Justification for the use of anonymous letters for whistle blowingThe decision by Mr Alwyn Johnson to blow the whistle on the goings on at the bank was wise and selfless since it averted an imminent catastrophe of the magnitude that befell the other state banks. blowing the whistle by writing the anonymous letters was also. The anonymity of the letters triggered swift action from the premier, more than they would have had, if letters. Possibly, the letters would have been dismissed as a way of settling scores by an employee who was unhappy with his seniors. Indeed, the action bore fruit.
Probably, if he had chosen to keep quiet, the bank would have suffered negatively due to the non performing assets with the property developers in its wholesale banking division. Eventually, it would have gone under as a result of the poor lending policies, state banks of Victoria and South Australia. Mr Johnson demonstrated a sense of duty by taking the initiative to investigate the performance of the assets. Drawing from his experience in the National Australia Bank, he was able to decipher an eventuality before it happened.
Even after he came up with the findings of his investigations, he went ahead to warn his superiors. When they did not take a step towards saving the situation, he went the extra mile to seek redress from the higher authority. ii) The pitfalls of revealing his identity always a doubleminded task for the whistle blower whether or not to reveal his or her identity. Mr Alwyn Johnson would have stayed better off if he had not disclosed his identity. Probably carried away by the sheer success of act, he thought his futures would shine if he said he did it.
erred by revealing his identity after his decision to blow the whistle proved successful. Perhaps It was a typical case of getting blinded by the immense success borne by the decision and the vote passed to thank the writer, that he identified himself. The motive of the revelation could have been selfish since he could have expected to be recognized for whistle blowing. Rather than receive accolades from the bank’s management, Mr was shown the door, the only senior executive of the bank to be fired.
The fact that he chose to remain anonymous as he carried out his duty as whistle blower, showed that he was acting for the good of the bank. This led to an audit that vindicated his decision. Had he not gone forth to receive the credits for the task, he would have retained his job. The eventual fate of Mr shows the thankless nature of whistle blowing. His colleagues at the bank, who by error of omission or commission, decided to keep silent over the issue of nonperforming assets with the property developers in its wholesale banking division, remained unscathed.
Even his seniors who had disregarded his counsel in the first place are left scot free and no action is taken against them. The move by the bank to fire Mr Johnson after he revealed his identity was unfair. He deserved the exact opposite in terms of a promotion and recognition for the risk he took to blow the whistle.