1999 Film The Insider movie-Russell Crowe-Al Pacino-Unethical Business Practices at CBS

Ethical leadership values an ethical culture. Unethical leadership and hypocritical leadership create an unethical culture. Jeff Wigand portrayed by Russell Crowe in the film The Insider learns the differences of two business cultures the hard way. As a former researcher for Johnson & Johnson, Jeff Wigand was used to working for a business culture where ethics were valued. he explained to Lowell Bergman producer of 60 Minutes, portrayed by Al Pacino, that the CEO of J&J did not wait for the approval from the FDA before removing all Tylenol from the store shelves. The CEO of J&J had already decided to go ahead and remove all the possibly contaminated medicine because the CEO of J&J believed in Johnson & Johnson credo. When Jeff Wigand left Johnson & Johnson to work for Brown and Williamson, Jeff Wigand did not leave the ethical culture of Johnson & Johnson behind him. Jeff Wigand carried the values of Johnson & Johnson with him to the different business culture of Brown and Williamson.

Brown and Williamson has a different approach to an ethical culture. Their mission is to be profitable in the nicotine delivery business. Their policy is to give the people their nicotine fix. Informal language such as impact boosting meant researchers such as Jeff Wigand were suppose to enhance the effects of nicotine to make cigarettes more addictive. Jeff Wigand felt his research harmed future consumers. Jeff Wigand believed CEO Thomas Sandefur of Brown and Williamson would want to know the company is ignoring the health concerns of their customers. At Johnson & Johnson, this concern would have been acceptable, but at Brown & Williamson this was not. Jeff Wigand sent a memo to Thomas Sandefur concerning product safety. Thomas Sandefur fired Jeff Wigand for poor communication skills. Jeff Wigand realized then that product and consumer safety were not a concern to Brown and Williamson. They did not value honesty. Brown and Williamson was not concerned for their customers. This unethical leadership drives Jeff Wigand to hold an interview with 60 Minutes telling Mike Wallace of Brown and Williamson and their unethical business practices. Jeff Wigand also tells Mike Wallace if he were given the opportunity he would have blown the whistle on the company again, and here's how he could have done his whistle blowing differently -

Jeff Wigand was VP of his research department at Brown and Williamson. In an attempt to inform the company of his concerns for product safety, he should have first informed his boss, the President of his department. If the President would not have dealt with his concern, then Jeff Wigand should have contacted the legal department of Brown and Williamson. Jeff Wigand could have explained to the company's legal advisers that if this information becomes public without their acknowledgment, then Brown and Williamson could face litigation from the government for public health and safety violations and from uninformed customers. If Thomas Sandefur would have known of Jeff Wigand and his positive approach to informing Brown and Williamson, then Jeff Wigand may not have been terminated. If Jeff Wigand still would have been terminated, then he should have immediately contacted labor relations to press charges for wrongful termination. Jeff Wigand could have then used his interview with 60 Minutes to gain public compassion and inform the people of the infringement on public health and safety from Brown and Williamson. As a result of Jeff Wigand blowing the whistle, he faced severe consequences.

Jeff Wigand has to assess his ethical values before proceeding to blow the whistle publicly. Jeff Wigand valued the safety, health, and well-being of his family. Jeff Wigand also valued the financial stability provided by his so-called fair severance package with medical benefits from Brown and Williamson. When Jeff Wigand decided to blow the whistle, he was possibly sacrificing these values. As a result, Jeff Wigand chose to value the health and well-being of the public. He wanted to be honest and provide safety for the customers. In either case, if he spoke publicly about the addictive effects of nicotine essentially breaking his confidentiality agreement with Brown and Williamson or kept quiet knowing the public was unaware of the health risks, Jeff Wigand would have his personal integrity in question. The relationship between ethics and the law is quite severe. By his deposition in Mississippi, Jeff Wigand made the public aware of the addictive effects of nicotine at the cost of an incarceration in the state of Kentucky. Jeff Wigand would no longer be allowed to live in his home state.

Jeff Wigand considered several stakeholders in his decision process. He wanted to make the public aware of the addictive effects of nicotine. He wanted to fight back the tobacco company for harassing his family. Jeff Wigand failed to recognize his wife as a big stakeholder in his decision. During the process, Jeff Wigand should have informed her of his predicament. He should have included her opinion in the decision. By not doing so, when all came out, his wife filed for divorce and eventually, he no longer had much time to spend with his daughters. In the end however, Jeff Wigand maintained his ethical self which was formerly celebrated in his work and Johnson & Johnson.

Another key stakeholder in The Insider ethical dilemma was 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman. Both Lowell Bergman and Jeff Wigand believed in the importance of trust. Jeff Wigand wanted people to trust in his expertise in medical research. Lowell Bergman wanted the public to trust in the creditability of 60 Minutes. Lowell Bergman believed it was the duty of journalism and of 60 Minutes to provide the public with information concerning their health and safety. Lowell Bergman felt it was his duty and obligation to let the public know of the addictive effects of nicotine, however, a conflict of interest arose between CBS corporate and CBS news. Lowell Bergman informed a reporter at the New York Times that CBS corporate was leaning on CBS News to not air the original broadcast because Westinghouse was negotiating to buy CBS. Westinghouse objected to the taped interview with researcher Jeff Wigand and his claims of nicotine being addictive. Lowell Bergman felt CBS News and Mike Wallace were breaking their contract of customer confidence. Lowell Bergman believed their actions were jeopardizing their journalism integrity. Lowell Bergman had promised Jeff Wigand his story would air and then the interview was cut from the first airing of the story. Lowell Bergman did not want to break his promise, his word because the story may jeopardize business negotiations. In the end, Lowell Bergman decided to quit because he himself felt he had lost a personal integrity.

Lowell Bergman and Jeff Wigand both faced the illusion of optimism. They outweighed the positive outcome and underestimated the negative effects of their actions. Lowell Bergman never believed CBS News would cut the interview with Jeff Wigand. Lowell Bergman even provided Jeff Wigand his family professional security guards to ensure his safety while speaking publicly of the situation. Lowell Bergman and his trust in CBS News was shattered after they decided to not air the interview. Lowell Bergman and his values and ethical principles did not match with the ethical beliefs of CBS corporate and CBS News.

The Insider showed how Jeff Wigand and Lowell Bergman lost their trust with CBS when the news organization was willing to jeopardize their journalism integrity for a highly-lucrative business negotiation. Lowell Bergman was made aware of how quickly news reporters are willing to smear an ethical person. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers were planning on running a dossier written by big tobacco companies to smear the character of Jeff Wigand. Lowell Bergman had to obtain the correct information from cited sources in order to discredit this dossier, an unethical business practice on the behalf of the tobacco companies.

The Insider showed how Jeff Wigand was unaware of the effects to speak withLowell Bergman about the fire safety study concerning Philip Morris would have such an impact on his confidentiality agreement with Brown and Williamson. CEO Thomas Sandefur insisted Jeff Wigand sign an additional improved confidentiality agreement or otherwise Brown and Williamson would eliminate the medical benefits and severance package. They would also take legal action against him. Jeff Wigand furiously stormed out of the room. As a result, Brown and Williamson harassed Jeff Wigand and his family. A hired man followed Jeff Wigand to the driving range at night. Another man, possibly the same hired man watched the family home from the garden bed. Anonymous phone calls rang during the middle of the night. Jeff Wigand found a bullet in his mailbox. His wife opened an email that read in black font on a red background 'We will kill you. We will kill all of you. Shut up.' Pressured to end the harassment, Jeff Wigand decided to give a deposition in the state of Mississippi. Jeff Wigand wanted to fight back the tobacco company for creating such turmoil in his and his family's life. Jeff Wigand did not realize until later that speaking publicly would jeopardize the relationship with his wife and daughters. His wife divorced him. And, after going on the record in Mississippi, Jeff Wigand could no longer live in the state of Kentucky or else he would be incarcerated for breaking the confidentiality agreement with Brown and Williamson.

In the case of Jeff Wigand vs. Brown and Williamson, the end result was a greater cynicism for business and its unethical leaders. The public became aware of the seven dwarfs (CEO's of big tobacco companies) strategy of keeping information about addiction to nicotine in cigarettes a secret. The seven dwarfs lied to the United States Congress about this knowledge.

Lowell Bergman and Jeff Wigand were the ethical leaders to whistle-blowing. They were the beginning of employees to come forward against the unethical business practices of the companies they worked for. In 2002, Time named three female whistle-blowers people of the year. Legislation has since passed by Congress the False Claims Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which makes it easier for employees to cite unethical practices and make their organizations accountable for their actions. Jeff Wigand and Lowell Bergman fought for their ethical values and have influenced the future of others ethical decisions and uphold their integrity.