The Role of Whistle-Blowing in Governing Well: Evidence From the Australian Public Sector

Abstract

The role of the whistle-blower in promoting good government is a troubling one. Commentators often argue both that whistle-blowing is a sign of deep failure within organizations and that whistleblowers inevitably experience reprisals and other negative consequences. This paper argues that this negative depiction of whistle-blowing is misleading. It is often drawn from a small number of prominent cases of whistle-blowing, which are noteworthy precisely because things have gone badly wrong.When the experiences of a wider range of public sector whistle-blowers, managers and case-handlers are explored, a more nuanced picture of whistle-blowing is presented. This paper presents evidence from ‘Whistling While They Work’, a study conducted across 304 public sector agencies in Australia. This evidence allows us to identify key factors that lead to good outcomes from whistleblowing and approaches that can make whistle-blowing a normal part of organizations governing well.

An International Comparison of the Incidence of Public Sector Whistle‐Blowing and the Prediction of Retaliation: Australia, Norway, and the US

“…See text for measurement details. For the Australian study, 71% reflected observation of any type of wrongdoing (Brown ), and the range by incident type was reported in another publication (Smith ). Incidence of perceived wrongdoing data and percentage of observers who blew the whistle were available for only one of the two Norwegian studies (Skivenes and Trygstad ).…”

“…In the Australian study (Brown ), this is the percentage of all “non‐role reporters” (including anonymous whistle‐blowers) who said they were treated badly or extremely badly by managers or co‐workers. A publication based on the Australian data (Smith ) reported that rates ranged from 20 – 25%, depending on the type of wrongdoing. Retaliation incidence data were available for only one Norwegian study (Bjørkelo et al ).…”

“…Second, some observers have asked whether suffering retaliation is a defining characteristic of the whistle‐blowing process; even though retaliation is a fixture in many famous whistle‐blowing cases, it is only one of many possible outcomes that may occur in response to the whistle‐blower's initial complaint of wrongdoing and is by no means inevitable (Brown and Donkin ; Smith ). Aside from the conceptual problem created by confounding an action that one individual decides to take (reporting wrongdoing), with subsequent actions that may be taken by others (retaliation), there are strong empirical reasons to separate retaliation from the whistle‐blowing definition.…”

“…For example, whistle‐blowing cases described in legal reports, media reports, or the accounts of psychological counsellors may not be representative of all whistle‐blowing cases; they may be more extreme, or whistle‐blowers who escape retaliation or other negative consequences may be far less likely to file lawsuits, go to the media, or seek counselling. One unfortunate consequence is that a myth is perpetuated that whistle‐blowers “inevitably experience reprisals and other negative consequences” when in fact this “negative depiction of whistle‐blowing is misleading” (Smith : 704). In fact, findings from broad, random samples in North America show that whistle‐blowers are more likely to be ignored than to experience retaliation (Miceli, Near, and Dworkin ).…”

“…Nonetheless, the processes may play out differently depending on the type of organisation. Recent publication of several large studies, including data from employees in the public sector in Australia (Brown ; Smith ) and Norway (Bjørkelo et al ; Skivenes and Trygstad ), now allow us to compare results from similar organisations in those countries with earlier findings using data collected in the US public sector (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board , , ).…”