Reconceptualising Whistleblowing in a Complex World
| LEADER | caa a22 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 605483280 | ||
| 003 | CHVBK | ||
| 005 | 20210128100430.0 | ||
| 007 | cr unu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210128e20150501xx s 000 0 eng | ||
| 024 | 7 | 0 | |a 10.1007/s10551-014-2105-z |2 doi |
| 035 | |a (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10551-014-2105-z | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Andrade |D Julio |u University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reconceptualising Whistleblowing in a Complex World |h [Elektronische Daten] |c [Julio Andrade] |
| 520 | 3 | |a This paper explores the ethical dilemma of conflicting loyalties found in whistleblowing. Central to this dilemma is the internal/external disclosure dichotomy; disclosure of organisational wrongdoing to an external recipient is seen as disloyal, whilst disclosure to an internal recipient is seen as loyal. Understanding how the organisation and society have dealt with these problems over the last 30 years is undertaken through an analysis of Vandekerckhove's (Whistleblowing and organisational social responsibility, 2006) project, which seeks to place the normative legitimisations of whistleblowing legislation and organisational whistleblowing policies within a globalisation semantic able to contain this conflict between society and the organisation. This project fails, it is argued, because of Vandekerckhove's particular understanding of the organisation as an autopoietic system, i.e. an operationally closed system. A case is made to understand organisations as complex systems, i.e. operationally open systems. Critical Complexity theory sees the identities of systems and components as coterminous. In the context of the organisation, this means that the identities of the corporation and its corporate members arise and die together. The whistleblower's disclosure reconfigures the organisation by forcing the organisation to open up and make its boundaries flexible, making the designation ‘internal' or ‘external' to the organisation, and, therefore, who qualifies as a recipient of a disclosure of wrongdoing, flexible. The organisation is restrained from retailing against the whistleblower, because its identities are coterminous. Furthermore, as the disclosure cannot be categorically defined as either internal or external, the question of whether an external disclosure can qualify as an act of organisational loyalty becomes moot. | |
| 540 | |a Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2014 | ||
| 690 | 7 | |a Whistleblowing |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Organisational loyalty |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Internal/external disclosure |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Autopoietic systems |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Critical Complexity |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Corporate responsibility |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Relational responsiveness |2 nationallicence | |
| 773 | 0 | |t Journal of Business Ethics |d Springer Netherlands |g 128/2(2015-05-01), 321-335 |x 0167-4544 |q 128:2<321 |1 2015 |2 128 |o 10551 | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2105-z |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI |
| 898 | |a BK010053 |b XK010053 |c XK010000 | ||
| 900 | 7 | |a Metadata rights reserved |b Springer special CC-BY-NC licence |2 nationallicence | |
| 908 | |D 1 |a research-article |2 jats | ||
| 949 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |F NATIONALLICENCE |b NL-springer | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 856 |E 40 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2105-z |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 100 |E 1- |a Andrade |D Julio |u University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 773 |E 0- |t Journal of Business Ethics |d Springer Netherlands |g 128/2(2015-05-01), 321-335 |x 0167-4544 |q 128:2<321 |1 2015 |2 128 |o 10551 | ||