Transcript Slide 1

Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosures
Research Findings and Implications…
A J Brown
Professor of Public Policy & Law
Centre for Governance & Public Policy
Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Director, Transparency International Australia.
NZ State Services Commission, Wellington
5 May 2014
Whistling While They Work: Enhancing the Theory & Practice of
Internal Witness Management in the Australian Public Sector
Australian Government
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Australian Public Service Commission
Charles Sturt University
Queensland Government
Crime & Misconduct Commission
Queensland Ombudsman
Office of Public Service, M&E
Griffith University
Transparency International Australia
Australian Research Council
Western Australian Government
Corruption & Crime Commission
WA Ombudsman
Public Sector Standards Commissioner
Edith Cowan University
New South Wales Government
NSW ICAC
NSW Ombudsman
University of Sydney
Victorian, ACT & NT Govts
Ombudsman Victoria
NT Comr for Public Employment
ACT Chief Minister’s Dept
Monash University
www.griffith.edu.au/whistleblowing
WWTW - Quantitative Research
General Agencies
Cth
73
56
27
Agency Survey (Procedures)
Procedures Assessment
Employee Survey
NSW
85
60
34
Qld
83
31
32
WA
63
28
25
304
175
118
Total no. of public servants surveyed – 23,177
Total responses – 7,663 (33%)
Case Study Agencies
Volunteered
Selected
Internal Witness Survey
Casehandlers (n=315)
Managers (n=513)
15
4
24
4
28
4
n=240
n=828
Integrity Agencies
Integrity Agency Survey (Practices & Procedures) n=16
Integrity Casehandler Survey
n=82
20
3
87
15
http://www.griffith.edu.au/whistleblowing
http://epress.anu.edu.au/whistleblowing_citation.html
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 Hadler
has confirmed the rogue trading was uncovered
y a whistleblower.
"The initial investigation was revealed by a
colleague 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.45
Casehandler & 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?
(a)
Casehandlers
(n=285)
(b)
Managers
(n=410)
(c)
Integrity
Casehandlers
(n=70)
1=not important to 4=extremely important
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 complaints
2.94
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
Some comparisons
New Zealand state sector (2013)
Australian public sector (WWTW) (2008)
Australian population (employees & org members) (Newspoll) (2012)
If I observed wrongdoing, I would
feel personally obliged to report it
to someone [in my organisation]
NZ state sector (2013)
(n=13,394)
Aust public sector (2008)
(n=7,530)
Australian population (2012)
(n=820) (Newspoll)
Disagree
Neither /
can’t say
/ [DK]
Total agree
Agree
Strongly
87.0
4.0
10.0
100
51.0
36.0
79.0
3.3
17.7
100
57.1
21.8
80.1
6.1
13.8
100
39.0
41.1
Some comparisons
Management in my organisation is
serious about protecting people
who report wrongdoing
NZ state sector (2013)
(n=13,395)
Aust public sector (2008)
(n=7,459)
Australian population (2012)
(n=820) (Newspoll)
Disagree
Neither /
can’t say
/ [DK]
Total agree
Agree
Strongly
40.0
15.0
45.0
100
28.0
12.0
33.2
16.3
50.6
100
29.1
4.0
48.8
13.8
37.4
100
30.6
18.2
Some comparisons
If I reported wrongdoing to someone
in my organisation, I am confident
something appropriate would be
done about it
NZ state sector (2013)
(n=13,395)
Aust public sector (2008)
(n=7,459)
Australian population (2012)
(n=820) (Newspoll)
Disagree
Neither /
can’t say
/ [DK]
Total agree
Agree
Strongly
52.0
21.0
27.0
100
36.0
16.0
48.7
18.4
32.9
100
43.5
5.0
54.5
18.4
26.9
100
34.3
20.5
Range of agencies by respondents' confidence in
response if report (WWTW Employee Survey, 2008)
25
20
Number 15
of agencies
(n=76) 10
5
0
% of respondents in agency with confidence, if reported
wrongdoing, something appropriate would be done
Range of inaction rates
by jurisdiction
8
Cth (n=25)
7
NSW (n=27)
6
Qld (n=18)
5
WA (n=17)
4
3
2
1
66 -7
0%
61 -6
5%
56 -6
0%
51 -5
5%
46 -5
0%
41 -4
5%
36 -4
0%
31 -3
5%
26 -3
0%
21 -2
5%
16 -2
0%
11 -1
5%
6-1 0
%
0
0-5 %
No. of agencies
9
Inaction rate (% of respondents who observed very/extremely serious
wrongdoing who did nothing, and it had not already been reported)
A Key Metric: How many don’t report?
% of respondents who observed very/extremely serious
wrongdoing
Figure 2.4. Inaction rates (very/extremely serious)
100
95
7.4
8.3
16.1
90
20.0
20.8
26.7
85
16.7
80
75
18.8
29.3
11.2
43.8
12.5
37.0
70
8.3
20.0
65
18.3
60
Mean
28.6%
nationally
17.4
55
50
14.1
45
40
75.0
35
30
72.7
60.0
51.9
25
66.7
68.8
55.0
52.2
Did not report, no action, no-one else reported
Did not report but dealt with by self / others reported
Report
Missing
20
15
10
42.2
5
0
B
H
F
C
G
D
Case study agencies
A
E
I
Fig 2.4
p.49
Designing research to be operationalised
Whistling While They Work – Australia
Overall ranking of case study agency performance
B
A
M
P
N
Agency rankings
E C F D O L
2
1
10
8
12
3
15
6
14
5
11
13
-
7
9
2
1
9
12
6
3
10
5
4
11
14
13
8
15
7
4
2
1
7
3
6
11
13
5
8
9
10
15
14
12
5
1
2
10
6
3
4
7
9
12
8
13
15
14
11
3
1
2
6
8
4
5
7
9
10
13
11
14
15
12
3
2
4
1
11
7
12
8
15
6
5
9
13
10
14
1
13
6
4
7
14
8
5
10
12
3
9
11
2
15
7
5
9
1
2
4
11
12
3
6
13
10
8
15
14
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
Agency
Procedures comprehensiveness
Indicator Survey1 results:
1. Attitudes to reporting
2. Awareness of legislation
3. Awareness of policies
4. Whistleblowing propensity
5. Trust in org response
6. Inaction rate (serious)
7. Knowledge of investigation
8. Treatment following report
G
K
H
I
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 organisational
whistleblowing program:
1.
Organisational commitment
2.
Encouragement of reporting
3.
Assessment and investigation of reports
4.
Internal witness support and protection
5.
An integrated organisational approach
The Next Project
Australia, New Zealand?, United Kingdom?
Studying managerial responses to whistleblowing
Possible approaches #1, #2, #3…
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.]
Table 13.1: Manager Preparedness to Intervene (%)
Source: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q44.
What do you think would be the best way for you
to respond to the following events, if they happened
to an employee you are dealing with who has
reported wrongdoing?
a) Co-workers cease to
associate with the employee at
work
b) Co-workers begin spreading
rumours about the employee
c) A manager makes negative
comments about the
employee’s personality
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)
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
100
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
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
(278)
5.4
76.3
18.3
100
(245)
9.8
61.8
27.3
100
(528)
7.6
69.8
22.5
100
d) A manager plans to refer the
1st & 2nd
employee for psychiatric
assessment
More senior
Total
Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).
Table 13.4: Level of Relevant Training
Source: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q22.
What training have you had about how
to deal with cases where employees have reported
wrongdoing?
1st and 2nd level
managers
More senior
managers
Four item scale
(a-d) (0-8)
Mean
No particular training/ missing
Informal / on the job training
Professional training
Total
5.64
5.98
84
44
Mean
5.87
6.18
N
134
119
Mean
5.77
6.24
61
85
Mean
5.78
6.16
N
279
248
N
N
Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).
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.
Figure 1. Multi-level Whistleblowing Model
Organisation Culture and Climate
Trust, vigilance, courage, empowerment, credibility,
accountability, options and safety climate
Whistleblower
Job demands, control, support
Neuroticism, conscientiousness
Position, tenure, gender
WB incident type, experiences
and expectations
Manager
Leadership style
Job demands, control, support
Neuroticism, conscientiousness
Position, tenure, gender
WB incident type, experiences
and expectations
Whistleblower-Manager Relationship
Duration, trust, communication
Outcomes
Whistleblower: satisfaction,
engagement, strain, turnover
Supervisor: satisfaction,
engagement, strain
Organisation: performance,
policy change
The Next Project: Research Needs & Aims?
1. Provide reliable indicators of organisational and jurisdictional success (or
challenges) in managing employee reporting of wrongdoing
2. 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.