Would you sound the alarm?
Imagine: you work at Chemours, Tata or Philips. Or just at the club where you are now. And you see that something is going terribly wrong. Something that poses a danger to your customers or society.
What are you doing? Are you sounding the alarm? And do you only do that internally? Or do you also make this public if necessary?
Research shows that a large majority of people think they will call out unethical behavior if they see it. But in reality, only a very small minority dare to take steps. If you look at the practice in the field of whistleblowing, you will understand that most people prefer to keep their mouths shut.
Whistleblower protection
Whistleblowers don’t have it easy. In 2016, the House for Whistleblowers was founded in the Netherlands. Hundreds of people have since reported abuses, but so far this has only led to a handful of investigation reports and one lawsuit.
Whistleblowers pay a high price for this poor result. They are isolated, thwarted, suspended and charged. In February of this year the Whistleblowers Protection Act implemented. This makes it possible to immediately report abuses externally instead of first internally, as was previously mandatory. This applies not only to employees, but also to freelancers, suppliers and interns. The burden of proof has also been reversed: from now on the employer must prove that nothing is wrong.
Culture of silence
International research shows how difficult it is to report abuses in companies. Organizational psychologist Ethan Burris conducted field research and experiments and concludes: employees who speak out clearly are assessed more negatively and less supported by their managers. While most managers know it’s good for the organization when employees speak out, their day-to-day behavior typically creates a culture of silence, Burris says.
Behavioral scientist James Dungan and colleagues conducted research to the psychology of whistleblowing. According to them, the tension between two fundamental moral values is central: honesty and loyalty. When employees experience less loyalty to their employer – for example due to opposition – it becomes easier for them to honestly report what goes wrong.
What helps?
What can companies do? Good intentions don’t help. Take consultancy firm McKinsey. Their website contains all kinds of information about ‘high ethical standards’ and ‘purpose’. Yet two years ago they had to settle for almost half a billion euros, because for years they had actively contributed to making millions of Americans addicted to Purdue Pharma’s painkillers.
More importantly, companies have strict rules that make it not only safe, but even attractive to report abuses. Whistleblowers and their managers should benefit in terms of money, career and well-being if they protect their company from damage and disgrace.
Is there hope? Well, there’s a lot of bad news. But directors also read newspapers and increasingly see that keeping abuses under wraps can threaten your company and your position. A bit cynical perhaps, but I think the latter especially helps.