A lot of effort and words have been spent on creating organisational cultures where workers feel safe to speak up when they have a concern about wrongdoing. I believe that is enough now. Not that it is getting too noisy, but most of them seem to be saying no one is listening. Hence, we don’t need more whistleblowers, we need more managers to listen to them.
In 2013, the Care Quality Commission received 8,634 ‘whistleblowing contacts’; the Financial Conduct Authority got 5,150 ‘tip-offs’ from whistleblowers. That is a lot. Do we really need more? I’m not so sure. What I do know is that you can hardly call this the ‘culture of silence’ as Britain was described in the reports from the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life in the mid-1990s. People are raising concerns. Sometimes against all odds. It is good they do so, but they painstakingly show we are not responding appropriately. So no, I don’t want to ask more people to speak up only to be ignored if not bullied.
If the pre-Nolan era was one of a ‘culture of silence’, then the period between Nolan and Francis was one of a ‘culture of deafness’. We know from the examples of Kim Holt, Helene Donnelly, Amanda Pollard, and many others that they raised their concerns over and over again, escalating higher up and further into the public sphere, only because no one listened.
These are not the exceptional cases because we now have the numbers to back this up from research I did with Public Concern at Work somewhat a year ago (see the report Whistleblowing: The Inside Story). The standard initial response – 3 out of 4 – whistleblowers get is a deaf ear. That probably hasn’t changed the past 20 years. What has changed however, is that there are now more people and more groups in society ready to support whistleblowers who find a deaf ear in their orgnisation. That support means various things because there is a myriad of groups – some are union reps, some offer legal advice, some psychological support, some broadcast on twitter, some give you an award.
What has developed the past 10 years are civil society actors with a sensitivity for ignored professional integrity and a readiness to campaign it. That is why the post-Francis decade will be the one where management will be sanctioned not for making mistakes but for ignoring and bullying their whistleblowers.
It is starting. At Glendene Academy, a whistleblower is now chair of governors after an investigation by the Education Funding Agency. Kim Holt is now an advisor to the CQC. The Whistleblowing Commission drafted a Code of Practice for internal whistleblowing policies in November 2013, which will get its strength when regulators use it as a benchmark. It is likely (and hoped) that the BIS findings later this year will also see a more pro-active role for regulators. There is not really a choice, you see. If regulators don’t step up their game, they will be held accountable and loose their credibility. If they keep (or regain) their credibility, it will be because they get serious about good governance. There is no excuse for ignoring workers who raise a concern with you. If management fails to act, they will have to go. A bit like the HP shareholders who are taking its management to court because they acquired Autonomy at an overvalued price. Oh, wait a minute, wasn’t there a whistleblower involved in this case as well?
You get the point. This isn’t about freedom of opinion. It is not that postmodern. This isn’t about being nice. It’s not a ‘soft’ management competence. We have enough whistleblowers. They have proven their point. Now we need answers and they will have to come from those in management. Yes that is hard. Welcome to reality.
@VdkWim 