Reformed National Security Internal Whistleblowing Systems and External Whistleblowing as Countervailing Ethics Methods

• Author: Richard P. Nielsen
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718760583
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718760583

Administration & Society

2020, Vol. 52(5) 660 –689

© The Author(s) 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0095399718760583

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Reformed National

Security Internal

Whistleblowing

Systems and External

Whistleblowing as

Countervailing Ethics

Methods

Richard P. Nielsen1

Abstract

This article (a) reviews parts of the general literature on internal and external

whistleblowing, (b) reviews parts of the national security whistleblowing

literature and context, (c) discusses theoretical and legal reasons for

considering whistleblowing as a countervailing ethics method, (d) discusses

problems with the current national security internal whistleblowing system,

(e) proposes developmental changes and reforms, (f) considers why potential

reforms might reduce the need for ethically and legally problematic external

whistleblowing, and (g) concludes that if reforms are not made, which may

be likely, then what the Founders of the U.S. Constitution referred to as

“unauthorized disclosures [external whistleblowing]” and even strengthened

First Amendment protections remain necessary.

Keywords

whistleblowing, national security, reforms

1Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Richard P. Nielsen, Boston College, 430 Fulton, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.

Email: richard.nielsen@bc.edu

760583AASXXX10.1177/0095399718760583Administration & SocietyNielsen

research-article2018

Nielsen 661

Introduction

It is an old idea and observation in developmental ethics, for example,

Aristotle (Eikeland, 2008; Hartman, 1996), and social and political science,

for example, Weber (1913/1978), Kropotkin (1902), Galbraith (1952),

Argyris, Putnam, and Smith (1987), and Sagar (2013) that different types of

systems and countervailing systems where power is concentrated can make it

“easier [or harder] to be good.” This can also be true for internal whistleblow-

ing systems (Nielsen, 1996).

While there has been a great deal of nonnational security internal whistle-

blowing system research done in both private and public sectors, examples of

which are considered below, there has been relatively less published research

within the national security context as the cases typically involve classified

material that does not permit public disclosure (Barrett, 2012; Sagar, 2013).

This article considers potential inferences from public and private sectors

that may be potentially applicable to a national security context with respect

to reforming and improving national security internal whistleblowing sys-

tems which may also reduce the need for external whistleblowing.

Internal and external whistleblowing as countervailing organizational and

institutional ethics and organizational development methods have consis-

tently been found to be important means of achieving accountability on the

part of powerful institutions, organizations, and leaders. More specifically,

there has been a great deal of research that considers the need for and benefits

of internal whistleblowing systems, the problem of ineffective or nonexistent

internal whistleblowing systems, the negative internal effects when internal

whistleblowing systems are inadequate or nonexistent, employees resorting

to external whistleblowing when there are not effective internal systems, why

external whistleblowing is necessary, and how to do effective external whis-

tleblowing. Examples of these studies are discussed below.

This article (a) reviews parts of the general literature on internal and exter-

nal whistleblowing, (b) reviews parts of the national security whistleblowing

literature and context, (c) discusses theoretical and legal reasons for consider-

ing whistleblowing as a countervailing ethics method, (d) discusses problems

with the current internal national security whistleblowing system, (e) pro-

poses developmental changes and reforms, (f) discusses why potential

reforms might reduce the need for ethically and legally problematic external

whistleblowing, and (g) concludes that if reforms are not made, which may

be likely, then what the Founders of the U.S. constitution referred to as

“unauthorized disclosures [external whistleblowing]” and even strengthened

First Amendment and judicial protection of external whistleblowing ethical

responsibilities of the traditional and social media remain necessary.