In today’s post, I’d like to examine the cruel irony that faces many whistleblowers of institutional wrongdoing: the fact that the very things that drive them to report wrongdoing – their integrity, courage and resilience in the face of bad or corrupt management – dooms them to a clash that they are unlikely to win.
In a sense, it’s a clash not just of individuals and organizations but of cultures. It’s about changing times and timeless principles.
I’ll focus on government, because it’s the only sector in Canada where anything resembling protection for whistleblowers exists (unenforced protection, sadly, but that’s another story).
Government executives have an average age from the mid-forties to late fifties, depending on level. Generally, as it takes about 10 years to reach the executive level, they have spent most of their adult lives in the public service. They tend to be risk averse (don’t want to embarrass the minister!) and ambitious. That’s not necessarily bad: ambition is a strong motivator. Interestingly, few corporate executives survive and prosper when transplanted. This, despite repeated efforts by governments to bring in such talent. But again, that’s another story.
Once at that level, things become decidedly more political on both large and small scales.
On the large scale, executives are responsible for leading staff toward the achievement of goals set by the minister. These goals are often political in nature. As part of this work, they must sense currents, and be prepared for unanticipated hurdles, obstacles or competition. They have a duty to keep their ministers out of hot water.
On a small scale, they’re human beings. There’s that ambition I spoke of, but they also have insecurities. Again, they must sense currents around them. How can they get noticed? Is their program in jeopardy? And is that SOB down the hall out to get them?
Anyone who has worked in government long enough has seen examples of this maneuvering: media releases which bend the truth to near the breaking point, directors sniping at each other across a conference table.
I think most Canadians would define a good government executive as one who can separate the small politics from the big politics. One that has ambition, but doesn’t put it ahead of the public good. One that might dislike a colleague, but they doesn’t let it get in the way of business.
Bad executives would probably be defined as one who confuses personal interest with the public interest. The worst might, say, cover up or commit any sin in an effort to keep a spotless record. Admitting a problem, after all, means admitting imperfection. And that wouldn’t help chances for promotion, would it?
And then there are the whistleblowers. Some argue that whistleblowers are narcissistic or out for “neurotic revenge”, as one pundit I read put it. Others portray us as characterized by honesty, professionalism, fairness, a sense of justice, and so on. Truth is, it depends on the person. It doesn’t take a genius or a special moral perspective. It doesn’t take a special personality, or maturity, or cultural or ethnic background.
Whistleblowers – like senior managers – are human. Some do want revenge. That doesn’t make them wrong. Some are pure of motive, but don’t dig in their heels in time to avert disaster – as with the space shuttle disaster in 1986, when engineers were aware of a flawed launch decision process but didn’t speak out until after the explosion.
Mainly, though, whistleblowers want the problem fixed. They usually don’t even start out being vocal. In fact, whistleblowers generally begin as part of a group of silent observers. At some point, prompted by some event, they decide to speak out. It’s only when they begin to face threats and retaliation that they become convinced that they are right and become persistent resisters.
And, interestingly, management reaction is harshest when there are serious and widespread problems in an organization.
In other words, it is bad management which creates whistleblowers: first by allowing the problems to exist, and then by pushing the whistleblower to greater and greater efforts.
This is part of the irony I spoke of earlier: that those who least want whistleblowing do the most to create whistleblowers. These are people who cannot realize that making reprisals will do more to convince the whistleblower that he or she is right and push them to become more vocal.
Sadly, this is also a battle that is bound to get ugly. Organizations will mobilize to crush a whistleblower. Human resources staff, often tasked with the dirty work, follow orders and pull every trick in the book. It’s no exaggeration to say that lives are destroyed.
This is fact, even in government, even today. Canadians need to understand this, if they don’t already: people driven by conscience to stand up for the public interest are still being crushed at all levels of government in Canada. And why?
Because laws don’t work, even where they exist. Bad managers find a way around them, lie when confronted, and stall or kill any effort to investigate.
So what’s the cure? It’s almost facile to say good and ethical management – but it’s true. Where there is good management, concerns are dealt with fairly and constructively. Those are the cases you never hear about, though. This shouldn’t be a surprise – it makes intuitive sense. The problem is that while whistleblowing has become slightly accepted by the public, institutions resistant to change – like government bureaucracies – haven’t kept up. Except in lip service, of course.
But there’s more, too: there needs to be a change in culture. Right now whistleblowers in Canada are generally viewed as being not aligned with the cultures of their organizations… as a kind of foreign object that prompts an immune response.
This is a dangerous line of thinking because it gives the incompetent and the corrupt room to manoeuvre in both wrongdoing and in reprisals against those who dare speak out. It also divorces individuals who take the actions against whistleblowers from the moral responsibility they should feel. “I was just following orders” is an excuse with a dark history, and while we may not be Nazi Germany, that doesn’t mean we should be any less careful.
In the private sector, competence and culture have concrete consequences. Badly managed organizations fail in the end – except for banks and auto manufacturers, apparently. Well managed organizations generally succeed, unless, of course, the business concept itself was flawed.
But government is different. There is no bottom line. Performance is measured by the fuzziest means possible – on standards often set by executives themselves. So can culture and management in government change? Or are we doomed to watch it grow ever larger and less effective, with scandal after scandal disappearing like ripples on a pond?
I’ll give you my take on that question next Saturday.
