in Canada. Ed. Poff, Deborah C., and Waluchow, Wilfred J. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall, 2004. Print.