The Nature and Limits of the Whistleblower's Contribution to Administrative Responsibility

Abstract

Insofar as they can trigger existing accountability mechanisms that otherwise might not have uncovered or pursued administrative wrongdoing, whistleblowers can promote a more responsible public service. It would be both unwise and unfair, however, to rely on whistleblowers as a primary means by which to shore up a flawed system of bureaucratic accountability. The costs to the whistleblower and to the organization are substantial, and whistleblowing may reinforce one of the most significant shortcomings of existing mechanisms of accountability: the preoccupation with uncovering past misdeeds and the inability to promote the kind of ethical sensitivity and reflection necessary to reduce the incidence of organizational wrongdoing. When whistleblowers trigger external review, demands for accountability are as likely to promote rigidity and rationalization as they are to promote greater sensitivity to future ethical issues. These limitations on whistleblowing, and on after-the-fact review of administrative decision making more generally, should not be used to disparage accountability in favor of "high road" strategies like professional education. Instead, they demonstrate the importance of developing alternative means of accountability that do more than assign blame for the worst abuses of the public trust. Designing accountability mechanisms that require before-the-fact review of administrative decision making offers the possibility of ensuring compliance with external standards in a way that supports the critical reflection and ethical sensitivity that are vital to a responsible public service.