Public sector employees who wish to report wrongdoing can do so via a large number of paths. The most basic choice they make is whether to confine their disclosure within their organisation or take it to individuals or bodies outside the agency; and, if they choose the latter, whether to confine the external report to regulatory authorities or make it more public. There is a range of possible recipients of reports within most organisations. These include generalist managers such as the reporter’s supervisor, another senior manager and the CEO. Agencies also usually have one or more specialist officials or units to deal with reports, such as human resources units, equity and merit units, ethical standards units, audit or fraud investigation units, internal ombudsmen or other complaints units, counselling units and peer support programs. External recipients of wrongdoing reports potentially include government watchdog and investigation agencies, external anti-corruption hotlines, external counselling services, relevant trade unions, members of parliament and journalists.

Existing overseas studies show a number of factors impact on the decision to whistleblow externally as opposed to internally, including management support, awareness and communication about wrongdoing and the climate for retaliation (Dworkin and Baucus 1998; Miceli et al. 1991). Studies have also demonstrated that it is rarely a direct choice of ‘either/or’—most external whistleblowers have tried first to report wrongdoing internally, but without success, and tend to view going outside the organisation as a ‘last resort’ (Rothschild and Miethe 1999). Research on these questions in Australia has been limited and has tended to suggest a different trend. For example, Zipparo (1999b) found that one-third of NSW public sector respondents expressed a preference for reporting corruption externally in the first instance, rather than to anyone within their own organisation.

Public debate about the management of whistleblowing has been dominated by the treatment of officials whose disclosures have appeared in the media (see Brown 2007; Chapter 11, this volume). This debate has given the impression that external whistleblowing is relatively frequent and that the management response to whistleblowers is likely to be negative, when in fact the frequency of external reporting and the full pattern of management responses to whistleblowers have been unknown.

In the present research, evidence about the reporting paths used by whistleblowers was gathered through the employee survey (conducted across 118 agencies) and the internal witness survey (conducted across 15 agencies). The results presented in this section are for those respondents defined in the preceding chapters as whistleblowers (that is, ‘non-role’ reporters who observed and reported ‘public interest’ matters, and not respondents who observed and/or reported only personnel and workplace grievances).

The employee survey and internal witness survey used slightly different methods for asking respondents to record the paths they took to report wrongdoing. The employee survey asked respondents to indicate the first category of person to whom they reported wrongdoing with the number ‘1’, the second person (if any) with the number ‘2’, and so on. The internal witness survey allowed respondents to circle as many categories of person as they liked to whom they had reported wrongdoing ‘in the first instance’, as well as to then circle all the categories of person to whom they had provided information in any subsequent reports. These differences mean that the data on the reporting paths of the two samples cannot be compared exactly. The employee survey represents reporting as a series of discrete steps (for example, the respondent first went to their manager, then to the union, then to the CEO, then to a government watchdog agency, and so on). In contrast, the internal witness survey represents reporting as two or more episodes of reporting, each possibly involving more or less simultaneous reporting to more than one category of person (for example, the respondent reported at more or less the same time to their manager and union and later reported to the CEO and a watchdog agency).

The results from both surveys confirm the variety of distinct reporting paths available to whistleblowers. In practice, the whistleblowers surveyed often did approach more than one type of person to report wrongdoing. The employee survey whistleblowers provided information to an average of 1.9 recipients. The internal witness survey whistleblowers approached an average of 4.3 recipients, suggesting that this group included a higher proportion of respondents with complex whistleblowing experiences than their counterparts in the employee survey. Both surveys show that public sector whistleblowing typically involves more than a single report to one individual.

The two surveys tell similar stories about reporting paths. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 set out the types of recipients of reports from employees, in order of the frequency of reporting to each type of recipient. In each table, the first column shows how often a type of recipient was the first person to whom a report was made, while the second column shows how often types of recipients were approached at any stage of whistleblowing. The tables show that the most common recipients of wrongdoing reports are generalist managers (supervisors, senior managers and CEOs) in the direct management chain of the organisation, rather than specialist internal bodies such as ethical standards units. Reports to external bodies occur only in a small minority of cases.

The first people who whistleblowers are likely to approach with their concerns are their supervisors. If whistleblowers follow up their initial report (Table 4.1) or simultaneously take their report to someone else (Table 4.2), their most likely course of action will be to approach a senior manager. Beyond these two groups of recipients, the targets of initial reports are spread mostly within organisations between CEOs, human resource, equity and merit and audit and fraud units, and externally between unions and government watchdog agencies. This pattern is clearer among respondents to the internal witness survey (Table 4.2) than among respondents to the employee survey (Table 4.1), perhaps because of the different ways in which the reporting path items were asked in the two surveys, because respondents from the internal witness survey tended to have more complex whistleblowing experiences, or both. The prominence of generalist managers, rather than specialist internal units, as initial recipients of whistleblower reports in both surveys could be partly because of the lack of availability of specialist units in some organisations.^[1]

^a Respondents were asked to indicate the first person to whom they reported a case of wrongdoing, followed by the second person, if applicable, and so on. Percentages total less than 100 because an ‘other’ category has been omitted.

^b Percentages in this column represent the percentage of whistleblowers who reported a case of wrongdoing to each type of recipient at any stage in the reporting process. The percentages in this column total more than 100 because respondents were able to indicate all the people to whom they reported wrongdoing and some reported to more than one.

^c Figures indicate the average stage in the reporting process when particular types of report recipients were contacted by whistleblowers. Lower figures indicate contacts early in the process; higher figures indicate later contacts.

Source: Employee survey: Q28 (n = 835).

The broad patterns of reporting are presented in Figure 4.1 (employee survey) and Figure 4.2 (internal witness survey). The figures simplify the whistleblowing process by reducing the various recipients of reports into three categories: solely internal, solely external and mixed (internal and external). The figures also reduce reporting to two broad stages: the initial report (to one person in Figure 4.1 and to one or more people in Figure 4.2), and then all further reports.

^a Percentages in this column total more than 100 because respondents were able to indicate all the people to whom they reported wrongdoing in their first stage of reporting and some reported to more than one person.

^b Percentages in this column represent the percentage of whistleblowers who reported a case of wrongdoing to each type of recipient at any stage in the reporting process. The percentages in this column total more than 100 because respondents were able to indicate all the people to whom they reported wrongdoing and some reported to more than one.

Source: Internal witness survey: Q30 (n = 144).

Notes: ‘Internal’ includes reports to one of the following: supervisors, senior managers, CEOs, internal ethical standards units, internal audit or fraud units, internal ombudsmen or complaints units, human resource or equity and merit units, internal hotlines and counsellors and peer support officers. ‘Internal only’ includes reports made only to one or more recipients in the ‘internal’ category. ‘External’ includes reports to one of the following: external hotlines or counselling services, unions, government watchdog agencies, members of parliament or journalists. ‘External only’ includes reports made only to one or more recipients in the ‘external’ category. ‘Mixed’ includes reports made to ‘internal’ and ‘external’ recipients.

Source: Employee survey: Q28 (n = 858).

In the first instance, almost all reporting (97 per cent in the employee survey and 80 per cent in the internal witness survey) is directed solely at internal recipients. Less than one-tenth of whistleblowers in either survey took their first report exclusively to someone outside their organisation. The reporting path taken by whistleblowers almost always begins within the organisation for which they work.

The second stage in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 concerns what happens next. Two-fifths to one-half of whistleblowers do not pursue their reporting beyond the initial stage. Their reports are resolved in one way or another, or else they let the matter drop. There is some movement towards involving external bodies and individuals in subsequent reporting. Nonetheless, external reporting remains a minority practice. Between one-half (internal witness survey) and four-fifths of whistleblowers who make subsequent reports keep them completely in-house. Only between 11.5 per cent (employee survey) and 37.7 per cent (internal witness survey) of whistleblowers ever take reports of wrongdoing outside their organisations at any time during their reporting.

Source: Internal witness survey: Q30, Q38 (n = 138).

Even with the simplifications inherent in Figures 4.1 and 4.2, the broad patterns of reporting are complex. Also, when whistleblowers pursue their reporting beyond a first stage—and, as we see, only about half seem to do so—the recipients of their reports become more diverse, as they cast around for someone to deal with the wrongdoing they believe has occurred. As is shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, specialist units become more prominent, as do unions and government watchdog agencies (at least in Table 4.2). Even so, none of these bodies overtakes supervisors or managers in the volume of reports they receive. Even among the internal witness survey respondents, who showed stronger tendencies than their counterparts in the employee survey to spread their concerns widely, 30 per cent of whistleblower reports were dealt with exclusively by generalist managers.

What are the implications of these reporting patterns? At least four points can be made. First, public discussion of whistleblowing in Australia is almost certainly distorted by the relatively small number of cases that are eventually taken to journalists and members of parliament. Table 4.1 suggests that less than 2 per cent of whistleblower reports are ever received by journalists and parliamentarians, and they are almost never the first recipients. Within this total, less than 1 per cent of initial reports are made to the media. Indeed, the third column in Table 4.1 shows that, on average, parliamentarians are the fifth recipients of whistleblower reports and journalists are the ninth. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, the data captured by the employee survey do not provide a total picture of all whistleblowing, since the survey respondents did not include whistleblowers who had since left the organisation—a higher proportion of whom might be reasonably assumed to have pursued their grievance externally (and even been suspended or sacked as a result). Some indication of the extent to which this might change the overall picture is given by the more complex cases captured by Table 4.2, which are less representative of the public sector as a whole but in which the respondents are likely to have more diverse reporting paths (see also Figure 4.2). This evidence shows higher but still comparatively low rates of whistleblower contact with journalists and parliamentarians.

From this, it is clear that journalists and parliamentarians see only the tip of the whistleblowing iceberg, and are also more likely to encounter cases of whistleblowing that are already complicated, if not rancorous. While this more public whistleblowing may well be justified, on occasion, by the failure of organisations to address alleged wrongdoing in the first instance, the greater extent of internal whistleblowing does not automatically mean that wrongdoing is simply swept under the carpet (see Chapter 5).

Second, this confirms that in the majority of whistleblowing cases, public sector managers have the opportunity to deal with wrongdoing themselves. They get first opportunity to resolve the problem. It is almost always only after wrongdoing has been brought to management attention that whistleblowers look elsewhere for solutions. This suggests that effective public sector procedures for dealing with whistleblowing should be focused on anyone who has a supervisory role. The pattern appears so strong that procedures stipulating that only certain officers in the organisation can receive disclosures, perhaps removed from the immediate workplace of many employees, are unlikely to shake the frequency of this behaviour. In some instances, the solution could lie in training supervisors to act as effective ‘post boxes’ for the effective referral of disclosures to more appropriate locations in (or outside) the organisation. Strategies that rely only on designated people other than supervisors to receive disclosures are not, however, likely to prove effective for the management of reports, especially if they also reduce the extent to which supervisors feel able or willing to take responsibility for those concerns of which they become aware.

Third, the current heavy reliance on supervisors and line managers as the first points of disclosure could involve some risk that disclosures are first made to supervisors and line managers in circumstances in which they are not the best person to first receive the information. In some cases, the fact that a whistleblower elected to instead report first to a specialist internal unit, or to an external watchdog agency, could reflect a conscious decision by an employee that they were not prepared to trust line management with the disclosure. This could be due to the specific nature of the perceived wrongdoing or the people involved, including supervisors themselves. As shown in Chapter 3, however, and discussed further below, whistleblowers were not shown by the employee survey to be particularly untrusting of management on the whole. The strength of the reliance on supervisors and line managers therefore makes it likely that in at least some instances, staff could be blowing the whistle in an entirely trusting manner, without knowing or considering the full history (for example, when a problem has been going on for some time because a supervisor has previously failed to act). This likelihood also has implications for agencies’ reporting procedures, including decisions about how the process is best managed once the whistle is blown.

Fourth, the motivations behind the strong tendency of whistleblowers to internally report to generalist managers need to be understood. Do whistleblowers report internally to generalist managers because they see this as the right thing to do, as part of being good organisational citizens? Does this reflect their first preference, or are they limited in their organisational choices? Given that many statutory regimes provide for multiple reporting avenues and given that most of the agencies surveyed have a range of internal reporting avenues including specialist units, what does the relatively low use of those avenues say about current whistleblowing policies? Finally, are those whistleblowers who go external necessarily less loyal or more disgruntled than those who remain internal? The remainder of this chapter takes up these questions.