Download - Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosures
Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosures
Research Findings and Implications…
A J BrownProfessor of Public Policy & LawCentre for Governance & Public PolicyGriffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Director, Transparency International Australia.
NZ State Services Commission, Wellington5 May 2014
Queensland GovernmentCrime & Misconduct Commission
Queensland OmbudsmanOffice of Public Service, M&E
Griffith University
New South Wales GovernmentNSW ICACNSW OmbudsmanUniversity of Sydney
Western Australian GovernmentCorruption & Crime CommissionWA OmbudsmanPublic Sector Standards Commissioner Edith Cowan University
Australian Government Commonwealth Ombudsman
Australian Public Service CommissionCharles Sturt University
Transparency International Australia Victorian, ACT & NT Govts Ombudsman VictoriaNT Comr for Public EmploymentACT Chief Minister’s DeptMonash University
Australian Research Council
Whistling While They Work: Enhancing the Theory & Practice of Internal Witness Management in the Australian Public Sector
www.griffith.edu.au/whistleblowing
Integrity Agency Survey (Practices & Procedures) n=16Integrity Casehandler Survey n=82
Integrity Agencies
General Agencies
WWTW - Quantitative Research
Employee Survey
WAQldNSWCth
30463838573Agency Survey (Procedures)
11825323427
Total no. of public servants surveyed – 23,177Total responses – 7,663 (33%)
Case Study Agencies
153444Selected
8720282415Volunteered
Managers (n=513)
Casehandlers (n=315)
Internal Witness Survey n=240
n=828
Procedures Assessment 17528316056
Former Head of Forex, National Australia Bank, Luke Duffy arriving at court for his committal hearing, 22 March 2005. Photo: Sydney Morning Herald. Sentenced to 2.5 years jail (minimum 16 months), 15 June 2005.
NAB corporate affairs manager Robert Hadlerhas confirmed the rogue trading was uncoveredy a whistleblower.
"The initial investigation was revealed by acolleague on the trading desk in our trading floor in Melbourne,“Mr Hadler said.
"He reported that to senior management; [a] thorough investigation was launched and we worked out the full extent of losses and have reported it immediately to the market, and to the regulators and the police."
Despite being uncovered by a whistleblower, Mr Hadler says the bank's systems would have detected it in due course.
"The trades were unauthorised and not properly recorded and that's why they weren't picked up in the first instance by the systems," he said.
-- ABC News Online, 14 January 2004.
Table 2.13. Relative importance of employee reporting (means) p.45Casehandler & Manager Q14, Integrity Casehandler Q9
How important do you believe each of the following is for bringing to light wrongdoing in or by your organisation/public sector organisations?
1=not important to 4=extremely important
(a)Case-
handlers(n=285)
(b)
Managers(n=410)
(c)Integrity
Casehandlers(n=70)
a Routine internal controls (e.g. normal financial tracking, service monitoring) 3.24 3.24 3.26
b Internal audits and reviews 3.19 3.06 3.27
c Management observation 3.36 3.30 3.17
d Client, public or contractor complaints2.94 2.97 3.09
e Reporting by employees 3.42 3.30 3.51
f External investigations 2.66 2.59 2.94
g Accidental discovery 2.45 2.37 2.36
Some key findings
• Prevalent – at least 12% of public employees reported public interest wrongdoing outside their role in 2 years.
• Important – the single most highly valued source of information about wrongdoing in the public sector.
• Not always mistreated – 25-30% public interest whistleblowers reported mistreatment by management and/or co-workers.
• Difficult, stressful – c.43% high stress, 62% some stress.
• Much higher risk in some situations.
• Unmanaged, under-managed processes in a large proportion of organisations.
Only 5 out of 175 federal and state agencies had ‘reasonably strong’ procedures measured against the Standard
State of reform - Australian whistleblowing legislation
Juris Reform Original 1. Effective system & oversight
2. Public disclosure
3. Effective remedies
CTH + 2013 1999? 2? 2 1
ACT 2012 1994 2 1 NKTW
VIC 2012 2001 4? Missing NKTW
WA 2012 2003 3 2 NKTW
NSW 2010-11 1994 1 3 NKTW
QLD * 2010 1994 2 2 NKTW
TAS 2009 2002 2 Missing NKTW
NT -- 2008 2 Missing NKTW
SA * 2014? 1993 Missing NKTW NKTW
Corps Act* ??? 2004 Missing Missing NKTW
* Some private sector coverage + Not whole public sector covered NKTW: Not known to work
If I observed wrongdoing, I would feel personally obliged to report it to someone [in my organisation]
Dis-agree
Neither / can’t
say / [DK]
Total agree
Agree Strongly
NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,394)
4.0 10.087.0
10051.0 36.0
Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,530)
3.3 17.779.0
10057.1 21.8
Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll)
6.1 13.880.1
10039.0 41.1
Some comparisons
New Zealand state sector (2013)Australian public sector (WWTW) (2008)Australian population (employees & org members) (Newspoll) (2012)
Some comparisons
Management in my organisation is serious about protecting people who report wrongdoing
Dis-agree
Neither / can’t
say / [DK]
Total agree
Agree Strongly
NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,395)
15.0 45.040.0
10028.0 12.0
Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,459)
16.3 50.633.2
10029.1 4.0
Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll)
13.8 37.448.8
10030.6 18.2
Some comparisons
If I reported wrongdoing to someone in my organisation, I am confident something appropriate would be done about it
Dis-agree
Neither / can’t
say / [DK]
Total agree
Agree Strongly
NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,395)
21.0 27.052.0
10036.0 16.0
Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,459)
18.4 32.948.7
10043.5 5.0
Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll)
18.4 26.954.5
10034.3 20.5
Range of inaction ratesby jurisdiction
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Inaction rate (% of respondents who observed very/extremely serious wrongdoing who did nothing, and it had not already been reported)
No
. o
f ag
en
cie
s
Cth (n=25)
NSW (n=27)
Qld (n=18)
WA (n=17)
A Key Metric: How many don’t report?
Figure 2.4. Inaction rates (very/extremely serious)
51.9
75.0 72.768.8
60.0
66.7
55.0 52.2
42.2
37.0
16.7
11.212.5
20.0
8.3
18.317.4
14.1
7.4 8.3
16.1 18.8 20.0 20.826.7 29.3
43.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
B H F C G D A E I
Case study agencies
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
wh
o o
bse
rved
ver
y/ex
trem
ely
seri
ou
s w
ron
gd
oin
g
Did not report, no action, no-one else reported
Did not report but dealt with by self / others reported
Report
Missing
Mean28.6% nationally
Fig 2.4p.49
Agency rankings Agency B A M P N E C F D O L G K H I
Procedures comprehensiveness 2 1 10 8 12 3 15 6 14 5 11 13 - 7 9
Indicator Survey1 results:
1. Attitudes to reporting 2 1 9 12 6 3 10 5 4 11 14 13 8 15 7
2. Awareness of legislation 4 2 1 7 3 6 11 13 5 8 9 10 15 14 12
3. Awareness of policies 5 1 2 10 6 3 4 7 9 12 8 13 15 14 11
4. Whistleblowing propensity 3 1 2 6 8 4 5 7 9 10 13 11 14 15 12
5. Trust in org response 3 2 4 1 11 7 12 8 15 6 5 9 13 10 14
6. Inaction rate (serious) 1 13 6 4 7 14 8 5 10 12 3 9 11 2 15
7. Knowledge of investigation 7 5 9 1 2 4 11 12 3 6 13 10 8 15 14
8. Treatment following report 1 6 7 3 5 11 2 9 14 10 13 4 8 12 15
Sum of ranks 26 31 40 44 48 52 63 66 69 75 78 79 92 97 100
Overall ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Designing research to be operationalised
Whistling While They Work – AustraliaOverall ranking of case study agency performance
Second report: Whistling While They Work - A good practice guide for managing internal reporting of wrongdoing in public sector organisations
P. Roberts, A. J. Brown &J. Olsen, 2011
http://epress.anu.edu.au/whistling_citation.html
Elements of an organisationalwhistleblowing program:1. Organisational commitment2. Encouragement of reporting3. Assessment and investigation of reports4. Internal witness support and protection5. An integrated organisational approach
Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press). ‘Managerial Responsiveness to Whistleblowing: Expanding the Research Horizon’, in Brown, A. J., Lewis, D., Moberly, R. & Vandekerckhove, W. (eds), International Whistleblowing Research Handbook, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
[Ajzen, I. 1991. ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior.’ Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, December, 50(2): 179–211.]
The Next Project
Australia, New Zealand?, United Kingdom?
Studying managerial responses to whistleblowingPossible approaches #1, #2, #3…
What do you think would be the best way for youto respond to the following events, if they happenedto an employee you are dealing with who hasreported wrongdoing?
0 1 2
Take no action/
Wait and see if
problem
Advise/ consult senior mgrs or external agency
Counsel the staff or
mgr involved
Manager
level (n)
a) Co-workers cease to associate with the employee at work
1st & 2nd(279) 14.0 22.6 63.4 100
More senior (248) 8.5 18.9 72.6 100
Total (532) 11.3 20.4 67.3 100b) Co-workers begin spreading rumours about the employee
1st & 2nd(279) 1.5 25.1 73.5 100
More senior (248) 0.0 25.8 74.2 100
Total (532) 0.8 25.5 73.7 100 c) A manager makes negative comments about the employee’s personality
1st & 2nd(279) 3.2 49.8 47.0 100
More senior (248) 1.6 35.1 63.3 100
Total (532) 2.5 42.9 54.7 100 d) A manager plans to refer the employee for psychiatric assessment
1st & 2nd (278) 5.4 76.3 18.3 100
More senior (245) 9.8 61.8 27.3 100
Total (528) 7.6 69.8 22.5 100
Table 13.1: Manager Preparedness to Intervene (%)Source: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q44.
Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).
What training have you had about howto deal with cases where employees have reported wrongdoing?
1st and 2nd levelmanagers
More senior managers
Four item scale(a-d) (0-8)
No particular training/ missingMean 5.64 5.98
N 84 44
Informal / on the job trainingMean 5.87 6.18
N 134 119
Professional trainingMean 5.77 6.24
N 61 85
TotalMean 5.78 6.16
N 279 248
Table 13.4: Level of Relevant TrainingSource: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q22.
Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).
Figure 1. Multi-level Whistleblowing Model
WhistleblowerJob demands, control, support
Neuroticism, conscientiousnessPosition, tenure, gender
WB incident type, experiences and expectations
Whistleblower-Manager RelationshipDuration, trust, communication
ManagerLeadership style
Job demands, control, supportNeuroticism, conscientiousness
Position, tenure, genderWB incident type, experiences
and expectations
OutcomesWhistleblower: satisfaction, engagement, strain, turnover
Supervisor: satisfaction, engagement, strain
Organisation: performance, policy change
Organisation Culture and ClimateTrust, vigilance, courage, empowerment, credibility,
accountability, options and safety climate
Brough, P., Brown, A J, Vandekerckhove, W., Lewis, D., Smith, R. (2014). ‘Encouraging Courage: Effective Managerial Responses to Whistleblowing’, Australian Research Council Discovery Project Application, March 2014.
The Next Project: Research Needs & Aims?
1.Provide reliable indicators of organisational and jurisdictional success (or challenges) in managing employee reporting of wrongdoing2.Begin to provide efficient longitudinal data on performance;3.Extend across jurisdictions and sectors for better comparative lessons;4.Extend focus onto organisational rather than individual behaviour in responses to perceived wrongdoing and its reporting:
Managerial responsiveness:•The range of ways in which managers respond to whistleblowing,•The criteria that should be used to evaluate the appropriateness of those responses, and•The attributes, predictors and factors that may determine or influence those responses; including individual, contextual and regulatory factors.