BOA哪张信用卡是累计worldpoints的么？# Money - 海外理财
z*u
1 楼
In general, whistleblowing, or even just a manager's judgment that
someone is blowing the whistle, is proof of organizational trouble.
Employees do not go out of channels unless the channels at least seem
inadequate, or because they are indeed inadequate or because the
organization has failed to make clear that channels are available for
reporting concerns. Whistleblowing is also often proof of management failure
. Usually several managers directly above the whistleblower will have heard
his complaint previously, tried to deal with it in some way, and failed to
satisfy the complainant. However managers view the whistleblower's complaint
, they are bound to view it in some sense as their own failure. Their
superiors are likely to take a similar view.
Whistleblowing is also bad for those on whom the whistle is blown. What
they were doing is suddenly in the spotlight. They will have to participate
in investigations and "damage control" that would not otherwise demand their
scarce time. They will have to write unusual reports, attend special
meetings, worry about the effect of publicity on their own career, and face
the pointed questions of spouse, children, and friends. This might continue
for weeks, months-or even years.
Harms to the whistleblower
This sense of betrayal implies more harm. Before blowing the whistle,
the whistleblower trusted the organization. She took its good sense for
granted. She gave it "the benefit of the doubt". That is no longer possible.
Faith has become suspicion. Since what we call "organizational authority"
is precisely the ability of the organization to have its commands taken more
or less on faith, the organization's leaders now have as much reason to
distrust the whistleblower as she has to distrust them. She no longer
recognizes their authority. She is much more likely to blow the whistle than
before. She is now an alien presence within the corporate body.
Something equally bad may happen to relations between the whistleblower
and fellow workers. Whistleblowing tends to bring out the worst in people.
Some friends become implacable enemies (the enemy of the enemy of the
organization that feeds them). Others hide, fearing "guilt by association."
These desertions can leave deep scars. And even when they do not, they leave
the whistleblower an outsider, a loner in an organization in which
isolation for any reason makes one vulnerable.
Most professions have stories they tell to bring home to initiates the
seriousness of what they do. Journalists talk about the journalist who went
to jail rather than reveal a source; soldiers talk about the soldier who
fell on a live grenade to protect his comrades; philosophers tell how
Socrates drank hemlock rather than give up philosophy; and so on. For
engineers, stories about whistleblowing seem to serve that function.
Engineers talk about whistleblowing not because whistleblowing is all that
common in engineering but because, on rare occasions, it is all that they
can do to protect the public from bad engineering. Sometimes an engineer
must risk her job to be a good engineer. But, of course, knowing how to
avoid whistleblowing is at least as important as doing it when necessary.
How to Blow the Whistle
Suppose that you are the metallurgical engineer described above, that you
have tried to avoid whistleblowing in all of the ways described above (or,
at least, all those that seemed practical). Suppose that the decision has
not been reversed and you have not changed your mind about the decision.
What should you do now?
Whistleblowers should consider the following guidelines:
In the beginning
Talk to your family or close friends about your decision to blow the
whistle before taking any irreversible step. You need to think carefully
about what you are going to do. You need an outsider's distance. And, should
things go wrong, you will need a support group, people who agree that you
made the right decision and feel that they had a share in it.
Continue to do your job and meet your responsibilities as if you
were not the complainant. While this might be very difficult, DO NOT give
your supervisor any grounds for terminating your employment as this might
reduce your credibility as the complainant.
Engage in whistleblowing initiatives on your own time and with your
own resources, not on your organization's time. Doing it on the organization
's time gives them a right to say how it is to be done.
Attempt discreetly to learn of any other witnesses who are upset
about the wrongdoing. Numbers provide strength both in making your initial
case and in protecting against reprisals.
Consider whether there is any reasonable way to work within the
system by going beyond the first level of authority before formally breaking
ranks. Does your organization have a "hotline", an "open door policy", or
an ombudsman? Generally, organizations are more forgiving of internal
whistleblowers than of external-in part because they have learned from
experience that it is better to learn of a problem early from a
whistleblower than later from fatal accident, criminal investigation, or
financial disaster.
Before and after you blow the whistle, keep a careful record of
events as they unfold. Try to construct a straightforward, factual log of
the relevant activities and events on the job, keeping in mind that your
organization will have access to your diary if there is a lawsuit. The log
can later serve as an aid to memory, can protect against false memory, and
can also serve as independent evidence of what happened. Always guard
against embellishment of charges. Of the few assets a whistleblower has, the
truth is the most important.
Identify, copy, and put in a safe place all necessary supporting
records before you do anything that might identify you as a potential
whistleblower, but be careful to respect the organizations legitimate
expectation of confidentiality.
If you must go "outside" the organization
If you decide to go outside of the organization, think carefully
about whether you want to "go public" with your concerns or remain an
anonymous source. Each strategy has implications: the decision depends on
the quantity and quality of your evidence, your ability to camouflage your
knowledge of key facts, the risks you are willing to assume and your
willingness to endure intense public scrutiny.
Obtain legal advice from a lawyer with whistle blowing experience.
Having good legal advice is generally worth the expense. If you cannot
afford a good lawyer, seek help from a whistleblower's support group.
Research, identify, and seek a support network of potential allies,
such as elected officials, journalists, and activists, before you become
isolated. The solidarity of key constituencies can be more powerful than the
organization you are challenging.
Develop a plan such as strategically-timed release of information to
government agencies so that your organization is reacting to you, not you
to it.
Try to maintain good relations with administration and support staff
. Whistleblowers have a tendency to withdraw into themselves once they have
decided to blow the whistle. The more isolated they become within the
organization, the easier it becomes to retaliate against them.
You want to avoid becoming isolated-if at all possible. Often the
whistleblower cannot remain anonymous because the information necessary to
blow the whistle can only have come from one or a few people. Generally, the
more you reveal or the more closely held the information, the easier it
will be for the organization to determine that you were the source.
Don't wear your cynicism on your sleeve when working with the
authorities. Cynicism does not inspire trust. Always continue to act like a
good engineer.
Finding a new organization before blowing the whistle on the old one
is a good strategy. It is often harder to find a job once you have been
identified as a whistleblower. Keeping a new job is easier than trying to
find one.
someone is blowing the whistle, is proof of organizational trouble.
Employees do not go out of channels unless the channels at least seem
inadequate, or because they are indeed inadequate or because the
organization has failed to make clear that channels are available for
reporting concerns. Whistleblowing is also often proof of management failure
. Usually several managers directly above the whistleblower will have heard
his complaint previously, tried to deal with it in some way, and failed to
satisfy the complainant. However managers view the whistleblower's complaint
, they are bound to view it in some sense as their own failure. Their
superiors are likely to take a similar view.
Whistleblowing is also bad for those on whom the whistle is blown. What
they were doing is suddenly in the spotlight. They will have to participate
in investigations and "damage control" that would not otherwise demand their
scarce time. They will have to write unusual reports, attend special
meetings, worry about the effect of publicity on their own career, and face
the pointed questions of spouse, children, and friends. This might continue
for weeks, months-or even years.
Harms to the whistleblower
This sense of betrayal implies more harm. Before blowing the whistle,
the whistleblower trusted the organization. She took its good sense for
granted. She gave it "the benefit of the doubt". That is no longer possible.
Faith has become suspicion. Since what we call "organizational authority"
is precisely the ability of the organization to have its commands taken more
or less on faith, the organization's leaders now have as much reason to
distrust the whistleblower as she has to distrust them. She no longer
recognizes their authority. She is much more likely to blow the whistle than
before. She is now an alien presence within the corporate body.
Something equally bad may happen to relations between the whistleblower
and fellow workers. Whistleblowing tends to bring out the worst in people.
Some friends become implacable enemies (the enemy of the enemy of the
organization that feeds them). Others hide, fearing "guilt by association."
These desertions can leave deep scars. And even when they do not, they leave
the whistleblower an outsider, a loner in an organization in which
isolation for any reason makes one vulnerable.
Most professions have stories they tell to bring home to initiates the
seriousness of what they do. Journalists talk about the journalist who went
to jail rather than reveal a source; soldiers talk about the soldier who
fell on a live grenade to protect his comrades; philosophers tell how
Socrates drank hemlock rather than give up philosophy; and so on. For
engineers, stories about whistleblowing seem to serve that function.
Engineers talk about whistleblowing not because whistleblowing is all that
common in engineering but because, on rare occasions, it is all that they
can do to protect the public from bad engineering. Sometimes an engineer
must risk her job to be a good engineer. But, of course, knowing how to
avoid whistleblowing is at least as important as doing it when necessary.
How to Blow the Whistle
Suppose that you are the metallurgical engineer described above, that you
have tried to avoid whistleblowing in all of the ways described above (or,
at least, all those that seemed practical). Suppose that the decision has
not been reversed and you have not changed your mind about the decision.
What should you do now?
Whistleblowers should consider the following guidelines:
In the beginning
Talk to your family or close friends about your decision to blow the
whistle before taking any irreversible step. You need to think carefully
about what you are going to do. You need an outsider's distance. And, should
things go wrong, you will need a support group, people who agree that you
made the right decision and feel that they had a share in it.
Continue to do your job and meet your responsibilities as if you
were not the complainant. While this might be very difficult, DO NOT give
your supervisor any grounds for terminating your employment as this might
reduce your credibility as the complainant.
Engage in whistleblowing initiatives on your own time and with your
own resources, not on your organization's time. Doing it on the organization
's time gives them a right to say how it is to be done.
Attempt discreetly to learn of any other witnesses who are upset
about the wrongdoing. Numbers provide strength both in making your initial
case and in protecting against reprisals.
Consider whether there is any reasonable way to work within the
system by going beyond the first level of authority before formally breaking
ranks. Does your organization have a "hotline", an "open door policy", or
an ombudsman? Generally, organizations are more forgiving of internal
whistleblowers than of external-in part because they have learned from
experience that it is better to learn of a problem early from a
whistleblower than later from fatal accident, criminal investigation, or
financial disaster.
Before and after you blow the whistle, keep a careful record of
events as they unfold. Try to construct a straightforward, factual log of
the relevant activities and events on the job, keeping in mind that your
organization will have access to your diary if there is a lawsuit. The log
can later serve as an aid to memory, can protect against false memory, and
can also serve as independent evidence of what happened. Always guard
against embellishment of charges. Of the few assets a whistleblower has, the
truth is the most important.
Identify, copy, and put in a safe place all necessary supporting
records before you do anything that might identify you as a potential
whistleblower, but be careful to respect the organizations legitimate
expectation of confidentiality.
If you must go "outside" the organization
If you decide to go outside of the organization, think carefully
about whether you want to "go public" with your concerns or remain an
anonymous source. Each strategy has implications: the decision depends on
the quantity and quality of your evidence, your ability to camouflage your
knowledge of key facts, the risks you are willing to assume and your
willingness to endure intense public scrutiny.
Obtain legal advice from a lawyer with whistle blowing experience.
Having good legal advice is generally worth the expense. If you cannot
afford a good lawyer, seek help from a whistleblower's support group.
Research, identify, and seek a support network of potential allies,
such as elected officials, journalists, and activists, before you become
isolated. The solidarity of key constituencies can be more powerful than the
organization you are challenging.
Develop a plan such as strategically-timed release of information to
government agencies so that your organization is reacting to you, not you
to it.
Try to maintain good relations with administration and support staff
. Whistleblowers have a tendency to withdraw into themselves once they have
decided to blow the whistle. The more isolated they become within the
organization, the easier it becomes to retaliate against them.
You want to avoid becoming isolated-if at all possible. Often the
whistleblower cannot remain anonymous because the information necessary to
blow the whistle can only have come from one or a few people. Generally, the
more you reveal or the more closely held the information, the easier it
will be for the organization to determine that you were the source.
Don't wear your cynicism on your sleeve when working with the
authorities. Cynicism does not inspire trust. Always continue to act like a
good engineer.
Finding a new organization before blowing the whistle on the old one
is a good strategy. It is often harder to find a job once you have been
identified as a whistleblower. Keeping a new job is easier than trying to
find one.
