8. Investigations: improving practice and building capacity

Whistleblowing provokes many responses from individuals in organisations and from organisations as a whole. All the evidence on whistleblowing in the Australian public sector, reviewed so far, shows two main responses to be of overwhelming importance in shaping the outcomes from any public interest whistleblowing incident:

This chapter and the next address, in turn, each of these crucial issues.

Proper investigation of workplace complaints and concerns is a cornerstone of the practical implementation of whistleblowing legislation, resulting in reports being dealt with appropriately and the facts of the situation discovered. As seen in Chapters 2 and 5, many whistleblowing cases are successfully investigated by the agencies involved. The results from the employee survey indicated that more than half (56 per cent) of public interest whistleblowers believed that their report was investigated and, of these, the same proportion believed the investigation result led to a positive change in their organisation. Given that not every report about wrongdoing is correct, and that even if correct, many reports might not be capable of substantiation for evidentiary or other reasons, these results are seen as broadly positive.

The previous chapters, however, also provided evidence that some investigations do fail or fail to occur when they should. A worrying indicator was the substantial proportion of whistleblowers who simply did not know whether any investigative action was taken. Frequently, the organisation’s failure to inform its employees of the resulting action could be a sign that no effective investigation has occurred—and, even if this is not the case, it is likely to contribute to that impression within the organisation. In Chapter 3, the general confidence of employees that a disclosure will be competently investigated and acted on emerged as pivotal to whether or not they would bother reporting their concerns. It is also reasonable to assume that widely held confidence in the thoroughness, fairness and professionalism of investigative responses will help dissuade employees from trying to use whistleblowing processes for other purposes.

From these results, the conduct and management of internal investigations represent major, continuing challenges for public sector agencies. This chapter focuses on evidence gathered about three main aspects of investigating wrongdoing: who conducts the investigations, their level of training and how the investigatory capacity of agencies might appear to impact on current outcomes from whistleblowing. Fundamentally, investigations are fact-finding processes that involve gathering information, interviewing relevant people and preparing a report for action (Ferraro and Spain 2006). Sennewald (1991:3) describes an investigation as ‘the examination, study, searching, tracking and gathering of factual information that answers questions or solves problems [and] a comprehensive activity involving information collection, the application of logic, and the exercise of sound reasoning’. Investigation needs arise within agencies for a range of purposes, not restricted to whistleblowing reports. As indicated in Chapter 2, a range of triggers exists by which information about internal wrongdoing comes to light. Whistleblowing is simply one of the most important, in which the interactions between investigators, management, informants and the attitudes of other employees to reporting become very complex.

When a report of wrongdoing is made in an organisation, it has the potential to trigger a number of investigations. The first of these is the primary investigation. In some circumstances, as seen in Chapters 4 and 5, the primary investigation might not resolve matters or there could be further complaints, causing the issue to be reviewed. This review, if undertaken, can result in a further internal investigation or an investigation from an external integrity agency. Further, as seen in Chapters 5 and 6, if the complainant suffers a reprisal there could be an independent investigation into that reprisal, as distinct from the original wrongdoing. For simplicity, this chapter looks on all these investigations as a whole, on the assumption that the basic skills, expertise and experience required are often very similar.

The first part of the chapter examines who conducts investigations on behalf of the agencies studied, confirming that a wide variety of internal organisational units and individuals and external resources are used. As we have seen, almost all disclosures are made internally and the responsibility for investigating reports of alleged wrongdoing rests primarily within the organisation, even if decisions are made to involve outside parties.

The results show that the complex matter of conducting investigations cannot be taken lightly nor can the skills required be taken for granted. Those responsible for carrying out internal investigations should be experienced and qualified investigators aware of the sensitivities of investigating workplace reports of wrongdoing. Less-qualified and less-experienced staff members need active and continuing external guidance, training, support and management. Furthermore, agencies need to ensure that private companies and other external resources that they use are appropriately qualified to conduct investigations and that the other responsibilities that internal investigators often undertake do not fall through the cracks.

The need for appropriate expertise is underscored by evidence that not all management roles can be considered to be routinely compatible with investigation roles and that this impacts on the perceived quality of investigations. The data also point to the need for careful consideration of the way in which institutional responsibilities for investigations are configured. This includes the responsibility for managers who receive disclosures to automatically consult with specialists in their organisation, where available, and the need for more effective relationships between agencies and integrity agencies to help ensure that, wherever possible, the primary investigation of a disclosure is properly undertaken.

The second part of this chapter describes the training in investigation that is provided and/or required by the agencies, indicating considerable variation in what is required. The results give cause for concern in revealing a clear shortage of training in how to deal with disclosures and awareness on the part of many case-handlers and managers that they feel under-equipped to deal with whistleblowing. The degree to which current levels of training confer a sense of being able to deal with complex whistleblower reports is also examined. Not surprisingly, having professional training in investigation leads to more confidence, while informal training—which is found to be the most frequent form of training provided or required—leads case-handlers and managers to feel little more confident than the very substantial number with no training at all.

The analysis also identifies a number of relationships between the level of available training and other outcomes, in a manner that underlines the complexity of the issues. In terms of creating a working culture in which staff members feel comfortable about reporting, it appears that those with professional training are somewhat less negative and judgmental about whistleblowing. The knowledge and understanding of the issues that could be conferred by professional training appear to be associated with less harsh or stereotypical views about the usefulness of whistleblowing and the feasibility of managing whistleblowing incidents to a positive outcome.

Finally, the third section of the chapter examines whether the ‘investigatory capacity’ of agencies impacts on current outcomes from whistleblowing. The analysis examines differences, on a number of outcome measures, across 12 of the project’s case study agencies using a proxy measure of ‘investigatory capacity’. This examination indicates that investigatory capacity is indeed related to the likelihood of wrongdoing being reported in a given agency. This result reinforces the importance of the institutional and training issues raised in the first parts of the chapter, demonstrating that those agencies that do not take steps to ensure their investigatory capacity is high are less likely to find their employees will be prepared to help bring known wrongdoing to light. These findings therefore reinforce the crucial importance of good investigation practice and capacity to the process of realising the benefits of whistleblowing.