It is worth emphasizing that a whistleblower always deliberately discloses the information and from the start intends to make the information public. In addition, a whistleblower will seek an unconventional way to release information because conventional paths within the organization have turned out to be a dead end. Whistleblowing is different from other forms of “informing” because it is not just the release of information but at the same time also an indictment that identifies wrongdoing and that challenges a person or an organization. Although it functions as a control instrument and is usually done out of concern for the public interest, whistleblowers are still often negatively associated with sneaks, spies, squealers, and other despised forms of informers.Jubb, Peter B. “Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation” Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 77-94.

Two elements characterize whistleblowing as an expression of dissent: disagreement and complaint. This can be explained with the help of economist Albert Hirschman’s response categories; three ways in which employees might respond to feelings of dissatisfaction towards the organization they work for. The first response, the exit response, means that an individual chooses to dissociate oneself from the problem. The loyalty response means that an individual will remain loyal to the organization despite of its wrongdoings. Third, the voice response means that an individual chooses to express their concern or disagreement. The disagreement becomes dissent once it is expressed and has led to a complaint. This comes in many different shapes and forms, and can vary from anything between negative body language to documented and publicized statements. Whistleblowing is the most direct and unambiguous form. It has a clear aim to enforce change within an organization and is often done out of ethical considerations, but never under threat or under oath.Jubb, Peter B. “Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation” Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 77-94.