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

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 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.