As will be seen in Chapter 4, the bulk of the whistleblowing identified in the present research begins internally and is resolved without being made public. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of whistleblowing indicated in the previous section raises many issues for public sector management. One is that it is clearly not a rare activity—rather, it is probably better characterised as a regular feature of organisational life.

A natural question is whether this incidence of whistleblowing might have been unusually high (or low) during the study period. While this question can be properly answered only by continuing research, there is no particular reason to expect this, especially given the broad consistency of the outcome with similar international studies. In fact, studies in the United States and the United Kingdom indicate that the incidence of whistleblowing appears to be increasing over time (Dozier and Miceli 1985; Near et al. 2004; Vinten 1994). In our research, one indicator of the relative normality of the current incidence of whistleblowing was provided by the case-handler, manager and integrity case-handler surveys, which asked respondents whether they believed that the number of employees who had reported wrongdoing had changed in the previous five years. Table 2.9 sets out the results. Overall, while 48 per cent of case study agency case-handlers and managers indicated a belief that the number was ‘about the same’ as five years previously, 42 per cent believed that the number had increased and only slightly less than 10 per cent indicated that the number had decreased. The responses of integrity case-handlers followed a similar pattern.

A related issue is whether there is any reason to believe that this level of whistleblowing is likely to change, but this appears unlikely. A further indication of this is given by evidence that—contrary to a strong popular myth—many public employees are not deterred from reporting wrongdoing even if they anticipate, or have established from previous experience, that whistleblowing is not an easy process. In the earlier NSW study, 49 per cent of the stratified sample of 800 NSW public employees indicated a belief that they would still report corruption even if they knew they did not have the support of colleagues and 41 per cent would do it even if they knew their career would be adversely affected (Zipparo 1999a, 1999b). In the employee survey, 81 per cent of all those who had reported wrongdoing indicated that if they had their time over again, they would be either ‘very likely’ or ‘extremely likely’ to still report the activity (employee survey: Q34). As will be discussed in Chapter 5, even a majority of those whistleblowers who said they had been treated badly as a result said they would be at least ‘somewhat likely’ to still report if they had their time over again. These responses indicate that overall, the incidence of whistleblowing is unlikely to decline, other than perhaps in the event of a significant decline in perceived wrongdoing.

Sources: Case-handler and manager surveys: Q15; integrity case-handler survey: Q10.

This level of whistleblowing has important implications since it makes clear that whistleblowing is not a process in which public sector managers can afford to simply be reactive. The survey data reveal, however, that the role of whistleblowing has already achieved widespread acceptance in basic ways in most agencies and for most case-handlers and managers, even if questions remain about how it might best be managed. Current levels of whistleblowing play an important role in an objective sense, as a contribution to the integrity-promoting efforts of organisations and the public sector generally. The assumption that whistleblowing has positive effects in bringing wrongdoing to light, which provides much of the reason for the existence of current whistleblowing legislation, is borne out in much of the attitudinal and opinion data collected in the surveys.

The first of three ways to assess the value of current whistleblowing is through the views of employees in general. According to the employee survey, far from being rejected as ‘dobbing’ or an act of peer or corporate disloyalty, the reporting of wrongdoing by staff appears to be highly valued by the bulk of public employees. While approval is highest among those who have reported, it is almost as high among those who have not observed wrongdoing or have observed it but have not reported it (Table 2.10). These results form part of a scale for measuring the different levels of ‘whistleblowing propensity’ in organisations, used further in later chapters.

Source: Employee survey: Q15.

A second indicator of the value currently placed on whistleblowing, from the employee survey, is through the eyes of those who have reported wrongdoing. As already noted, a majority indicated they would do it again. Further, a majority (63 per cent of all those who reported wrongdoing and 56 per cent of public interest whistleblowers) also indicated that they knew their disclosure was investigated. The fact that a higher number did not know whether action was taken is cause for concern, for a number of reasons that become clear in Chapters 3 and 5. Of those who did know that there had been some investigation, however, a majority also indicated that the outcome of the investigation was positive. Sixty-five per cent of all reporters and 56 per cent of all whistleblowers whose issue was investigated (31 per cent of all whistleblowers in total) indicated that things became ‘better’ as a result of the investigation.

Given that wrongdoing inevitably occurs and is reported but is not able to be substantiated, this evidence from whistleblowers themselves is not consistent with any stereotype of a public sector in which internal disclosures about wrongdoing are always simply swept under the carpet. At a general level, even if only 31 per cent of all whistleblowing reports result in positive action, this compares favourably with substantiation or ‘clear-up’ rates for internal or external investigations on most available measures (see Brown et al. 2004). Of course, as with other rates contained in the data, this is only a broad average. As will be seen in the next section, it masks great variability in key outcomes from the data, at the level of individual agencies.

A third way of assessing the value currently placed on whistleblowing is from an organisational perspective, including individuals in organisations with reason to know something about it. The agency survey asked organisations to estimate the total number of cases of alleged or suspected wrongdoing reported or detected in their agency for a recent period (2002–04) and the number of these cases that came to light due to reports by employees or organisation members. Only 76 of the 118 agencies that went on to complete the employee survey, covering about two-thirds of the total employee survey data set (5151 respondents), were able to supply most of this information. Further, the information recorded on central databases was often based on different categorisations. Where the categorisations in agency records aligned, however, there was at least some similarity with the results of the employee survey in terms of the relative incidence of different wrongdoing types.

Overall, as shown in Table 2.11, the results confirm the importance of internal reporting as an information source in the internal integrity investigation efforts of agencies. Most significantly, the agency survey revealed that in a like period to that covered by the employee survey, internal reports accounted for 67 per cent of all the wrongdoing cases recorded and dealt with by these agencies. While the misalignment of categories makes the subjects difficult to interpret, the responses indicate that in some major wrongdoing categories such as ‘misconduct for material gain’, more than 50 per cent of matters are already known within the management structure of the agency as having come to management attention because of the action of staff.

Further, final evidence of the organisational value of whistleblowing is found in the opinions of the case study agency case-handlers and managers, as well as integrity agency case-handlers. These surveys asked each group for their opinions on the content and significance of employee reporting of wrongdoing. Consistent with the above results, these groups responded in a way that confirmed that the internal reporting of wrongdoing served a good purpose, and was only infrequently baseless, trivial or unsubstantiated. Table 2.12 indicates that, while not all internal reports are entirely meritorious or accurate, case-handlers and managers generally regard the information provided via employee reporting as significant and valuable. In particular, they were not inclined to agree with the statements that most employee reports were ‘wholly trivial’ or that they were often vexatious or contained intentionally false information. In some circles, these are pervasive stereotypes about whistleblowing, but these data suggest that they should now be considered quite erroneous.

^a 76 agencies who answered agency survey Q18–23 and employee survey Q19, Q26.

Table 2.13 also sets out how case-handlers and managers responded to a direct question about the importance of employee reporting as a means of bringing wrongdoing to light, relative to other well-known methods of discovery. While several methods of discovery ranked as very or extremely important, ‘reporting by employees’ ranked overall as the single most important trigger for the uncovering of wrongdoing in the view of these respondents. Significantly, case study agency case-handlers and managers and integrity agency case-handlers ranked employee reporting as more important than routine controls, internal audits or external investigations. These judgments are all the more significant because they come from groups—especially in the case of case-handlers, including investigators—in a relatively objective position to assess the quality of information provided by whistleblowers. The results confirm that the unique position of employees within organisations gives them a strategic role as quality information sources. Together, these results confirm that, on the whole, whistleblowing is not only regular, but is recognised within organisations as highly important for uncovering organisational wrongdoing. Of course, they also increase the responsibility of agencies to manage the process of whistleblowing in a responsible fashion.

Sources: Case-handler and manager surveys: Q27a–f; integrity case-handler survey: Q23 a–f.

Sources: Case-handler and manager surveys: Q14; integrity case-handler survey: Q9.