Summary of case 2 Corporate whistle-blowers play an important role in keeping the integrity and ethics in a company.

They alarm the authority, when they find any illegal practice inside the organization. But whistle-blowers face may problems when performing their job. They can face unemployment, sacked off or sometimes nit raising their voice against illegal activities. In 1986. A new law was introduced to encourage the whistle-blowers. This provided them with the scope of getting a handsome amount of money for every legal lawsuit. Nut this caused in quick report for wrongdoing, instead, of trying to rectify the situation internally. In the history of business this incident happened many times. Some business experts pointed it to be the best way to percent illegal activity and some of them called it to be nothing but a mean of extortion.

Do you believe that whistle-blowing is good for organizations and its members, or is it, as David Stetler believes, often a means to extort financial gains from companies?

I feel that in this case of Douglas Duran former VP of sales for TAP, it was his good ethics and intuition to correct the wrongdoing of the organization while using the precise process of decision-making and chose to go through the court system to punish the company for what they may have been doing towards the insurance company. My reasoning is that Duran is innocent from unethical practices from extorting financial gains from TAP. The reason was for his innocence is there were 500 boxes of evidence and the case settled. In addition, it cost TAP over 1 billion dollars of legal fees to clear them of all wrongdoing. David Stetler's, job as a defense attorney is to defend whether the defendant is right or wrong. In this case, it clearly shows by its lesson that "whistle blowing" is good for an organization and those who are unethical to "whistle blow" to extort money are most likely behaving with the same attitude as organizations who commit unethical practices or crime.

How might the self-fulfilling prophecy affect a whistle-blower's search for incriminating evidence against a company?

If one has the belief that a company is involved in unethical behavior then this person already had a preconceived perception of his environment. When an individual looks at a target and attempts to interpret what he or she sees, that interpretation is heavily influenced by the personal characteristics of the individual perceiver. Personal characteristics that affect perception include a person's attitudes, personality, motives, interests, past experiences, and expectations. Anyone can take unexplained actions of a company or group and make a conspiracy theory out of it.

Even though these actions maybe on the up and up, the observer of these actions may not be privy to all details and therefore forms the idea that these unexplained actions are unethical.

When frivolous lawsuits occur. How might these cases affect future whistles-blowers who have a valid legal claim against their company? Would they be more or less likely to come forward? How might their claims be evaluated? What should companies and the government do to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

In case if frivolous lawsuits, the verdict may mostly be in the advantage of the organization, not the whistles-blowers. This will discourage the future whistles-blowers having a legal claim against their company. They will be less likely to raise their voice against illegal activities. But if they come forward, their appeal should obviously be evaluated with adequate measures and give importance to their claim. To prevent frivolous lawsuits companies and the government should monitor the works of whistle-blowers and compile the law which was introduced to encourage whites-blowers.

Do you believe employees of a company have an ethical obligation to first attempt to report wrongdoing to members of the company itself, or should they go straight to the authorities when they suspect illegal activity? What are some advantage and disadvantages of both actions?

I believe employees should go straight to the authority, instead of taking any measure on their own. Because, measure taken on their by any individual from their own spot can be harmful or premature for the organization. Its hand of professional decision makes or company policymakers. On the other hand, decisions by the authority can be very time taking because of the bream cratie system in the organization and sometimes punishment could be too harsh for the crime, thereby affection the reputation of the organization.