12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Required Reading, July 29, 2007
I suspect that the problem with this book is that it is mostly read by whistleblowers who've already acted.
It needs to be read by management in every organization so that they understand whistleblowers, and perhaps will deal with them differently.
It needs to be read by those contemplating whistleblowing, although it would likely convince many not to act--and then where would the world be?
I am a whistleblower, but early in the process. This book describes my feelings and the reaction of others to the point of being eerie. It has helped me understand what is happening. This makes Mr. Alford's prediction of the likely outcomes very distressing. I believe my outcome will be different, but he says that is a common delusion among whistleblowers.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A whistleblower, August 23, 2010
Although this book may discourage some, I find it quite helpful, that while any whistleblower may not experience all these things, many of them are still active in spite of all the laws against it. The author says there appears to be no social science characteristics that make us typical; I suggest for future research someone see if most of us cannot be classified as Myers-Briggs T people -- "extreme logical thinkers," as I am. That means we want to make most of our decisions on the basis of rational analysis instead of on how other people will feel. My only disagreement with the author is that my motive is not narcissist but rather satisfaction with having accomplished something very important, helping to make the Systems of society more efficient, even if I personally am not better off. Yes, the most serious potential victims (people who will be seriously injured and killed) I am working for are nameless, but I am also working for fair competition between firms, some of whom are now "cheating" (gaining a financial advantage) by breaking the law. At a time in our society when a long history of violations of regulations has occurred before the great disasters in the oil business, the mining business, the airline industry, and now even the egg business, it is imperative that society continue to pass laws that protect us. I plan to attempt to get protection for whistle blowers from trade association sanctions, by getting them declared an Antitrust violation when the organization is covered and the sanctions and process used meets the same characteristics as those declared illegal for employers.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
No Time for Heroes: Feeding the Saints to the Beasts, June 8, 2001
This review is from: Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power (Hardcover)
If the 20th century was the era of totalitarian states then it was also the era of many isolated and unsung individuals attempting to withstand particular instances of cruelty, brutality and inhumanity. Surprisingly, the institutions of oppression associated with Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and the People's Republic of China resonate to one degree or another in larger modern organizations found in contemporary North America: multi-nationals, municipal entities, Federal corporations and agencies. The methods for destroying individuals are vastly improved over the knock on the door at midnight and the train ride to an Arctic concentration camp. Now, dissidents are eliminated cleanly, quietly, even "legally."
The point of this book is that the forms of ethical resistance associated with the incredible heroism of figures such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Oscar Schnidler, and Harry Wu occur under different appearances today.
Unfortunately, the effect of resistance to evil ordinarily produces futile results - the walls seem to specialize in falling in on the individual resister while the public good and general interest is hardly advanced following the episodes. In a sense, this is a dark book perhaps of neo-Gothic horror since the reality is that the doers of evil escape thanks to enjoying the presumption of right and virtual invisibility. Repressive organizational technique includes "learned helplessness" (the bureaucratic ability to appear innocent while invariably smashing the box marked "fragile"), the employment of lawyers skilled in turning statutes into injustice, and the exploitation of the inherent ability of modern organizations to avoid accountability and, even, recognition.
Who needs this book?
Professor Alford's book has particular value to would be authors, instructors, and playwrights. These will find the book muse-like for its stock of great and gory chucks of raw reality. In its pages new ideas, vistas and themes to inspire the imaginative writer, even the artist. One can readily imagine a contemporary Arthur Miller carefully taking notes as he or she turns the pages.
For the discerning reader, this book is even collectible for its future scarcity - like a copy of Freud in Hitler's Third Reich. Prim organizational librarians and censorious officials will recoil at the ghastly truths and pitiable realities described within its pages. One may rest assured that the book will never found in the libraries of Federal agencies - unless the agency's business involves harassing whistle blowers. Those few copies placed in public libraries will certainly be culled out and disappear from sight when the real meaning and significance of it become known to the authorities.
For the general consumer, entranced with the illusory world purveyed by the mass media - luxuriating in consumerism, searching for impressive books to place on the coffee table, Prof. Alford's tome is apt to be baffling, improbable, and irritating.
Moreover, and worse of all, it has no pictures and does not even come with a music CD.
"Tom Hardy"(see pages 27-29)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
