In view of the potential harm of whistleblowing, there was also an option to not do anything (Bok, 1980). Woodford could choose to be silent about the irregularities in the financial activities of the company and retain the benefits that come with working as a high-profile executive in Olympus. The problem is that, doing nothing was tantamount to allowing Kikukawa and the board continue stealing money from the company while making the public believe that Olympus was going well. His effort paid off. His exposure of the scandal became the talk of the press, and the executives of Olympus were left with no other choice but to come clean (Greenfeld, 2013). Kikukawa, who reassumed the CEO position after Woodford was fired, was forced to resign. Had Woodford opted to not do anything, the company would have plunged further into debt. The press would have exposed the anomalies anyway and Woodford could have been condemned as an accomplice to the crime. Principle of Deontology Blowing the whistle is also said to be grounded on the principle of deontology, which posits that people have the moral duty to do what is right in …show more content…
In various situations, it is prompted by the moral values that are inherent in them. In the case of Michael Woodford, he believed that he had to be honest in his performance of duty as head of Olympus. He knew that his life and career could be harmed by exposing the truth, but he insisted on doing what was in the eyes of the executives at Olympus, a treacherous act. Indeed, the cost to Woodford for blowing the whistle was great. He was fired from his position as President and CEO and all belongings related to that job were confiscated. He had to run away for his life, with only the media as his ally. It was not the only option that he had, but it seemed that it was the only correct option based on his principles that he adhered