Joe Jones is aware of wrongdoing and unethical behavior within the manufacturing company where he works. Before Jones blows the whistle, he would be wise to ask himself some very difficult questions. Which of the following would not be helpful to the decision-making process Jones must complete before blowing the whistle?
a. Is this the only way?
b. Does he have documentary evidence?
c. Why is he doing this?
d. Will the jury award be worth it?

D. Will the Jury award be worth it?

Explanation:

Jones asking himself if whistle blowing is the only way to stop unethical behavior and wrong doing before making decision whether or not to whistleblow is important, as if there are alternative measures to be taken that would mitigate those actions, it might be better to take those alternatives.

Same thing with whether he has documentary evidence to back up his accusatory statements and the reason for whistleblowing.

But the one thing that shouldn't have bearing on his decision is if the Jury award would be worth it. Whether or not there's an award for whistleblowing shouldn't be the determinant or driving factor that decides whether or not he should whistleblow. Its unethical to consider the monetary aspect or award gotten from whistleblowing.