Sunday, 23 October 2016


The Whistle- Blower – analysis.1

Dear All,

After the last ‘..whistle blower..’ I received many and highly valuable comments ! thanks for reading & sharing indeed !!

To address all the good suggestions I have thought of listing those points  (..including those from my son Eshan who is doing PhD in international relations in Melbourne and  wife Uttara..) in a sequential way and then from the next post to start analysing / commenting on each of them … this way we can expand the topic into a discussion of new kind ….

Here are the points for analysis – I will start writing from next chance I get during my travels the mean time why not you all also start thinking them over to have a deeper look at the causal factors in them or the causes behind these causal factors themselves  … Thank you all !

(below listed points are with reference to the last blog post..)

  1. Struggle faced by the bridging officers in the huge corporate structures

  1. What if the business was in a place where such possible accidents and corruption were within acceptable norms?

  1. What if the top management didn’t act?

  1. What if the whistle blowing was by nuisance causing or corrupt minded people?

  1. What if the cost changing procedures and making new safe guards was costlier than handling possible accidents?

  1. Can it be likened to dilemma faced by an insignificant member in a joint family?

  1. Can it be likened to the dilemma faced by common janta as against their complacent government?

  1. Can it be likened to a dilemma faced by one about the strucggle to overcome negative qualities in oneself?

  1. What’s wrong with the ‘MBA Boardroom Culture?’

  1. businesses

  1. environmentally sensitive

  1. the processes

  1. depend upon automation

  1. Automation &  human factors

  1. the key decision makers

  1. experienced professionals

  1. start to be become disconnected from the ‘real feel’ of the process-sites.

  1. strong sense of loyalty and fearlessness

  1. non professionals do not foresee or grasp

  1. monetary losses

  1. legal issues

  1. business reputation.

  1. office politics 

  1. insecure employees’ 

  1. meeting the targets’ statistically

  1. They started gathering data with ‘closed queries’

  1. so that any other gaps and lapses never get identified or reported

  1. but they project the KPI-achievements

  1. This in turn punched the board room presentations

  1. today’s MBA oriented business culture

  1. the investors and

  1. CFO’s  were kept happy

  1. albeit the data being ‘rigged’

  1. bridging-staff who also started to see worrying-trends

  1. a new technology was introduced

  1. implementation of the new Technology and its fool-proof usage were not matching the ‘on-paper’ milestones 

  2. On many occasions the main office is forcing the process site-managers to declare that they have fully accomplished the workflow .. though in fact the processes were being handled in a haphazard way. 

  1. The bridging-staff then started to see error-developments and the strong possibilities of accidents of catastrophic nature sooner or later.

  1. Now, the main office middle-management staff who were in a tight alliance with each other started keeping the process-weaknesses hidden from the bridging-staff by reporting it as ‘normal’ .

  1. They did not allow the reports to reach the senior executive officers.

  1. They felt that such reports could only increase the work-loads.

  1. The bridging-staff reported the error developments on-sites to the middle management in the main office.

  1. The main-office middle-management saw these reports as damaging to their departmental key processes. 

  1. The bridging-staff in turn started to see this as a drop of guard against the possible mishap at the process sites.

  1. company’s process management-procedures

  1. report near-misses

  1. verify the process by the senior supervisors, they tried to scale down the tones of the Bridging-officer’s reports on process sites lapses and near misses.

  1. On one hand the number of process-lapses started increasing and they did not get reported because any query about the weaker areas of the process site operations had been omitted from the revised procedures made by the main office;

  1. secondly the middle management kept giving a rosy picture about the process-site conditions and new technology implementation. The reality being the bomb of mishaps at the process-site started to tick and nothing was being done to defuse this bomb !

  1. what are your options? Report it? ……Stories of making such reports got being ridiculed.

  1. The only option the bridging-office now had was to report this matter to the highest authority in the company

  1. risking a huge wrath by the middle-management for increasing their workload due to the whistle-blowing !

  1. many additional steps that needed to be addressed have not been commissioned …

  1. …either report, whistle-blow or see the accident happening followed by ruining the entire company and its closure.

  1. What to do then? Blow the whistle or not? 

  1. The bridging-officer in our sampled case decided to whistle-blow by by-passing all the middle managers ….

  1. The CEO paid attention to such a degree that the bridging-officer wondered why he delayed the whistle-blowing so long anyway ….

  1. ... the middle management cornered the whistle-blowing bridging-officer who had made the choices and saved the company – 

  1. -he was unafraid – he had seen through the entire business –

  1. His fearless yet profoundly thoughtful decision to whislte-blow helped save the business.

  1. The highest management appreciated and encouraged the bridging officers to c

  1. ..the secrets of this business-survival was thus in their having capabilities and also the whistle-blowers who are never confused or afraid

 - E N D -      


  1. all the points listed needs to be thought upon 🤔 thank u for putting them

  2. Thank you Ritu, absolutely ! we will go on discussing these one by one over the coming posts..!