It's easy to think whistleblowers have become the new protected species in this corporate governance climate. Remember back in December 2002 when Time magazine honored the three women who blew the whistle on Enron, WorldCom and the FBI by declaring them Persons of the Year? But despite all this, whistleblowers are still doing it hard.

Last month, I blogged on the issues confronting anyone about to be branded a snitch and traitor. So what do you do when there's a problem? Some people think calling it something else would help. Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) last week tried rebranding the issue by announcing the Paul Revere Freedom to Warn Act , a piece of legislation aimed at protecting employees from being punished for reporting flaws in national or homeland security, public health and safety, or waste, fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

In the same spirit, Jacob Blass, president of Ethical Advocate has a piece citing the way anti-corruption cop Frank Serpico coined the term Lamplighters, named after the way Paul Revere lit or arranged for lamps to be lit and hung high in the tower as a warning. Incidentally, Frank Serpico explains that little connection here. Blass argues that we need to stop thinking of ourselves as snitches, and light the lamps instead.

But it won't work. Calling it something else will change nothing. The reason why whistleblowers have it hard is because that's the way organisations usually operate.

Think about it: the operations of most organisations are built around formal communication channels and that can lead to a heavy reliance on rules and procedures that censor and filter information. Apart from risking reprisal from employers, whistleblowers themselves can damage their careers, and in many cases they lack evidence to prove wrongdoing. This was clearly shown by a 2003 study from New York University's Stern School of Business which found that there were many organisational issues behind silence. The most frequently mentioned reason: the fear of being labelled negatively as a "troublemaker" or "complainer", upsetting colleagues and, as a result, damaging valuable relationships. Call them a lamplighter, say they are like Paul Revere, but in the end, it's almost always a no-win for the person blowing the whistle.

Much of this problem boils down to the nature of organisations themselves. Professor Chris Argyris says that all organisations have issues that are "undiscussable". And by definition, something that is not discussable makes even the undiscussability undiscussable. He explains the problem here.

All this leaves organisations and their managers in a state of myopia that is almost psychotic. I have compared it to Oedipus Rex and this was one of the themes in my last book.

Rules, laws and standards will not by themselves transform companies into places where it is safe to tell the truth. That takes work and discipline.

But the question is where do you start? What kind of leaders do you need to make that happen?