Whistle-blower?

Talk about a rock and a hard place.  A New York Times article -- “At Pfizer, the Isolation Increases for a Whistle-Blower” -- describes a delicate whistle-blower situation at Pfizer.  Dr. Peter Rost, listed as “a vice president for marketing” at the company, “has for the last year publicly criticized the pharmaceutical industry over the price of drugs.”  According to the article, this has led to Dr. Rost’s gradual marginalization at the company:

First, his employees stopped reporting to him. Then his supervisors stopped returning his calls and now he does not know whom to report to. His secretary left, he said, and he was moved to an office near Pfizer's security department at a company building in Peapack, N.J. The latest blow came Monday, the morning after Dr. Rost, 46, appeared on a segment of "60 Minutes" on CBS about drug prices - a follow-up to his news conference on the subject last year with members of Congress and to the opinion pieces he has written for The New York Times and other newspapers. Ready, as always, to put in a full day at the office, Dr. Rost turned on his computer Monday and tried for the first time in almost two weeks to log into his Pfizer e-mail account.

Of course, while not a hangin’ offense, taking public positions directly contrary to your employer’s business interests is more than mere bad manners.  Remember – the word “marketing” appears in Dr. Rost's job title.  A human resources consultant interviewed in the article makes the following bold understatement: “In defense of Pfizer, I don't think I would want him representing me in the marketplace.”  The consultant then concludes that “it may be legal for Pfizer to fire him.”  But firing is not in the cards -- the problem is that the doctor worked on a drug now under investigation by the Justice Department, and so “he may be protected by federal laws shielding whistle-blowers from retaliation.”

What I find most interesting about the article is that the author labels Dr. Rost a whistle-blower mainly on the basis of his opposition to lawful company policy; his role in the government investigation is mentioned almost as an aside.  This is an odd use of the term.  When I think whistle-blower, I think of someone who challenges or brings to light illegal or immoral practices, not someone who speaks out against publicly known company or industry practice.  This (mis)use of the term whistle-blower concerns me because it suggests that such people deserve special status or protection, whether in a judicial court or the court of public opinion.  While it might be good practice to cultivate an organizational culture that values internal criticism and critique, there is a time when decisions are made and people need to get on with business.  To anoint every contrarian a whistle-blower seems ill conceived.