MANAGEMENT
Most entities, be it in the government sector or the private, usually have a formal document on whistle blowing. The central idea of whistle blowing is to keep check on individuals, who may indulge to operate beyond the confines of acceptable behaviour. Its presence, a policy to pursue, is part of good governance and best practices. The motive is to bring to notice the quarters that must know if there are incidents activities or moves that may involve financial corruption, moral turpitude or acts that are likely to slowly gnaw at the edifice of the organisations reputation and credibility.
The definition, in a strict sense of, whistle blowing is, “the disclosure by a person usually an employee in a government agency or private
enterprise to the public or to those in authority of mismanagement, corruption, illegality or some other wrong doing.”
Internal whistle blowing is about those who report the misconduct, fraud, forgery or indiscipline to the senior officers or even to the CEO. External whistle blowing is about those, like say, the service providers, contractors, suppliers etc, who become aware of any illegal activity and report these misdoings to people outside the organisation such as the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) etc. As regards external whistle blowing who does not know ‘leaks’ with several suffixes and prefixes and of course about the can of worms opened internationally by Edward Joseph Snowden! But my piece is restricted to internal whistle blowing only.
Whistle blowing is a serious business. It must be done, with an object of nobility and not as a tool to discriminate or incriminate without the benefit of sound basis. Whistle blowing in every organisation must be encouraged but it must remain within the ambit of admissible reasons; to do so one must be certain, even the aspect of doubt and suspicion must not be the driving force to initiate action. It has to be enshrined in the policy document of what action would be taken against the whistle blower if the facts turn out to be untrue or if it is not bound within good faith, narrative. Whistle blowing cannot be allowed to become a tool of victimisation.
The first principle, whistle blowing anonymously, should never be encouraged. The policy must have requirements that spell out clearly that to blow a whistle you must not only be in possession of credible evidence but also the whistle blower must identify himself clearly and fully. Whistle blowing cannot be based on hear say, not like heard from so and so, that and this or not as a result of eavesdropping and surely it cannot be based on perception of the blower or even in some worse case scenarios of the whistle emanating from his/her unlimited imagination. Such whistle blowing requires no action, by the recipient - there has to be irrefutable evidence.
Brings me to the impelling question how should anonymous letters be dealt with? Should such leads prompt a full enquiry or even a discreet check; or should it not even be given the respect of being read? Should such letters be immediately consigned to the majestic bin of the shredding machine or should it invoke a cursory interest or a deep interest?
The reaction is set from the top on how to handle complaints that are shrouded within the realm of anonymity. Some organisations have a culture where an immediate reaction would become visible, others may discreetly find out and still do the same, they believe it to be true and initiate action. The more mature management in my view will read an anonymous complaint, retain its gist and over a period of time search most discreetly with no signs to indicate that the information is not because of the anonymous prompt. Kneejerk reaction must be avoided at all costs since the culture of the organisation, is the first victim of anonymity.
Personally, I dislike the attitude if colleagues who on receipt of an anonymous complaint pronounce with sinister smile ‘if there is smoke there must be fire.’ I disdain the misuse of this idiomatic expression for it is too presumptive and can render the falsely accused as the culprit. The idiom presupposes the reality. Hence based on this belief it will be unjust to guillotine the innocent. The point I make here is that in complaining or whistle blowing do not assume. Never. Any accusation must have at its foundation solid, irrefutable and concrete evidence.
Anonymous complaints are really camouflaged to mask and hide the sender’s identity. If it relates to location ‘A’, it will be posted from location ‘B’; if Tom is the real writer he will sign as ‘Harry’. Most anonymous letters as juicy as they may be deserve to be thrown to the dust bin and that is the most respect you should give. An intelligent and wise manager having shredded the anonymous complaint will never forget its contents. The manager would be alert to look not snoop (good heavens dear manager and supervisors you are not to ape being either Sherlock Holmes or even his side kick Dr Watson) for tell-tale signs. If in doubt about the quality of evidence it is best to leave it out.
Most live organisations will have a whistle blowing policy duly approved by its board. The policy must clearly spell out its scope, mention the safeguards and protection to the whistle blower including confidentiality clause, state how anonymous allegations will be addressed depending on the seriousness of the allegations; handling of ‘good faith’ reporting and ‘ill-intentioned’ complaints. It must also have the process of blowing the whistle. The process that is likely to be adopted for investigation etc.
In fact, whistle blowing document must specify the format so that ambiguities do not exist on how to report any inconsistent behaviour to organisation’s values and practises and policies. On the format, a prominent and proper place should be designated for the whistle blower to put his/her details eg name, department, location, city, country, contact details etc.
If this is not part of the whistle blowing policy and mechanism, then it can render the exercise to be one of futility. For sure, if it is allowed to be anonymous, it will more likely be misused than be used for the purpose, it is supposed to serve.
The Wikipedia states that men are more likely to use whistle blowing policies for personal financial gains. On the other hand, women do so more out of reasons of responsibility. It further records, ‘Time’ magazine dubbed 2002, ‘the year of whistle blower’ and named Watkins, Cooper and Rawley as its ‘persons of the year’ (readers may remember Enron and World.com). Their stories fuelled the observation that women are more likely to become whistle blowers not for the potential of fame and financial gains but out of sense of duty.
Although Watkins, Cooper and Rawley were each subjected to harsh treatment by their respective employers following the disclosures they became national celebrities by speaking up when no one else would.
As a concerned colleague or manager, guide and persuade actions towards rectitude but knowledge of an individual’s indiscretion that negatively effects the organisation, society or country should not be buried. It must be dealt with iron hand.
The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist
