Dear Bob ...Years ago I worked as a junior employee for a public agency. One of the staff in another office completed an environmental analysis of a complex land use issue. The analyst was subsequently directed to change his conclusion and to delete any analysis supporting his initial conclusion. The staff member, although understandably upset, complied.I, too, was upset but I left an anonymous telephone message Dear Bob …Years ago I worked as a junior employee for a public agency. One of the staff in another office completed an environmental analysis of a complex land use issue. The analyst was subsequently directed to change his conclusion and to delete any analysis supporting his initial conclusion. The staff member, although understandably upset, complied.I, too, was upset but I left an anonymous telephone message with a local newspaper reporter. The newspaper investigated and reported the true facts. Subsequently there was an investigation within my agency as to who leaked the story to the press. Being so junior, I was not suspected. Unfortunately, the other staff member was accused by management of leaking the story and he soon left for another job. I’ve always felt guilty about my role in this matter. At the same time I felt I took the ethical path. Did I? – WhistleblowerDear Whistleblower …Understand that I’m not a professional ethicist, nor do I lay claim to knowing what is right in any absolute sense. Here’s my take on it: I understand you to be saying that you had direct knowledge of malfeasance on the part of the management of a government agency. The nature of the malfeasance led you to conclude, quite reasonably, that no internal avenues were open to either you or the analyst to challenge the malfeasance. Under these circumstances, leaking the situation to the press seems to be to be a very reasonable and ethical response.Following the public blowup, agency management, instead of asking how it happened that someone directed an analyst to change findings and delete references to undesirable evidence, instead decided to find out where the leak came from. That’s a second violation of the public trust. In my mind, it’s more unethical than the original breach since it establishes clearly that agency management prefers to conceal its workings from the public.Having made this unethical decision, management compounds the felony by assuming who is guilty instead of relying on evidence. From your account it appears the analyst left under his own steam to a different job – he wasn’t fired, nor did anyone actually ask you if you knew where the leak came from.So the question is whether you had an ethical obligation to volunteer that you were the leaker when you found out management was on a witch hunt. Just my opinion – you didn’t have any obligation to do so, nor did your silence do any lasting harm to the analyst.That is, I don’t think you had an ethical obligation to insert yourself into management discussions to which you had never been invited. You weren’t responsible for their decision to act unethically, nor for the consequences. On the other hand, speaking out would have been … “nobler” is the word that comes to mind … than your silence.– Bob Technology Industry