The whistleblower’s handbook: how to be an effective resister

Brian Martin

Published in 1999 by Jon Carpenter in Charlbury, UK and Envirobook in Sydney, Australia

This book went out of print in 2008. This is the original text, with minor changes, a different format and page numbering (89 pages instead of 167), and omission of the list of contacts (now on the web) and index.

Contents 1. Seven common mistakes 3 2. The problem 7 3. Speaking out and the consequences 10 4. Personal assessment: what should I do? 18 5. Preparation 23 6. Official channels 29 7. Building support 45 8. Case studies: considering options 65 9. Surviving 77 10. Whistleblower groups 82 References 87

Quick reference guide • If you have a general interest in the topic, start with chapter 1. • If you don’t know what to expect if you speak out, see chapter 3. • If you are trying to decide what to do about a situation, see chapter 4. • If you are planning to speak out, see chapter 5. • If you are already involved in making a complaint, see chapter 6. • If you’re up against a deeply entrenched problem, see chapter 7. • If you want to become active and work for social change, see chapter 10. From the back cover Acknowledgements This definitive manual for people who speak Over the years, I have learned an enormous out in the public interest tells how to assess amount from hundreds of individuals through options, prepare for action, use official personal stories, campaigns and critical channels, build support — and survive the analyses. This book is an attempt to pass on experience. It is filled with sample cases that some of this collective wisdom to others. show what can happen when you make the Three people with enormous experience wrong assumptions or take the wrong actions. with whistleblowing and dissent — Jean The wrongdoing you discover might involve Lennane, Isla MacGregor and Lesley Pinson, corruption, injustice or danger to the public. all of whom have been active in Whistleblow- What should you do? If you do nothing, the ers Australia — offered highly perceptive problem will continue; lives might even be comments on a draft of this manual. In some threatened. If you speak out, you may be places I have rewritten or augmented my text attacked — more seriously than you can appropriately, but where possible I have let imagine — and the problem may still continue. them speak for themselves. Thanks also to Brian Martin’s advice is based on his Gabriele Bammer and Stewart Dean for contact with hundreds of whistleblowers and comments. dissidents, plus consultation with others experienced in the area. There can be no The examples guarantees, but his advice can improve your The examples in this handbook are not directly chances of success. Even if you never expect based on actual cases, in whole or part. They to challenge the system yourself, this hand- do draw on themes that are routine in real book will give you valuable insight into the cases, and are intended to illustrate points that dynamics of individual struggles and the become familiar to anyone who has listened to problems other people face. dozens of stories. The examples differ in a few ways from actual cases. Brian Martin has been involved with issues • Most actual cases are incredibly complex, of dissent and whistleblowing for twenty with all sorts of details and byways. It’s years and has extensive experience with social impossible to convey such complexity in a movements. He helped found Dissent paragraph or two. Network Australia and has been national • Actual cases are far more traumatic for the president of Whistleblowers Australia. Dr target of the attack than any description can Martin has a PhD in theoretical physics and suggest. (See chapter 9 for more on this.) now works as a social scientist at the Univer- • In actual cases there are real people and sity of Wollongong. He is the author of many real consequences. Without knowing the books and 200 major articles in diverse fields people involved it is hard to grasp the personal including suppression of dissent, scientific dimensions. controversies, strategies for social movements, • The attacks I describe are bad enough, but democracy, information technology and in many actual cases the attacks are far worse: nonviolent action. spiteful, insidious, unremitting and intensely debilitating. If anyone thinks the examples are unrealistic, they’re right: I’m more optimistic than most whistleblowers have a right to be. For those who’d like to read about actual cases, there are many good references given at the end of the book. Even better is to talk to someone who has been there.

2 1 Seven common mistakes

Seven mistakes are commonly made by those aiming to expose wrongdoing: • Trusting too much • Not having enough evidence • Using the wrong style • Not waiting for the right opportunity • Not building support • Playing the opponent’s game • Not knowing when to stop.

Lots of principled and courageous people set An honest, community-spirited person of out to expose wrongdoing — and are utter course reports the problem. Naturally man- failures. They fall into standard traps. This is agement will be eager to fix the problem — or partly because they are trusting. They trust will they? people in power and they believe what One of the biggest mistakes of those who they’ve been taught about how the system discover problems is to trust that others will operates. Their cynical co-workers wouldn’t also be concerned and take action. Many try anything so foolish. whistleblowers, burned by their experiences, Society desperately needs principled and say that they were naive. They trusted. They courageous people, and it needs them to be trusted that management would act. They successful in exposing problems and exploring trusted that co-workers would support them. solutions. Here are some of the most common They trusted that the union would back them. mistakes made by those trying to expose They trusted that government agencies and the problems. We can call them workers and courts would work to ensure justice. citizens who are doing their ethical duty or we Sometimes this trust is warranted, but all can call them whistleblowers, dissidents, agita- too often it is not. Cynical workers don’t act tors, conscientious objectors or whatever. The because they assume management knows name doesn’t matter much, but the failures do. about and tolerates the problem and that if This is not a book about ethics. It is about they do anything about it they will suffer people who act on the basis of principles such reprisals. In many cases they are right. as honesty, accountability and human welfare Helen was a conscientious employee in a and who resist corruption, discrimination and large employment agency. After being pro- exploitation. It’s not about people who moted into a new position, she began to notice “resist” primarily to serve their own interests. a bias in results. Some clients had only a small chance of success, whereas others — who paid 1. Trusting too much a “bonus fee” — received favoured treatment. There’s a serious problem: money is being She talked about it with her boss, who ex- siphoned from accounts; the organisation’s plained that the fee and other gratuities were a public statements are misleading; cronies standard part of the business. She became even without skills are being promoted. What to do? more disturbed and wrote a memo to the chief

3 Seven common mistakes; the problem 4 executive officer asking for a review of the commonly used to smuggle drugs. In the face bonus fee system. Within a few days she was of much resistance, he managed to get on the carpeted by her boss for inadequate perform- shift himself, and uncovered a major drugs ance, especially for alleged complaints received shipment. Then he was transferred out to a from clients a year earlier. She then raised the less desirable job. He went to the media with issue of bonus fees at a staff meeting. None of claims of corruption in customs. But in the her colleagues would support her. It became face of bland denials by customs officials, apparent that the bonus fee was part of a nothing could be done. There wasn’t enough system of bribery that was accepted by all hard evidence even to justify an inquiry. managers. After being fired, Helen sued her Fred was stymied in his career in customs, former employer on the grounds of unfair so he obtained a job in a trucking company dismissal. Her professional association then checking inventories. With his nose for corrup- refused to support her. In the middle of the tion, he soon detected a scam in which certain hearing, it became apparent that her lawyer goods were trucked without going through had been conspiring with the company. accounts, in return for a bribe. This time Fred Helen had stumbled upon a corrupt practice collected detailed evidence, including taped that was so institutionalised that everyone conversations and photos. But he wrecked his accepted it as the way things were done. She credibility by claiming that the operation was trusted her boss; she trusted her CEO; she approved by top management. This was trusted her co-workers; she trusted her profes- probably true, but without hard proof regula- sional association and her lawyer. Could she tors could do nothing. Fred lost his job. He trust anyone at all? won his case for unfair dismissal but the managers sued him for defamation, success- 2. Not having enough evidence fully shifting the focus from their culpability Humans have a great capacity for the logical to Fred’s behaviour. process called induction. Observing bits of data, they can think up an explanation for it. 3. Driving away supporters by the wrong Since there might be more than one explanation style that fits the data, it’s important to obtain Who is more believable: a serious-looking and additional evidence to confirm or deny the sober-sounding scientist or a dishevelled, explanation. ranting street-corner speaker? As much as we This is just what detectives are supposed to might disapprove, style is a crucial part of do when investigating crimes. It is also what a getting a message across. concerned worker or citizen needs to do when People who try to expose problems like discovering something suspicious. child abuse, public health risks and corruption The big mistake here is to make claims are usually outraged. Yet an approach with too about what’s going on without first having much overt emotion — shouting, hectoring, evidence to back up every detail. The claims disgust — can be counterproductive. A might be entirely correct, but those without sensible, to-the-point approach is often more evidence can be plausibly denied, and even the effective. claims with evidence can be discredited. It is possible, though rare, to appear to be Fred was a customs officer who had just too calm. An effective style hits the right note moved to a new posting. He began to notice for a relevant audience. that certain types of goods were always put Another problem is that concerned people through on a particular shift involving the same get enormously involved in the issue. They are group of officers. He knew from previous so involved that they forget that others know experience that these types of goods were little or nothing about it. They jump right into 5 The whistleblower’s handbook the middle of the story without explaining the honeymoon period with the public and media. background. No other outlets took up the story. Just over a Allen was the victim of a construction year later, though, the party’s popularity had swindle. He had contracted for improvements dropped, it was in the midst of a bitter internal to his home. After paying £50,000, the work fight and the opposition party was sniffing for done was woefully inadequate, and a different blood. The same story would have been contractor quoted Allen £50,000 to fix the dynamite at the time, but since it had already problems. However, the original contractor been broken, journalists were not as interested claimed that Allen owed him money and as they might have been. refused to do anything until being paid. The building industry watchdog took a year to 5. Not building support decide that there was no case to answer. Allen If truth was enough by itself, it shouldn’t be berated anyone who couldn’t get away. Even necessary to build support. It would simply those who were sympathetic soon became be enough to speak the truth. This is a serious tired of his tirades. He compiled a 45-page mistake. To have some chance of success, it is document titled “BUILDING INDUSTRY vital to have supporters. This often requires a CORRUPTION.” It was filled with state- patient effort to find out where people stand ments of outrage and extreme claims, including and then to mobilise those who are sympa- letters he had written to various official bodies. thetic, win over some of those who are neutral He sent this document to hundreds of politi- and to reduce the hostility of some of the cians and government departments, but only opponents. It’s not enough to be correct and received a few polite letters in response. Even to be serving the public interest. though he had a good case, Allen’s style When the old-fashioned politician — screamed “crank.” without money for media campaigns — goes door-to-door meeting people and exchanging 4. Not waiting for the right opportunity ideas and plans, that’s a form of grassroots Many a good exposé is ineffective because it is politics. A similar process is required in made at the wrong time, to the wrong audience organisations and communities on many or in the wrong circumstances. Many people issues, even when the facts are clear-cut. It is believe that the truth is enough on its own and tempting to skip this laborious process and that it shouldn’t matter when or how they just run with the facts. It’s often disastrous. speak out. But it does! Even after carefully Frank was a social worker with lots of collecting evidence, it may be necessary to experience. Tired of the big-city rat-race, he wait months or even years to have the best moved to a small town, where he was attached chance of making a difference. It’s a common to the local hospital. Soon after arriving, he mistake for people with an important message started receiving reports of abusive behaviour to go public as soon as they are ready — rather by a local government official, Peterson, than when the opportunity is just right. including verbal abuse and assault of Peter- Dolores, an experienced political activist, son’s neighbours and anyone who dared collected evidence of surreptitious donations criticise him. Frank arranged a private meeting to a political party from foreign vested inter- with the mayor. He described some of what ests. She made contact with an investigative he’d heard, suggested some constructive journalist, who produced a series of excellent responses and asked for advice. Not long after, stories in a major newspaper. However, the he was dismissed from the hospital. Six people party was able to weather the storm without — five clients and one person he’d never met much difficulty — it had just been elected to — filed complaints about him, including sexual office with a large majority and was enjoying a assault. These complaints were written up in Seven common mistakes; the problem 6 the local newspaper. Frank was referred to a it reported that no action would be taken. She psychiatrist and had his licence as a social followed up with a complaint to a consumer worker removed. He only found out later that justice board. This time the process took over Peterson had lots of connections in the town, two years, with a similar result. Finally, she including a brother who was the hospital sued the physician for damages. The physi- superintendent and a nephew who was editor cian’s insurance company delayed the case for of the paper. three years and then mounted a smear opera- tion, questioning her bona fides and sanity. 6. Playing the opponent’s game Joy finally won the case after five years. The There are all manner of formal channels for insurance company appealed and, several dealing with injustices, including grievance years later, eventually won the appeal. procedures, ombudsmen, antidiscrimination Meanwhile, the physician retired with his boards and the courts. When an individual public reputation untarnished. appeals to one of these formal channels for action to be taken against an organisation, the 7. Not knowing when to stop organisation has all the advantages. It has far Once embarked on a quest for justice, it can be more money, unlimited time and usually little hard to let go and get on with life. This is individual responsibility. It can stall, resist related to the type of psychological phenome- giving information, hire expensive lawyers and non by which people, after losing money, are mount attacks. inclined to risk more to recoup the loss. Yet In many cases, to stick to formal channels is often it’s better to cut your losses and go on to to play the opponent’s game largely by the more productive activities. This is especially opponent’s rules. The individual is worn down the case when it’s apparent that the chance of emotionally and financially while the organisa- success is small or that further gains will tion continues on, unchecked and unchanged. require more effort for far less return. Even if the individual wins a settlement, it is Some of those who have a commitment to usually years down the track, is too little and justice and truth become used to hearing others too late for much satisfaction, and does say they are wasting their time. If they had nothing to change the original problem. listened to every sceptic they would have The formal channels present themselves as never acted in the first place. But the real means to justice, and many people believe in trade-off is not between action and no action, them. They trust the system to provide a but rather between different types of action. means of policing itself — an extension of When the use-by date of a campaign arrives, mistake #1, trusting too much. it’s time to shift to a different diet, otherwise Joy received a faulty diagnosis from an the taste will become ever more bitter. established physician and was treated incor- Helena was a high school art teacher who rectly for two years, leading to additional had taught for many years at different schools, health problems and costing her tens of moving because of her husband’s career. She thousands of dollars in lost income and liked to experiment with different teaching expenses, not to mention pain and suffering. methods and was popular with students and She had kept meticulous documentation and other teachers. At one school, though, the obtained correct diagnoses from several young authoritarian principal was threatened doctors. One of them confidentially told her by her success and popularity. He arranged to that she was only one of many who had been get her fired after a series of negative evalua- misdiagnosed by this physician. Joy made a tions and trumped up charges. Deeply complaint to the medical appeals tribunal. shocked, she tried several formal channels and After a desultory investigation and 18 months, after five years received a substantial pay-out, 7 The whistleblower’s handbook though the details remained confidential and no an effective style and waiting for the right action was taken against the principal. Helena moment? How would they have learned wouldn’t let go of the case, though, and organising skills when it’s not part of the job? continued to write letters to politicians and How would they know that formal channels official bodies and to tell the story to anyone are a major trap when everyone assumes that who would listen. She did not return to teach- they are there to fix up problems? After years ing or take any other job. in a lonely struggle and many betrayals, how are they to make a sensible judgement about Conclusion the next step — and when to bow out? People shouldn’t be blamed for making these No, these mistakes are entirely predictable, mistakes. Even those with years of experience and that’s why story after story sounds much in difficult jobs are like babes in the woods the same. It is only by learning from the when suddenly confronted with the full force mistakes of others, and from the accumulated of the system. Why wouldn’t they trust wisdom of dissidents and justice-seekers, that people with whom they had worked for years? a better path forward can be discerned. The Where would they have learned skills in following chapters give some idea of what’s collecting and sticking to evidence, developing involved.

2 The problem

Figure out what the problem is and what causes it.

The problem is that something is seriously • An organisation persists in a practice that wrong and no one is able or willing to do is hazardous to the public. anything about it. Here are some examples. • Your boss is a nasty bully who humiliates • A company is regularly defrauding clients you and your co-workers. by adding a fee for an unnecessary (and • Blatant sexual harassment by one particu- unperformed) service. lar powerful individual is tolerated by top • Many employees receive confidential management. payments — bribes — in order to turn a blind • The public relations department is in- eye to a violation of procedure. structed to lie to the public to cover up a • Friends of a particular boss are given jobs, serious mistake by managers. promotions and special opportunities; those • The high ideals of an organisation are who have fallen out of favour with this boss ignored by most employees, who find it safer are given a hard time. to do shoddy work. • In applying policy, certain groups are • Your boss is embezzling money. discriminated against: an ethnic minority, members of a certain religion, backers of a The central issue is how to solve the problem. particular political party. But first, a preliminary question. Do you want Seven common mistakes; the problem 8 to try to help solve the problem? Perhaps you management may say there’s no problem at all, don’t care. Perhaps you have been part of the since the new finding has not been confirmed problem, and don’t plan to change. If so, this and they don’t want to alarm people who are handbook is not for you. If you do care, then benefiting from the drug. this handbook is for you. If you want to try to help fix the problem, What problem is most important to fix? Is it to then the central issue is how. What is the first alert consumers to the hazard? Is it to do more step? Who will be willing to help? What are research to gain a better understanding of the the likely repercussions? Is it possible to make risk? Is it to change the company’s approach a difference? Is it worth doing anything? to possible drug risks, so that consumer safety Which problem — when there are several — is given a higher priority? Is it to change the should be the first priority? These questions culture of conformity, in which no one wants are dealt with in later chapters. to do anything that might disturb a good seller? Let’s look a bit more at the problems. They Of course, you might be concerned about all involve all sorts of different areas. But many these problems. But to be effective, it’s useful of them fit a few categories. to know where your priorities lie. • Injustice, unfairness and discrimination. This includes bias in favour of friends or The source of problems relatives and bias against out-groups. It can be very helpful to understand why a • Violations of laws and/or morality. This problem arises and why it persists. The most includes stealing, bribery and lying. immediate explanation is that a person or • Dangerous practices. This includes causing group has something to gain, typically money, hazards to health and the environment. power or status. Financial fraud can be moti- • Abusive behaviour. This includes bullying, vated by greed. Hazardous practices can be harassment and scapegoating. motivated by the push for profits. Claiming • Complicity. This is covering up or doing credit for other people’s ideas can be moti- nothing about a problem. vated by the desire for promotion. Covering up for mistakes by colleagues can be motivated It is important to work out exactly what you by the desire to protect the group’s reputation think the problem is, and why you think it’s a for good work. To begin an analysis of the problem. source of a problem, ask “who has something to gain?” Example A pharmaceutical company has been Although many problems can be explained selling a certain drug for several years. Some of this way, there are numerous exceptions. the company’s scientists came up with a Sometimes the immediate explanation doesn’t finding that suggests a new risk for certain work. A company might be losing millions of users. It has been a year since the scientists dollars due to fraud but managers don’t do reported on their finding but the drug is still anything about it. This might be because the being sold the same way, with no change in the managers are in on the fraud. Another possi- information sheet about adverse effects. bility is that if any individual tried to stop the What is the problem? One problem is a fraud, they would get no support or even come potential danger to the public. Another is that under attack, so it’s just easier to let it con- the drug’s information sheet is incomplete: this tinue. might be considered false advertising or, in Another sort of explanation is that prob- other words, lying. Finally, there may be lems occur because of the way things are complicity: the unwelcome data are being organised. Instead of blaming individuals, this knowingly ignored. On the other hand, explanation traces problems to procedures, 9 The whistleblower’s handbook organisational structures and sets of expecta- blaming individuals and seeing the problem as tions. For example, the rules on safety at a due to procedures or structures. workplace might be so complicated and diffi- Psychologists have found that it is very cult to carry out that most workers have to common for people to blame individuals for ignore them just to get the job done. It is easy problems rather than social arrangements. For to blame the workers for not following the example, if the government develops a bad rules or management for not enforcing them, policy, it is easy and common for critics to but perhaps a better approach is to simplify blame politicians, often a single leading figure. and clarify the rules. It is harder to grasp and adopt a less individu- In the case of burglary, many blame the alistic explanation, for example that there is a burglars. Others blame parents for not bringing complex interaction between pressure groups, up children to be honest, or teachers for not legislative restrictions and media-driven expec- educating students properly. But does blame tations that led to the policy in spite of help solve the problem? Another approach is everyone’s good intentions. to look at solutions that involve changing the The explanation does make a difference. If system. Perhaps if there were more opportuni- problems are seen as due to individuals, then ties for satisfying work, fewer people would the solution is usually to deal with the indi- resort to burglary. Perhaps part of the problem viduals, for example to replace or discipline is the pervasive role of advertising and com- them. Sometimes that works but often the mercialism, which present acquisition of problem continues on as before. If the organ- products as the symbols of success, and make isational structure gives ample opportunities some people feel excluded. These are explana- for fraud, then it’s not much use getting rid of tions that blame “the system” or “society” a few individuals, since their replacements are rather than individuals. You don’t need to likely to succumb sooner or later. A better agree with any particular explanation in order approach would be to change the structure. to realise that there is a difference between But that’s usually a much more difficult task. 3 Speaking out and the consequences

If you speak out, you may be attacked. • There are many methods of attack. • There are several reasons for attack. • The attackers feel entirely justified — you should understand the way they think. • Determine who is causing the problem.

Occasionally those who speak out about about it, he began to criticise her performance problems are treated with the respect and at every opportunity, as his own continued to seriousness that they deserve. After all, if deteriorate. Then she reported her concerns to everyone tolerates corruption and dangerous the hospital administrator. The next time one practices, then the problems will continue. The of her patients did poorly, she was carpeted, person who speaks out is the key to finding a reprimanded and put on notice for dismissal. solution. (And so on.) Sometimes — just sometimes — that’s actually what happens. The person who yells Arnie was a young policeman, intelligent and “fire!” when an actual fire is threatening lives enthusiastic. He discovered that many of his is applauded. If only it was always that easy! colleagues, on getting to the scene of a break- In lots of cases, unfortunately, the warning and-enter, would steal things themselves is treated entirely differently. It is a signal for before the owners arrived. Since he refused to an attack on the person who gave the warning. participate himself, his colleagues became suspicious or hostile. Then he reported his Fred was a building surveyor. He noticed that observations to a police anti-corruption unit. a block of houses, a decade old, was built on Although the unit was supposed to keep all unstable soil in an area potentially vulnerable such reports confidential, shortly afterwards to slippage. He made a routine report about Arnie was openly abused by his colleagues, this; nothing was done. Fearing the conse- being called a “dog” and other names. He was quences of a major storm, he made his repeatedly reprimanded for slight or imaginary concerns known to the builder and the relevant violations of dress code and driving. His wife local authorities. In the following months he received threatening phone calls. (And so on.) noticed he was being shunned by some of his colleagues. He noticed his commissions were Jacki, who lived near a light industrial district, dropping off. Then there was a formal found out about plans for a new plant that complaint about his performance. (And so on.) would produce a chemical she had heard about. After talking to some friends and local experts, Mary was a new surgeon in a hospital, she learned that the chemical production working under a prominent doctor in the field. process could cause a long-term environmental She noticed that he was making poor judge- hazard and that similar plants had been ments in some cases and that he had been using opposed in other localities. She held a meeting a lot of drugs, easily obtained at the hospital. with neighbours, wrote a letter to the newspa- After she made a cautious comment to him per and organised a petition. She then found

10 11 The whistleblower’s handbook out that slanderous rumours were being spread • You are asked to carry out unnecessary about her motives and mental health. The bureaucratic procedures that are normally police searched her house for drugs, suppos- ignored or postponed, and then to repeat them edly on the basis of an anonymous tip. She due to minor discrepancies. was served with a writ for defaming the • The company car is never ready when you chemical company. Her children were harassed need it (but it is for others). at school. (And so on.) • Your requests for leave are misplaced or approved only for inconvenient times. Methods of attack • Your roster ends up being unnecessarily There are many techniques used against those awkward. who speak out. Some of them are: • You are asked to change offices several • ostracism times. • harassment • Your normal job, at which you are skilled, • spreading of rumours is given to someone else. • threats of reprimands, dismissal, etc. • You are given too much work. • referrals to psychiatrists • You aren’t given enough work. • censorship of writing Rumours are common enough in any organi- • blocking of appointments sation or neighbourhood. As a form of reprisal, • blocking of promotions they can be especially vicious, and also attack • withdrawal of financial support a person’s reputation in a pointed fashion. • forced job transfers A common way to discredit someone is to • denial of work opportunities say that they are mentally ill. This is more • formal reprimands pointed when they are formally required to see • legal actions a psychiatrist. This is a form of harassment • dismissal and can also fan the rumour mill. • blacklisting Reprimands, censorship, blocking of ap- • putting in danger pointments and promotions, withdrawal of • physical assault financial support, forced job transfers, legal actions and dismissal are straightforward forms The most common reprisal for speaking out is of attack. Reprimands, legal actions and ostracism. This is when co-workers turn away dismissal are obvious enough: if your boss rather than saying hello, when they sit at serves you with a writ for defamation, you can another table during tea breaks and lunch, be in no doubt about who is the target. On the when they stop dropping by to have a chat, other hand, it is usually hard to know why and when they make excuses to leave when- your application for a job has failed, unless ever you approach them. Friendly or at least you have inside information. cordial relations with co-workers is one of the There’s one extra level to all these forms of most important things about job satisfaction. reprisal: the threat that they might be applied. Hence this “cold shoulder” treatment can be You might be told that you’d better be careful very hard to handle. in order to avoid a formal reprimand. Com- Another common reprisal is harassment. ments might be made that those who criticise This can be quite petty. For example: the organisation’s policies will have a difficult • You no longer get helpful hints on time getting promoted. You might be threat- upcoming jobs. ened with a transfer, defamation suit or • You are given no notice of meetings. dismissal. • You are given less desirable tasks. Blacklisting is when many different employers in a field conspire not to employ Speaking out and the consequences 12 someone. If you’ve exposed corruption in • Bloodymindedness. Once the boss begins your firm and are dismissed, it can be difficult on a course of action, s/he will proceed no enough to get a job elsewhere. If other firms matter what. Whatever the reason for coming find out about the dismissal, perhaps due to a under scrutiny to begin with — bad luck, a few quiet words, you may be denied employ- mistake, etc. — you are now a perpetual ment in the field altogether. target. In this way, the boss’s original judge- Finally, there can be threats and attacks on ment is vindicated. one’s physical safety. For example, the wheel nuts on your car might be loosened, leading to The first step is to decide whether you’re a potentially hazardous breakdown at high under attack. If so, the next step is to decide speeds. Assaults and creation of hazards are a why you’re under attack. The next question is reality in many workplaces, and there are even what to do about it. That’s the subject of the murders. However, physical violence is used in next chapter. only a small fraction of reprisals. One reason is Most people prefer not to be attacked at that violence can backfire, creating sympathy all. Of course not! Many of those who speak for the victim, because physical attack is out don’t expect any reprisals. They see a difficult to justify. Ostracism and petty problem and report it, assuming that all harassment, by contrast, are much more subtle reasonably minded people will then investigate and hard to expose. and do something to fix it. Once people know that reprisals are Reasons for attack possible, that changes things. People become You’ve spoken out and then come under afraid and most of them don’t speak out. The attack. That means that you’ve come under problems fester. attack because you’ve spoken out. Right? Well, yes in many cases. But not always. A How the other side thinks person can come under attack for all sorts of What about those who launch the attacks? reasons. Here are some of them. They are the ones who harass their colleagues, • Bad luck. You are blamed for something make threats, issue disciplinary notices, just because you were in the wrong place at dismiss employees and continue with damag- the wrong time. ing practices. It’s easy to imagine that they are • Mistake. Your name was mentioned only corrupt, scheming and just plain evil. Actually, because someone got confused. this is not a useful way to think about it. How • Personal dislike. Someone — maybe your do they perceive the problem? How do they boss — doesn’t like you. Maybe you remind justify their behaviour? them of a parent or spouse. Maybe you have a From their point of view, the person who mannerism that annoys someone. You are speaks out is at fault. The attackers usually victimised. think they have been remarkably restrained. • Scapegoating. Bad practices have been in They focus on the victim’s inadequacies (and place for a long time and have just been who doesn’t have some?) and on the real threat exposed. It’s convenient to blame someone. to the organisation caused by the person’s You are a convenient target. unnecessary and destabilising claims. • Caught in the crossfire. There’s a long- In practice, what this means is that reprisals standing feud between two powerful factions. are never — absolutely never — called repri- Anyone and anything is used to wage the sals. Nearly always, these actions are justified struggle. You are attacked as a means to get at in terms of the target’s inadequacies and someone else. failures: their inability to do their job, their 13 The whistleblower’s handbook disloyalty, their violation of organisational • Managers, to be successful, must continu- norms, their paranoia. ally adapt their personalities to fit the current Therefore, it is always best to assume that situation. This is not just acting. They must officials whom you think are corrupt and become so natural at what they do that they unscrupulous are actually, in their own minds, “are” their act. Much of this adaptation is totally justified in everything they do. Perhaps fitting in. Clothes must conform to expecta- there are a few people who say to themselves, tions, but so must speech, attitudes and “I’m dishonest and I’m going to victimise that personal style. Those who don’t adapt don’t honest person who’s trying to expose me.” get ahead. But don’t count on it! • Managers don’t want to act until the Because each side believes it is correct, the decision is generally accepted. They experience struggle is one over credibility. Who will be a pervasive indecisiveness. Each one looks for believed? signals on what decision will be favoured. Most books about bureaucracies don’t Signals from the chief executive officer — the provide much insight into these issues. One top boss — are especially important. that does is Robert Jackall’s Moral Mazes: • Responsibility is diffused and hard to pin The World of Corporate Managers (Oxford down. Managers avoid taking responsibility. University Press, 1988). Jackall obtained The key thing is to avoid being blamed for a access to a couple of big US corporations as failure. well as a public relations firm. He spent many • Morality is doing what seems appropriate months interviewing managers and watching in the situation to get things done. Morality is them in action, as well as reading many doing what the boss wants. Having absolute documents. principles is a prescription for career stagna- Jackall treated the world of corporate tion or disaster. managers as a culture. He was like an anthro- • The symbolic manipulation of reality is pologist studying an alien tribe. His aim was to pervasive. For any decision, managers discuss understand the social dynamics of corporate various reasons in order to settle on a way to culture. He gives many case studies of activi- give legitimacy for what the corporation does. ties and crises to illustrate his analysis. • Public relations is simply a tool. Truth is Moral Mazes can be heavy-going at times, irrelevant. as some of the quotes below indicate. But it is worth persisting with the book because of the The successful manager is one who can adapt insights it offers. Here are some of Jackall’s to the prevailing ideas, who can please the observations. boss, who can avoid being blamed for failure, • Corporations are in a constant state of and who can build alliances with supporters upheaval. When a new executive takes over a above and below. post, he (or occasionally she) brings in a whole Jackall devotes a chapter, “Drawing lines”, new crew of cronies. Bureaucracy is a set of to the corporation’s response to whistleblow- patronage networks. ers. White was a health professional who tried • Corporations often respond to the whims to raise concern about hearing loss among and inclinations of the chief executive. Even an many workers at a corporation’s textile mills. off-hand comment by the chief executive can He collected data and wrote a report. Due to trigger subordinates into intense activity to do his professional training and religious back- what they think is being suggested. In many ground, he felt this was a clear moral issue. But cases the result is ill-advised or disastrous. his attempts failed. He did not have support- • Conformity is enforced to amazingly fine ers higher up. As well, his recommendations details. for change threatened powerful interests. Speaking out and the consequences 14

Other managers felt uncomfortable with cal matters. His basic failing was, first, that White’s moral stance. he violated the fundamental rules of bureau- cratic life. These are usually stated as a Without clear authoritative sanctions, moral series of admonitions. (1) You never go viewpoints threaten others within an around your boss. (2) You tell your boss organization by making claims on them that what he wants to hear, even when your might impede their ability to read the drift boss claims that he wants dissenting views. of social situations. As a result, independ- (3) If your boss wants something dropped, ent morally evaluative judgments get subor- you drop it. (4) You are sensitive to your dinated to the social intricacies of the boss’s wishes so that you anticipate what bureaucratic workplace … Managers know he wants; you don’t force him, in other that in the organization right and wrong get words, to act as boss. (5) Your job is not to decided by those with enough clout to make report something that your boss does not their views stick. (p. 105). want reported, but rather to cover it up. White ended up leaving the company. You do what your job requires, and you Brady was an accountant who found keep your mouth shut. (pp. 109-110). various discrepancies in a company’s financial The second response of managers to Brady’s operations. At one stage, case was that he had plenty of ways to justify Brady discussed the matter with a close not acting. Others obviously knew about the friend, a man who had no defined position fiddling of the books but did nothing. They but considerable influence in the company were all playing the game. Why should Brady and access to the highest circles in the worry about it? He would only make himself organization. He was Mr. Fixit — a lobby- vulnerable. ist, a front man, an all-around factotum, a The third response of managers was to say man who knew how to get things done. that those things that Brady got upset about — “irregular payments, doctored invoices, This friend took Brady’s anonymous memo- shuffling numbers in accounts” — were ordi- randum to a meeting of top figures in the nary things in a corporation. corporation. “Immediately after the meeting, Brady’s friend was fired and escorted from the Moreover, as managers see it, playing building by armed guards.” (p. 108). Brady sleight of hand with the monetary value of now realised it was the chief executive himself inventories, post- or pre-dating memoranda who was fiddling the books. Brady was under or invoices, tucking or squirreling large sums suspicion of having written the memo. He of money away to pull them out of one’s eventually presented all his evidence to the hat at an opportune moment are all part and company’s chief lawyer, who wouldn’t touch parcel of managing a large corporation it. “Right after Brady’s boss returned from where interpretations of performance, not Europe, Brady was summarily fired and he and necessarily performance itself, decide one’s his belongings were literally thrown out of the fate. (p. 110). company building.” (p. 109). The fourth and final response of managers to Nothing new here. Another whistleblower Brady’s case was to say that he shouldn’t is dismissed. What is most interesting in have acted on a moral code that had no rele- Jackall’s account is his description of how vance to the organisation. other managers saw the situation. They saw Brady refused to recognize, in the view of Brady’s dilemma as devoid of moral or the managers that I interviewed, that ‘truth’ ethical content. In their view, the issues that is socially defined, not absolute, and that Brady raises are, first of all, simply practi- 15 The whistleblower’s handbook

therefore compromise, about anything and ers and creates the context for problems to everything, is not moral defeat, as Brady occur. seems to feel, but simply an inevitable fact of organizational life. They see this as the Who is causing the problem? key reason why Brady’s bosses did him in. In many disputes, both sides believe they are And they too would do him in without any the victim. Rachel raised concerns about qualms. Managers, they say, do not want record-keeping and suffered all sorts of false evangelists working for them. (p. 111). accusations and abuse. But Rachel’s boss and co-workers believe it is Rachel who has made After all these events, the chief executive — false accusations and abused them. Who is the one who fiddled the books — retired, right? elevated his loyal lieutenant to his former There’s no absolute way to know, espe- position and took an honorary position in the cially for those in the middle of the dispute. In firm, as head of internal audit! many cases, the accounts from the two sides Concerning this case, Jackall concludes: are so different that an outsider wouldn’t Bureaucracy transforms all moral issues know they are talking about the same into immediately practical concerns. A situation. moral judgment based on a professional Ultimately, the only way to determine the ethic makes little sense in a world where the source of the problem is to carry out a detailed etiquette of authority relationships and the investigation, obtaining as many facts as necessity of protecting and covering for possible. A judgement about the facts must be one’s boss, one’s network, and oneself based on a set of values, such as common supersede all other considerations and community assessments of what is honest and where nonaccountability for action is the proper. norm. (p. 111). Even without a full investigation, there are some good pointers that you can use as guides Jackall’s analysis is based on just a few US to what is probably going on. corporations. He had to approach dozens of • The double standard test. corporations — and adapt his pitch — before • Timing. he found a couple that granted access. There is • Who has the power? no easy way of knowing which of his insights • Who are complaints made to? apply to other corporations, other types of • Who is willing to discuss the issues? bureaucracies, and in other countries. But in as much as the same sorts of dynamics occur, The double standard test Jackall’s examination shows that whistleblow- Is one person being treated differently from ers are up against something much bigger than another? If so, there is a double standard. a few corrupt individuals, or even a system of Commonly, there is one standard for ordinary corruption. employees and another — much more The problem is the very structure of the demanding — for employees who question or organisation, in which managers who adapt to challenge those in power. the ethos of pragmatism and who please their Rachel is given a reprimand for being half an bosses are the ones who get ahead. To elimi- hour late three times in a month, while co- nate wrongdoing in corporations requires not workers are later more frequently. That just replacing or penalising a few individuals, appears to be a double standard: Rachel is but changing the entire organisational structure. being singled out for criticism. It is the structure, within the wider corporate The double standard test is extremely useful culture, that shapes the psychology of manag- in determining whether someone has been Speaking out and the consequences 16 victimised for speaking out or otherwise don’t have much power can’t do much to challenging the powers that be. Double suppress others. standards are also to be expected in forms of systematic discrimination, such as bias against Who are complaints made to? women, ethnic minorities or lesbians and gays. In a dispute or disagreement between fair- minded people, there is open discussion of the Timing issues without threats or exercise of power If a person speaks out and then suddenly is against the other side. In a case of suppression subjected to criticism or harassment — alleg- of dissent, one side attempts to use power to edly on other grounds — this should give a silence the other. strong suspicion that the criticism and harass- The fairest way to make a complaint is ment are a consequence of speaking out. directly to the person complained about. That Rachel had been doing her job for years and way they know what the complaint is and always received favourable performance have an opportunity to respond and perhaps reviews. Immediately after she raised concerns to fix the problem. In contrast, a complaint to about record-keeping, the boss and other a person’s boss is often an unfair method, senior people suddenly found a lot to criticise especially if the person doesn’t receive a copy about her performance. They alleged that she or even know about the complaint. had missed meetings, been abrasive, filled out Jason has been writing letters to newspa- forms incorrectly, been a poor performer, etc. pers about the health hazards of eating meat. Some complaints about her from a disgruntled Response A. Helen, an independent meat customer were pulled out of a file, even though advocate, writes to the newspapers rebutting they had been made five years previously and Jason’s claims. never shown to Rachel. Things that were Response B. The Beef Industry Forum dismissed as trivial previously are now blown writes to the newspapers rebutting Jason’s up into major issues. claims. The key thing is that criticisms weren’t Response C. Helen writes Jason a vehement made before the person spoke out, and were letter attacking his views. made afterwards. A close look at timing reveals Response D. The Beef Industry Forum a lot about who is causing the problem. sends Jason documents presenting its view- point. Who has the power? Response E. Helen sends a letter of If one side or person has more power than complaint to Jason’s boss. another, it is possible to use that power to Response F. The head of the Beef Industry suppress dissent. Rachel may receive a repri- Forum rings Jason’s boss to complain. mand from her boss, but she can’t give a Response G. The Beef Industry Forum formal reprimand to her boss. There’s an compiles and sends a dossier about Jason and intrinsic asymmetry in any hierarchy. his alleged personal shortcomings to newspa- Just because one side has more power pers and others, but not a copy to Jason. doesn’t mean that the other side is in the right. Response H. A member of the Beef Indus- Rachel might have all her facts wrong and be try Forum rings newspaper editors to say that causing distress among her co-workers by her advertising from the industry could be jeop- behaviour. ardised if Jason’s letters continue to be If there are allegations by both sides that published. the other side is suppressing free speech, then Responses A to D are open and fair. They it is worth looking at who (if anyone) has the engage in dialogue. They may be distressing to power to suppress free speech. Those who Jason, especially if the language is strong. But 17 The whistleblower’s handbook they are fair because they are either directly to official procedures. Alternatively, interaction Jason or in the same forum (letters to the is avoided altogether. newspaper) that Jason used. (Sometimes it is too dangerous to go Responses E to H are not open and not fair. straight to the person responsible for the They are attempts to attack Jason or to problem — perhaps it is the boss! But this prevent his views being heard, even though should not be a factor when the other person is Helen and the Beef Industry Forum may feel a co-worker or a subordinate.) personally under attack and feel that Jason has # # # made incorrect claims. False claims, though — These tests are helpful in determining which might be felt to be “unfair” — are not what’s going on, but are not foolproof. If you the same as unfair methods of carrying out the try applying the tests to cases you know dispute. inside out, you’ll learn to recognise the signals One of the most useful ways to decide of fair play and the signals of suppression. whether one side in a dispute is attempting to suppress the other side is to see whether Appendix complaints have been made that affect the The language of exposing problems other side’s ability to speak out. Complaints The words we use have a great effect on the to superiors are a very common method of this way we perceive the world. When people use sort. the same words, often the meanings or associa- tions are different. This applies to speaking Who is willing to discuss the issues? Another out about problems. characteristic of suppression is avoidance of The following table lists some words open discussion. Rather than welcoming an commonly used to refer to exposing a problem. opportunity for dialogue and debate, the focus The words depend partly on who reports the is put on the other person’s behaviour or on alleged problem to whom, and whether the exposure is done openly or covertly.

open covert exposing equals or subordinates to reporting, dobbing, reporting, dobbing, those more powerful informing informing exposing superiors to higher officials whistleblowing anonymous or outside authorities whistleblowing exposing superiors or officials to the exposés, investigative leaking public journalism, social action

Reporting a classmate to a teacher is often young child? Should reporting a burglar to called ‘dobbing’ or ‘informing.’ Is the act of police be called ‘informing’? reporting bad just because people frown on Judgements are often implied in our use of ‘dobbing’? What if the classmate was raping a words. It’s important to consider the actual act being referred to and not just the label. 4 Personal assessment: what should I do?

Before acting, pause and reflect. • Check your assessment: hear the other side, get advice, examine your own motives. • Clarify your personal goals. • Build a strategy.

So there’s a problem that needs attention. corrupt practice. It might also be because no There are risks in speaking out, but the one noticed. problem is urgent and it’s worth taking the When in doubt, it is better to assume risks. So … action! incompetence or bad procedures rather than It can be very tempting to act immediately corruption and bad intentions. Very few on finding out about a problem. But unless organisations are perfectly efficient. Likewise, you’re very experienced and know exactly very few individuals are able to do everything what’s involved, it is wise to pause and reflect they are supposed to. — indeed, pause and reflect several times. • … except in some cases. In a few cases, it can be risky to ask to hear the other side. It Check your assessment of the problem might show that you suspect something, and Some problems seem obvious enough: embez- lead to an attack. It might also alert people so zlement, assault, hazardous practices. But it’s that they can cover up by hiding or destroying best to be absolutely sure before launching into records, establishing cover stories and the like. the issue. There are several ways to check. Sometimes your questions are quite inno- • Ask to hear the other side. This means cent. You don’t suspect anything. But just talking to people who seem to be responsible because you’ve asked about certain statements, for the problem. For example, if there seems to accounts or events, perpetrators may think be a bias in appointments, ask to see the selec- you know much more than you do. As a result, tion criteria and, if available, job applications. you may come under attack for no apparent Talk to someone on the selection panel. It reason. might turn out that there are very good reasons If you do come under attack in such cases, for the appointments. that’s a good indication that the problem is a Sometimes there are other explanations even serious one. But it’s not a guarantee. It could for apparent cases of embezzlement, assault be an attack for some other irrelevant reason. and hazardous practices. It may be, for Anyway, if it’s risky to ask to hear the example, that someone else wants to makes a other side, you have to decide the best way to person look bad. proceed. It might be safer to appear to be on a It’s remarkable how often people are willing person’s side. You might use an approach like to believe the worst about someone or some- this: “Someone was asking about the events thing without talking to the people concerned. last Thursday. I’m sure there’s not really any Some very nasty conflicts could be avoided by problem. Can you suggest the best way to this simple precaution. explain the situation to them?” If you suspect You notice that a company is selling out- the worst, this is a bit devious. A more direct dated stock as if it were new. This could be a approach is, “I’m concerned about what

18 Personal assessment: what should I do? 19 happened on Thursday. I’d like to hear your There are few people who are ideal in all explanation.” If you are known for being these respects. Finding someone who is both straightforward — in other words, blunt — sympathetic and honest is difficult enough. this may be okay. But you don’t have to find a perfect person. In some cases, though, it is not effective to Just find someone who is reasonably good and ask to hear the other side. If you have solid who has time to help. evidence of major fraud by top management, How to find someone? The best way is by raising your concerns is a mistake. You could asking around and going by a person’s reputa- be dismissed on the spot and a cover-up initi- tion. If others have found someone who is ated immediately. honest and discreet, that is a good recommen- • Get independent advice. To determine dation. whether your assessment is sensible, it can be If the independent person supports your very helpful to talk to someone who’s not view, well and good. If not, then you need to involved. Describe the case to them and reconsider. Are you still convinced that there’s present the evidence that you have. Ask a serious problem? If so, then you might whether there could be an innocent explana- contact another independent person. The first tion. Also ask whether they think the issue is person might have a bias you don’t know as serious as you think it is. about. For example, there have been several inci- If you’ve been to several independent dents that you think reveal pervasive racist people and none of them thinks your concerns attitudes, though the employer officially are warranted, it’s time for a rethink. Perhaps opposes racism. Is your interpretation reason- you’ve blown things out of proportion. able, or are you making a mountain out of a Perhaps it’s better to wait a while. Even if molehill? Even if there is a serious problem, is there is a serious problem, you have little there enough evidence from these incidents to chance of doing anything about it if you can’t really show it? convince independent people. Maybe you The sort of person who can give the most need more evidence. helpful independent advice should be balanced, Harold used to work in banks and, since concerned, sympathetic, honest and totally leaving, began investigating corruption in the trustworthy. They should be able to give a banking industry. However, his investigations balanced assessment, not being too biased for were hampered in various ways. Some of his or against anyone involved, and not being documents disappeared, people refused to talk distorted due to ardent views on certain issues. to him and he suspected that there was They should be concerned about problems constant surveillance of his movements. He such as corruption or racism or whatever. If then approached several independent people they don’t care about the problem, they are for their assessment. While sympathetic, they hardly in a position to tell whether it’s really said more evidence was needed, both of serious. They should be reasonably sympa- corruption and of surveillance. Harold remains thetic to you personally, enough to be willing convinced that both are occurring. to help you be as effective as possible. They • Examine your motives When you call should be honest, which means willing to tell attention to a problem, in principle it shouldn’t you what they really think even if they think matter what your motives are. After all, if you’re wrong. Finally, they should be totally there’s a danger to public health, the key thing trustworthy. You don’t want anyone repeating is to address it. So what if there’s a promotion your private concerns to all and sundry, involved for the person who exposes it? including those you suspect of causing the In practice, motives are important. If your problem. reason for acting is personal advancement or 20 The whistleblower’s handbook status, that may distort your view of what the Is it to ensure that key decision makers know most serious problems are. about a problem? You discover that the boss has been toler- Is it to publicise the situation so that lots of ating minor pilfering from the storehouse. If people know about it? the boss goes, you are next in line for her Is it to rectify a particular situation? position. How does that affect your percep- Is it to transform an entire organisation? tion of the seriousness of the issue? Is it to expose wrongdoers? More importantly, if your motives are Is it to subject wrongdoers to appropriate suspect, then you may not be as effective in penalties? acting against the problem. The reason is that Is it to obtain or regain an appropriate people will attribute your actions to your self- position for yourself? interest. Is it to obtain compensation for the injus- However, if no one ever acted except with tices you’ve suffered? the purest of motives, then not much would Is it to obtain personal satisfaction that ever be accomplished. Some situations are so you’ve done what you can? corrupt that everyone is tainted. In a corrupt police force, sometimes the best people to In many cases your goals are mixtures of expose the problems are police who have been things, for example fixing the problem, penal- involved themselves. Even if your motive is to ising the wrongdoers and obtaining compensa- escape corruption charges, your willingness to tion. Try to separate out the different speak out can be a valuable social service. components. Which ones are most important to you? Is it more important to prevent future A warning: if you are compromised by your problems or to bring wrongdoers to justice? participation in unsavoury practices, you may Try to be even more specific. If you want be in special danger of being victimised. Some to publicise the situation, would a notice to all compromised whistleblowers are attacked out employees be sufficient? What about an article of all proportion to what they’ve done, while in the local newspaper? If you want something the most corrupt individuals escape unscathed. personally, what exactly would suffice? A On the other hand, being spotless is no guaran- formal apology? A payment? How much? tee of safety. Some whistleblowers who are It can be difficult to clarify goals, but it’s totally innocent of any wrongdoing have been important. In many cases individuals spend framed for major crimes. months or years pursuing a case only to find that they are dissatisfied with the outcome. Clarify your personal goals That’s often because their underlying goals After checking that your assessment of the were different from what they thought — or problem is correct, it is time to decide your because they never thought carefully about goals. That may seem obvious enough. Fix the their goals and so didn’t have a hope of problem. Justice. Get everything working the achieving them. way it ought to. Being specific about goals is a crucial first Clarifying personal goals has to be more step. Another vital step is to try to be realistic. precise than this. It needs to include what If your goal is to transform the organisation, you’d like to achieve for yourself and towards that’s possibly a lifetime task. Even to expose fixing the problem, and what costs you’re wrongdoing can be a major operation. willing to bear. The costs of seeking change are often much Start by being as precise as possible about greater and longer lasting than imagined. What your goals. seems like it should take six months can take six years. There can be vast financial costs. But even more serious are the health and emotional Personal assessment: what should I do? 21 costs. Your health may suffer from the stress you will be ready when things get really of the process, and your closest relationships difficult. may be strained or broken. More details are given in chapter 9, including advice on reducing Build a strategy these consequences. A strategy is essentially a plan for getting To work out the likely impacts, think of the something done — a plan that takes into worst scenario that seems possible. Then account where you are to start with, what multiply the costs — time, money, health, resources you have and what obstacles you emotions — by ten. Yes, things could be face, and where you’re trying to go. If you’re mighty tough! going to be successful, developing a strategy By adopting wise strategies and precau- can make a big difference. A fire brigade tions, you can reduce the harmful conse- without a plan can only succeed by being quences. Who knows, you might be one of the lucky, and the same applies to others. lucky ones who comes out of the process Let’s look at things in terms of a movement better off than before. from the present to the future. We are in a Lots of people think their case is so good certain situation now; we take various actions that they can’t lose. That’s an illusion. It’s far and use various methods; we end up in some better to be prepared for the worst. That way other situation down the track.

actions present situation future situation methods

We don’t control everything about this tions between people and pure chance. In order process, of course. Other people get in the to do the best we can, we need to understand way with their own actions, and there are all and plan. This can be thought of this way: sorts of other factors, including opportunities, constraints (time, money, resources), interac-

analysis strategy goals

actions present situation future situation methods

In this diagram, the bottom level — from example, how an organisation operates, what present to future situation — involves what your own skills and resources are, and who actually happens. The top level — analysis, your likely supporters and opponents are. To strategy, goals — involves thinking about what carry out an analysis, you can study books on happens. organisational theory, ask knowledgeable Analysis is what we do to understand the people and build a mental model of your own present situation. It’s valuable to know, for about how society operates. 22 The whistleblower’s handbook

Analysis, if taken seriously, is an enormous about the scanner and its effectiveness, and to task. Many scholars spend their whole careers contact a local medical consumers group. (And undertaking an analysis of some small facet of so on.) social life. What you need is an analysis oriented to practical action. You don’t need to Elaine’s initial strategy was circulating a memo, know things for their intellectual value, but which seemed reasonable in the situation. rather so that you can figure out what’s likely When that didn’t work, she reassessed the to happen when you do something. situation — more analysis. In fact, the Goals are what you want to achieve. If response to her memo revealed a lot about the you’re going to get there, you need to know dynamics of the hospital. Sometimes action is what they are. As discussed earlier, clarifying the best way to find out how things really your goals is vital. There’s a danger in operate. Elaine is now trying a new strategy. spending too much time on analysis and not She may also reassess her goals in the light of enough on working out goals. her further experiences. Strategy is your plan for going from This example illustrates an important point: present to future. It can be considered to be an analyses, strategies and goals need to be regu- analysis of actions and methods. It builds on larly examined and updated. You might decide your analysis of the present situation and to continue as before, but you need to be open takes into account your goals for the future. It to change. includes planning for contingencies. Develop- One of the hardest things is to know when ing an effective strategy is vital. to stop. After spending two years in a court battle, should you settle? After battling the Elaine is a doctor at a hospital who is organisation for five years, should you resign concerned that there are far too many referrals and leave? These are difficult sorts of deci- for a procedure using an expensive scanner, sions. They need to be made. when actually a simple visual examination One way to think about this is to look at would do in most cases. She thinks this is the “opportunity cost” of your activities. If because of pressures to justify the expense of you weren’t battling the organisation, you the scanner. As part of her analysis of the might instead be spending your time working situation, she finds that some medical somewhere else, and perhaps helping to researchers at the hospital hold a patent on the achieve the same or different goals. There is a scanner and are pushing strongly for its use. “cost” in your present activities, namely not Also, many other doctors are generally in taking up other opportunities, or in other favour of high-technology medicine. Her words doing different things. specific goal is to have a formal reassessment To get an insight into this, think of the most of the value of the scanner. A more general goal general formulation of your goals. Are they to is to reduce the bias in favour of highly expen- achieve personal satisfaction, or help promote sive medical equipment. She decides to circu- accountability? Then think of other strategies late a memo asking for a comparison of the — other jobs, other campaigns, other places — scanner versus visual examination. to achieve these goals. Your task is the same: To her surprise, she is personally attacked to work out the best strategy for your own at the next staff meeting for questioning the life. scanner. She also starts receiving excessive scrutiny from one particular senior doctor, and is assigned to less pleasant and less stimulating rounds. After talking to a few others — only some of whom are sympathetic — she decides to lie low for a while, collect more information 5 Preparation

Before taking action, prepare. • Document the problem: letters, photos, recordings, statements … • Know the context (consult well-informed people, consult research findings). • Propose solutions. • Get advice and support: family, friends, co-workers, others.

Document the problem to confirm, at today’s meeting it was agreed Documenting the problem is the foundation of that I would head a task force …” success. Without documentation, you have to Photos Sometimes a picture is worth a depend on other people backing you — and all thousand words, for example in cases of envi- too often they won’t. With documentation, ronmental damage or physical assault. But you at least have a chance. pictures don’t usually explain their context. Theresa, an experienced worker, was a bit It’s vital to record the date, time, location, disturbed to hear from her boss at a staff photographer, and any other relevant informa- meeting that a contract had been given to the tion. If possible, have another person verify Smith Consultancy without an open bidding the information. process, but she set aside her doubts when the Recordings A recording is a powerful urgency and special requirements were challenge to people who claim they didn’t say explained. The next week it was reported in something. As in the case of photos, record the the press that the Smith Consultancy had been time, location and other details. charged with various crimes including bribery. Diaries If you are caught up in a difficult She confronted her boss about it, only to be situation, keeping a diary is an excellent idea. told that she must have misheard him — they You should record any events of significance, had only been considering giving the contract giving time, place, situation, people present to Smith’s. Her co-workers either refused to and your interpretation of what happened. A talk about it or said the boss must be right. diary is far more accurate than memories if you For evidence to have credibility, usually it ever need to check the sequence of events or must be in permanent form. determine who told you something first. You Letters, memos, reports These are bread and can write as much as you like, but a brief butter of most documentation. Ensure that you summary is quite sufficient: “Tuesday 14 have copies of anything that might be useful. September 1999: Just after arriving at work at Sometimes written records are self-explana- 8.30, Fred told me that three of us — him, tory, but often it is helpful to keep notes of Cath and me — would be carpeted because of any necessary information. For example, if a the leak about the budget blowout.” A diary is document doesn’t have a date, add a note also an excellent way to get some of the worry saying when you received it. out of your system. You can create your own records too. If Statements by witnesses Since witnesses you’ve just been to an important meeting, it can leave or change their minds about what can be useful to write a letter to the convenor they saw or heard, getting a statement can be a summarising what happened. “Helen — Just good idea. If you have just attended a crucial

23 Preparation 24 meeting where a shady practice was discussed you’ve been fired and locked out of your or where an unscrupulous attack was made on office. If you’re a community activist, your you or someone else, write your own state- documents could be taken in a burglary. So ment and try to get others to sign it, for keep copies in a location besides your usual example saying “This is an accurate account of one, plus perhaps with a trusted friend or legal what occurred.” adviser. Sunil had been calling for an open and accountable process for granting building Jean Lennane advises having at least four licences, as there had long been suspicion that copies in different locations, in case of a raid. there was bias in the process. As a result, his She says the key thing to protect is evidence. work had come under intense scrutiny by the If in doubt about the relevance of a document, department head. He was prepared when he keep it plus copies. was called to a meeting with the head to talk about his performance. In a previous job, he What risks should you take to obtain docu- had been caught unawares in a gruelling dress- ments? That’s a difficult question. It raises ing down by three managers. This time he took legal and ethical issues. In many situations it is along a co-worker as a witness — someone a violation of the law or formal policy to make known to be honest and no one’s pawn. He copies of documents, take them off the also took along a tape recorder and asked to premises or show them to outsiders. If you are record the meeting. The head said he hoped it caught violating procedures, you could be sued wouldn’t be necessary. The meeting was a or dismissed. This could happen even if lots of low-key affair. Afterwards, Sunil wrote a letter people violate the same procedures. Selective to the head summarising what had been said, attack is the essence of victimisation. and had his witness sign a copy. If the documents reveal a multimillion dollar # # # scam or a serious hazard to health, then you How much documentation is enough? Proba- may consider that you are justified in violating bly more than what you have! Often it’s better the law. This is especially the case if the main to lie low and collect more evidence rather than effect of the regulations is to prevent public risk a premature disclosure. The bigger and scrutiny and cover up corruption. On the other more serious the problem, the more evidence hand, there might be other ethical factors you need. In the case of deep-rooted corrup- involved. For example, the documents might tion, for example, you need enough material to include personal details about clients or counter highly determined efforts to deny the patients. There are, after all, some good problem. This includes: reasons for confidentiality of documents. To • destruction of documents; choose the most appropriate course of action, • systematic lying; you need to use your judgement and to get • manufacture of false documents; advice from people you can trust. • elaborate frame-ups. What about making recordings surrepti- Documents are the foundation of your case, tiously? It’s now possible to buy microcas- but no one likes ploughing through a giant pile sette recorders that enable you to record of paper. You also need to write a concise conversations and meetings unobtrusively. In summary to put everything into context. some jurisdictions, secret recordings are illegal, There’s more on this in chapter 7. such as some recordings of telephone conver- It is wise to keep a copies of crucial docu- sations. But more important than this is the ments in a secure place. If your only copies are effect on the way people will react to you if all in a file in your office, you might find them they find out you have recorded conversations missing one morning — or even find that without telling them. Basically, they won’t 25 The whistleblower’s handbook trust you as much, if at all. That’s a serious its taxes. This benefited the corporation overall consequence. but starved the government where the subsidi- For ordinary purposes, secret recording is ary was based. Alexi was concerned about the not a good idea, especially if you hope to manipulation even if it was technically legal. continue interacting with the same people. It He started investigating and found that this may be warranted in the case of serious system of transfer payments to avoid tax was corruption, such as undercover operations commonplace among multinationals and that against corrupt police or in the case of serious some governments and consumer groups were harassment. If you don’t intend remaining at a trying to do something about it. job, the impact on your relations with co- There are several good ways to learn about workers may not be so important. the context. • Talk to experienced and knowledgeable Know the context people — old-timers with long memories. It is extremely valuable to be able to put your Often they can provide insights unavailable own situation in context. That means compar- any other way. As well, they may be able to ing it to similar situations and comparing the tell you about other attempts to change things nature of the problems and the types of — and what happened to the would-be solutions proposed. reformers. Did they suffer reprisals, quit Maria was new to the job. She was dis- trying, or end up being rewarded? turbed when Jonah, a senior co-worker, made • Talk to campaigners — people who are sexual jokes, stood close to her and touched taking action about social problems. They her on the arm and shoulder and asked her out often have a really good grasp of why things for dinner. She wasn’t sure whether to avoid happen the way they do. If you are concerned him or file a complaint. She talked to other that unemployment figures are being fiddled to women who worked with Jonah and also read make politicians look good, talk to activists some books on sexual harassment. She decided who deal with jobs, poverty or social justice. that she’d have to be firm with Jonah — she • Find out if anyone has done research into told him to cut the jokes and give her some the area. This could be academics or investiga- more space and that she wanted to keep their tive journalists. If you’re concerned about the relationship professional. They got on fine oil industry, ask at the local university or after that. Maria also warned other new media outlet for the person who knows the workers what to expect. most about it. When you find someone who In other cases, the problem turns out to be knows something about the topic, ask them more serious. Then it’s time to start docu- who are the most knowledgeable people in the menting everything. region or country. People doing research in a In the case of large-scale problems, you topic usually know who are the top people in need to find out how pervasive they are, the field. This is the quickest way to tap into whether others are aware of them and whether relevant expertise — or to find out that there anyone is trying to do anything about them. It isn’t any. is sensible to join others, or to get their • Undertake your own investigation. You support if you decide to take action. can find out what has been written already by Alexi worked in the subsidiary of a multina- going through library catalogues and indexes tional corporation. He noticed that the subsidi- and the internet. Librarians can help you get ary was buying inputs from the parent at started. If you don’t know much about doing inflated prices and selling back output at investigations, you may be able to find an unrealistic discounts. The result was the academic, a good student or an independent subsidiary made no money, thereby reducing researcher who is willing to help you. Preparation 26

If your goal is doing something about the •5• Steps are taken that genuinely reduce problem, then learning about the context is not the problem. a goal in itself, but just a way to improve your Most challengers never get past responses 1 chance of success. You are looking for insights and 2. But if enough pressure can be mounted, that are practical: they should give you a better then there is a chance of real change. The idea of what to do and what not to do. Be biggest risk is getting stuck with responses 3 wary of academics who just provide intellec- or 4. Your aim is to push past these to tual insights, which are all very well for schol- response 5. arly journals and conferences but not much use One way to help achieve response 5 is to otherwise. Be wary of journalists or activists propose solutions as well as highlight who want to use you for their own purposes problems. The solution needs to be challenging — a story or a campaign — without concern yet achievable. It should be realistic and sound about your own goals. sensible. It should be difficult to fake. As an experienced accountant with a Lesley Pinson comments successful career in several industries, Enrico It is extremely important that a person who discovered a massive insurance fraud. He fed has blown the whistle — or who is contem- information to a small but effective consumer plating blowing it — learns as much as they group with links to a few trusted politicians. can. Understanding as much as possible helps As a result of publicity, the government set up to minimise the confusion whistleblowers feel a commission of inquiry into the industry. The and maximises the individual’s ability to make commission was better than most. Several top the best decision about tactics. “Information is corporate figures lost their jobs (and later were power.” quietly employed elsewhere). The commission made some bland recommendations, but no Propose solutions laws were passed — the industry had some Documenting and exposing the problem is powerful political friends. vital, but what then? If the problem is Enrico was far more effective than others revealed, does that mean that powerholders before him, half a dozen of whom had given up will “do the right thing” and fix it up? Hardly. or lost their jobs after speaking out. But Enrico There are several standard responses. and his allies needed to tie their exposure of •1• Complaints and complainants are the fraud with specific suggestions for how to ignored. A powerful establishment can tolerate fix it — such as legal provision for oversight a bit of dissent, as long as no one takes much with consumer-group input and public interest notice. disclosure clauses in employment contracts. •2• Complainants are attacked. If the It seems to be asking a lot of someone to complaints become too loud or are taken not only expose a problem but also come up seriously by too many people, an attack on with a solution. Surely it’s enough just to the complainants is mounted. reveal the problem! Although it is extremely •3• Reassuring statements are made. If the challenging to come up with an appropriate pressure is too great to ignore or suppress, solution, this is a good discipline. Thinking then the problem may be acknowledged and through the sorts of solutions that would be said to be being dealt with. Often this is just satisfactory and saleable can be helpful in public relations. deciding the best way to document and expose •4• A few superficial changes are made. To the problem. Best of all, there may be a way to ease the pressure, some new policies might be package together a problem and a solution. announced or a few individuals sacrificed — but the situation is really unchanged. 27 The whistleblower’s handbook

Get advice and support become obsessed with details and lose sight of Before embarking, it is absolutely vital to the overall picture. Ask for advice on how to obtain advice and support. This applies present your ideas. But don’t overstep the whether you are approaching someone who mark by letting your concerns dominate the you think copied your work inappropriately relationship. or whether you are tackling organised crime. Friends who are sympathetic can be very helpful. They may have contacts, skills and Family sage advice. Talk to everyone you live with and/or are close Try to sense when you are straining the to, including partner, parents, children and relationship. If your best friend asks for more siblings. Explain what you know and what details, proceed. If she repeatedly tries to you’re planning to do — and what might change the subject, that’s a different signal. happen. If they are willing to back you, then you are in a much stronger position. If they are Co-workers strongly opposed to your plans, you need to Co-workers may be your friends too, but their think again. In this situation, there is no right commitment is not likely to be as high. Don’t or wrong decision. You need to weigh up the be surprised if many of them turn away when likely consequences in light of your own the heat is on. values. Nevertheless, maintaining good relation- Remember also that in some cases family ships with at least some co-workers is members may come under attack because of extremely valuable. They can give you feed- your stand. If you are publicly attacked, back about how others see your actions, and perhaps even framed, then your children might what impact your initiatives are having. You be scorned at school or your sister could be don’t need to ask them to support you. Some threatened with losing her job. Even short of may volunteer to do that. But just maintaining these consequences, your family will be open channels of communication is important. greatly affected by what happens to you: The more sensitive the issue, and the less enormous stress, loss of career opportunities, public your role, the more caution is needed in perhaps unemployment. confiding with co-workers. Some of them may On the other hand, standing up for what go straight to the boss with everything you you believe can be enormously empowering. say — not to mention a few exaggerations for Self-respect and mutual respect can make up good measure! for a lot of other losses. Trade unions and professional associations Friends If your union or association is behind you, you Talk to those you trust the most. But be aware have a powerful ally indeed. But don’t count that many “friends” may turn away if you on support. Many union officials are unwilling change. They wish you wouldn’t talk so much to tackle management on anything except about the problems of embezzlement, drug narrow industrial issues. They may not act cover-ups or paedophilia. They’d prefer unless there is overwhelming support from the watching sport or talking about the kids — membership — and sometimes not even then! “lighten up,” they might say. If you take a Some union officials are tools of management, strong stand on an issue, you may lose some or just hope to obtain a promotion by not friends but gain others. rocking the boat. When you become really involved in the Get to know your union officials and study issues, friends and family can be helpful in their track records. If it’s a principled union or giving an outsider’s viewpoint. It’s easy to you know the right people, you may be able to Preparation 28 get support — and that is a tremendous Lesley Pinson comments advantage. But be prepared for little or no It is useful to seek legal advice as early as support. Even worse, the union may actively possible. Although this might involve a oppose you. financial outlay, it could save greater costs if you later end up with legal problems that Isla MacGregor comments could have been avoided. Some union officials don’t want to support You are also well advised to keep your whistleblowers because in doing so they might doctor informed about what you are proposing attract attention to their own organisation’s to do. S/he might be able to advise useful stress lack of accountability or democratic process. management techniques and will be better able Some senior management people, particularly to attest to your sanity and stress-related in the public sector, deliberately join unions to symptoms, should this ever be necessary. frustrate attempts by co-workers to enlist Historically, whistleblowers have tended to support of unions in discrimination and leave seeking legal or medical advice until far victimisation disputes or public interest too late, typically only when they have disclosures. serious legal or medical problems. They then have unrealistic expectations that their lawyers Lesley Pinson comments and doctors will be able to fix their problems. Remember that if you are complaining about It is also useful and empowering to know you the activities of co-workers, they will also be have the support of a sympathetic lawyer and union members, so your union will have a doctor, should you need it. conflict as to whom it will provide support. You’ve made a careful assessment of the Others problem (chapter 4). You’ve collected more There are lots of others you can contact to documents than you know what to do with, obtain advice and support. This includes social studied the situation at length, formulated a activists, journalists, politicians, lawyers and solution and obtained advice from various many others. This is discussed further in sources (this chapter). What next? There are chapter 7. two basic approaches. You can proceed through official channels (chapter 6) or build support (chapter 7) or both. 6 Official channels

• Whistleblowers seldom get any satisfaction from official channels such as internal grievance procedures, government agencies or the courts. • Official channels seldom deliver justice because they narrow the issues and don’t have enough resources or will power to take on powerful offenders. • To make a decision about which official channels to use, list possible options, investigate promising ones and weigh up their likely benefits and costs. • Improve your chances of winning by learning about the process, polishing your submissions and choosing your advocates carefully.

There are all sorts of ways you can try to get a names: grievance, conciliation, mediation and response, or obtain justice, through established appeals procedures, sometimes involving trade procedures. Some of the possible channels are: union representatives. A professional associa- tion may have procedures to deal with • bosses, senior managers, chief executive breaches of professional ethics. officers Then there are various government bodies. • boards of management or trustees Depending on the issue, one can contact the • internal grievance procedures police, the department of consumer affairs, • shareholders’ meetings finance department, education department, and • professional association procedures many others. Sometimes there is an ombuds- • ombudsmen man’s office or anticorruption body that deals • regulatory agencies with problems from many areas. • antidiscrimination bodies If there are layers of government, this • anticorruption bodies expands the number of official channels. There • auditors-general or inspectors general might be local government, state or provincial • government departments government and national government, with • politicians opportunites to make complaints or formal • parliamentary hearings submissions. As well as going to government • commissions of inquiry bodies, it’s possible to go directly to individual • courts. politicians — at any level of government — Within each of these categories, there may be though this often gets referred to government many variations. When operating as an departments. Politicians can set up further employee within an organisation, a typical channels, such as grand juries and royal first step is a verbal or written report to one’s commissions. boss or someone higher up. Then, if the Finally, there are the courts, which can response is unsatisfactory, a complaint might come in various types, such as small claims be made to higher people in the organisation. courts, family courts and industrial courts. Sometimes there is a board of management Courts are also at various levels, culminating in with representatives from outside the organisa- a country’s highest court and going beyond, tion. There often are formal internal mecha- for example to the International Court of nisms to deal with problems, with various Justice. Some of the other official channels

29 30 The whistleblower’s handbook have international analogues, notably through many people. There is a deep need to believe the United Nations. that the world is just. This is most obvious in Hollywood movies where the good guys The failure of official channels always win, even against impossible odds. On the face of it, there are ample opportunities Movie-makers portray good triumphing over to obtain justice. For those unfamiliar with the evil largely because that’s what audiences want system, it seems reasonable to presume that to see. Realistic stories, in which corrupt the official channels usually do their job. If people rise to power and are never brought to there is corruption or other injustice that can’t justice, while the lives of honest citizens are be dealt with at a local level, then anyone with blighted, are not welcome. Even rarer are realis- good enough documentation should be able to tic plots that show how to be an effective find officials at a higher level to fix it up. After agent of change. all, surely, that’s what all these bodies and In twenty years of studying cases of procedures were set up to do. suppression of dissent, and hearing hundreds Unfortunately, the usual experience is just of accounts of struggles through the system, the opposite. If the problem can’t be fixed up there is not a single example I can remember in locally, the official channels very seldom which official channels provided a prompt and provide a solution. Even worse, they can chew straightforward solution to a serious problem. up unbelievable amounts of money and time The only cases in which there has been some and provide an excuse for not dealing with the degree of success through formal channels are problem. those where there was also a process of build- The aim of this handbook is to suggest ing support, often involving publicity. On the ways to help people develop more effective other hand, I have heard untold numbers of strategies to achieve their goals. It is not to tell harrowing stories of reprisal, victimisation and anyone what to do. It may be that using offi- scapegoating — and the failure of official cial channels is the best option in your case. channels. Indeed, the failures of the official But before deciding, it’s worth looking at some channels often create a sense of grievance of the evidence and arguments. worse than the original problem and reprisals. Lots of whistleblowers start out by believ- Although people’s stories vary enormously in ing that the system works. That’s why they terms of the issue and organisation, the reported problems through official channels in response of official bodies is almost always the first place: they expected that officials the same. Indeed, often I can predict the next would investigate and address the problem. development in the story with considerable When, instead, they are attacked, whistleblow- accuracy. ers often try other official channels. They still Some people use official channels with the believe that the system will work — eventu- expectation that they will provide justice. ally. They believe that somewhere there is Later, they may say “I guess I was naive.” someone with power who will recognise the Some persist even in the face of repeated problem and implement a just solution. When failures, or even after hearing about the evi- one official channel fails, they try another. The dence of other people’s lack of satisfaction. process can take many years. Is it worth it? They often think that their case is different. Later on in this chapter, I tell about how to After all, they know they are right. But that’s proceed through official channels if that’s what not the issue. Lots of people have truth on you decide to do. But first I’ll explain why their side, with fully documented cases, and these channels fail so often. still lose. I’m emphasising this point because it is It is the amazing similarities of so many contrary to the instinctive response of so people’s experiences that helped me reach my Official channels 31 views about the failures of official channels. persists in raising the matter. Whatever the Then I talked to others who have a lot of reason, the situation goes beyond routine experience in this area and found that they had processes. It is at that point that an employee reached identical conclusions. may decide to use a grievance procedure or One of them is Jean Lennane, a key figure in make a report to a regulatory body. It is also at Whistleblowers Australia. A whistleblower that point that the conclusion “the official herself, she has talked to hundreds of whistle- channels seldom work” kicks in. blowers and also carried out a small survey of the responses they received from various Lesley Pinson comments official channels. Her conclusion is brutal. It is This may seem extremely negative to the that you can’t rely on any of the official prospective whistleblower but most whistle- channels. Indeed, the only thing you can rely blowers would say that had they known this on is that the official channels won’t work. at the outset, it might not have changed what These conclusions are based on a wealth of they did but it would have changed their personal experience, but that could be a limita- expectations and lessened the psychological tion. Maybe personal biases are involved. For impact of their experience of systems failure. those who prefer a more quantitative It is extremely important to be aware of the approach, Bill De Maria’s research is a useful severe limitations of official channels before tonic. He developed a careful definition of you try to use them. whistleblowing and carried out a large survey of whistleblowers, asking many questions. Why official channels don’t work Among them were questions about the effec- It helps to understand why whistleblowers so tiveness of various official bodies. The result: seldom find any satisfaction through official whistleblowers obtained some degree of help channels. If the explanation has to do with the in less than one out of ten approaches to an features of particular agencies, then hope official body. Even worse, in quite a few cases remains that other agencies might be different. whistleblowers felt that they were worse off But if the explanation is about all sorts of after approaching certain official bodies than official channels, that’s a different story. before. In these cases, the official channels Official channels always involve a narrow- were not just useless — they were harmful. ing of the issues. A case might involve harass- (For references, see the appendix.) ment by a range of methods, for example snide These results apply to whistleblowers — and hostile comments, excessive monitoring of people who have spoken out in the public one’s work and unrealistic expectations, interest. Bill De Maria’s results are for followed by a disciplinary period on special employees who made disclosures to a person conditions (set up to make the employee fail) in authority. What about the worker just doing and dismissal. When this case is taken to a their job who reports a safety problem or grievance committee or a court, every part of raises concerns about bias in an appointment? the complaint or case has to be documented. In many such cases, the report or concern is Snide comments are hard to prove, and by listened to and addressed, with no reprisals. themselves are not likely to be considered This is business as usual, with no giant stakes serious. Proving that one’s work has been or battles. excessively monitored is difficult, since it often Sometimes, a person making a routine depends on an intimate knowledge of the job. report or comment inadvertently aggravates The special conditions imposed may seem the wrong person or puts a finger on deep reasonable enough to an outsider who doesn’t corruption. Or maybe the person making the understand the realities of work. Co-workers report is not satisfied with the response and who know what’s involved may be afraid to 32 The whistleblower’s handbook testify. Finally, the dismissal may be com- only to encounter new patterns of harassment pletely unfair, but nevertheless proper and and victimisation. legal according to the letter of the employment The next question is, why are formal chan- contract. nels so narrow and unsupportive of complain- ants? One reason is that many of these Lesley Pinson comments channels are set up by the organisations It has also been difficult, in the experience of against whom complaints are being made. most whistleblowers, to prove that harass- Consider a grievance procedure set up by ment, victimisation, dismissal, etc., have the police, an education system, or a corpora- occurred as a direct result of the fact that they tion. Almost always, those who run the have exposed wrongdoing. Employers use all procedure are senior officials. Often the sorts of tactics and legal machinations to complaint pits a junior person against a more directly attack the whistleblower and the whis- senior person, or involves a challenge by a tleblower’s sanity, competence, work record, junior person against a policy approved by etc., to divert attention from the issue exposed. management. Who will the officials side with? In just The personal experience of the victim is about any organisation, officials back the that there has been an injustice. Often the person with more authority. Exceptions are person targeted for such treatment is conscien- extremely rare. If the complaint comes from tious and especially committed to the official someone outside the organisation — a goal of the organisation. Yet the outcome of a customer or client — the organisation is hearing may turn on whether a person arrived always backed against the outsider (except slightly late to work, whether someone really when the complaint is orchestrated by officials raised their voice, whether the employment act to target someone inside). permitted communicating directly to higher A manager may be a ruthless bully, may be management, or any number of equally trivial incompetent, may be corrupt, or may intro- matters. By dealing with specific actions and duce dubious and dangerous policies. Never- by arguing over the meaning of regulations and theless, higher management almost always laws, the victim’s experience is transformed supports this manager against challenges from into an administrative and technical issue. This below or outside. can actually compound the feeling of injustice. Sometimes this is because of personal links. Even when there is a victory, the process may The manager may have friends in high places, not be satisfying because it has not addressed maybe even an entire network of mutual back- the person’s whole experience. To spend scratchers. weeks or months preparing a case and sit A deeper reason is that the system of through days of hearings on technical points hierarchy depends on maintaining lines of can be quite disempowering. A victory may be authority. If junior workers are able to win in a sweet partly because it’s such a contrast to the challenge to a manager, then what’s to stop bitter process. them challenging bosses higher up the ladder? Victories, though, are not common. A large Maintaining the hierarchy is crucial to manage- proportion of complainants suffer the bitter rial prerogative. All the rhetoric about effi- process and end up losing — and are worse off ciency and fair play goes out the window than before they started. Others win compre- when it comes to protecting the formal system hensively in one jurisdiction only to find that through which power is exercised. the other side appeals, requiring months or Imagine, then, a grievance committee that years more effort with no guarantee of ultimate decided to be independent. If it ruled against success. Yet others win and return to work senior figures, those figures would become Official channels 33 enemies of the committee members. The trying to promote compliance to regulations, a committee members would come under softly-softly approach is taken, which to scrutiny by top management. They might be outsiders may seem like a do-nothing replaced or come under attack themselves. And approach. Soon the appeal body is fatally what about a grievance committee that ruled compromised. against the chief executive officer? Who has Other bodies retain some degree of ever heard of such an amazing event? Usually commitment to their formal goals, but are grievance committees are established to drastically under-resourced. Complaints and formally report to top management. In the end, requests pour in, but there simply aren’t they are not independent sources of power, enough workers to deal with a fraction of but are subordinate to the top officials in the them. A single worker may have to deal with organisation. Usually they never think of 50 or more cases at a time. Complainants who stepping out of line. But if they do, there are expect a full-scale investigation into their case powerful sanctions against an escalation of the are usually disappointed. process. Finally, in those rare cases where an It is possible to achieve small victories independent body takes a really crusading through internal grievance procedures, for stand, it becomes vulnerable to attack. To deal example in the case of blatant violations that with abuses of power in a major sector of threaten to be a public relations disaster if they society usually means exposing a pervasive are not dealt with internally. It’s difficult failure to act by governments and corpora- enough to achieve small victories. But when tions. An independent body that threatens the problem goes right to the top of the organi- powerful groups will be smeared, have sation or involves people with strong personnel changed, have its mandate changed connections, then it becomes extremely and have its funding removed. In fact, it will be difficult to win. dealt with in exactly the way that whistle- Since internal appeal mechanisms are so blowers are commonly treated. compromised, the obvious solution is Some scholars who analyse these things independent appeal bodies. That’s the believe that appeal bodies and laws are estab- rationale for ombudsmen, anticorruption lished mainly for symbolic purposes. An bodies, auditors-general, antidiscrimination anticorruption agency or whistleblower legisla- bodies and the courts. The principle of tion gives the public the impression that the independence is vital, but the reality often is government takes corruption seriously. not so inspiring. There are several reasons Actually, these mechanisms may be set up to why. fail, and may fail miserably. Whistleblowers Sometimes appeal bodies that are nominally may be worse off, since they have the illusion independent become pawns of the organisa- that help is available, and this may delay or tions they are supposed to police. They might deter them from taking other, more effective be staffed with personnel who have the same actions. values as those organisations. Often they might be former employees. For example, top Case study management in a government consumer affairs Writing to authorities: is it worthwhile? bureau might be more sympathetic to corpora- People write many thousands of letters to tions than to consumers. politicians and government departments about In other cases, organisational self-interest is corruption, dangers to the public or whatever the key to the weakness of appeal bodies. To the correspondent is concerned about. Indeed, maintain funding, the body can’t afford to some individuals have written hundreds of offend too many powerful individuals. In letters on their own. Is this a worthwhile 34 The whistleblower’s handbook method of getting results? difficult to wriggle out of. She also says that Speaking to a politician face-to-face or by there is lots of shuffling of letters between phone often can produce better results than a departments to find the right place. Therefore, letter, though even in these cases a follow-up you should find out beforehand exactly who letter is useful. But it can be quite difficult to you should write to. Also, send copies to actually get to speak to a politician. As well, a other departments to make sure you are not letter has the advantage of providing a perma- fobbed off. Chris also recommends sending nent record. copies to opposition ministers. (Since provid- If you write a letter to the Prime Minister ing these comments to me, Chris has left the or some other minister, it is normally referred public service for a different career. She was to the relevant department. It is passed down not the right sort of person to thrive as a the bureaucratic hierarchy to some public public servant!) servant who is assigned the responsibility of Thomas has years of experience in a major drafting a reply. The draft is then passed back government department. He says that an up the hierarchy, sometimes being modified on individual person’s complaint is normally the way. It is quite unusual for a minister to ignored or dismissed. The department can stall actually read a reply, even when his or her by interpreting regulations differently, not name appears at the bottom of the letter, responding, delaying through referral to which is not very often for “important” politi- committees, and a host of other methods. cians. What you receive is a response from Public servants are trained in how to respond some public servant. to protect current policy, in other words how I talked to three public servants who gave to lie. me candid comments on how the system In Thomas’s view, writing letters will only operates. I’ll start with the most optimistic have an impact if the writer represents a account. powerful force, such as a large number of Chris is a relatively new public servant who people or prestigious figures such as judges, in drafts replies to letters written to a leading which case writing may not be required minister. She is told by others to be as bland as anyway. The other time writing can have an possible. However, she prefers to be more impact is when potentially damaging disclo- conscientious. As well as finding out the other sures might be made unless action is taken. side of the story to that of the letter-writer, Such disclosures could be made to the media. she sometimes will follow up the issue by According to Thomas, media coverage is ringing other departments to ensure that some detested by bureaucrats and is the best way to action is taken. For example, if the matter falls get action. It is a waste of time for a whistle- within the jurisdiction of a state government, blower just to write a letter, since the power of she will write a note or ring relevant people to the whistleblower comes from publicity. make sure they respond, instead of just writing Chris notes that when it comes to back to the letter-writer to say that the matter potentially damaging disclosures, contacting is one for the state government. She says that a opposition politicians is sometimes effective. small percentage of public servants go out of They want to embarrass the government, at their way to help letter-writers, but most give least on some issues, especially through asking perfunctory responses. questions in parliament. Chris recommends that letter-writers ask Alan has an even more cynical view of one or two specific questions. For example, writing letters. He believes that many letters “Is the minister aware of X? What are you from whistleblowers, even though sent to going to do about it? I’m looking forward to different departments, are referred to the same your answer.” Such direct questions are more department where they are answered by the Official channels 35 same person! This is quite possible since there • List possible options. are very detailed systems of numbering and • Investigate promising options. tracking of letters. Thus, a whistleblower may • Weigh up the benefits and costs of the have the illusion of contacting different most promising options. authorities when actually being thwarted in the same way over and over. Alan would go even The first step is to list possible options. There further to suggest that writing to the govern- are several standard types. ment is a way for a small group of public • Grievance or appeal procedures internal to servants to keep tabs on whistleblowers. an organisation. There are a few public servants and politi- • Processes run by a trade union or profes- cians who will do what they can for you. sional association, such as a medical However, the general message from Chris, complaints panel. Thomas and Alan, plus others I’ve talked to, is • Government agencies, such as ombuds- that writing letters to government is largely a men, police, antidiscrimination boards and waste of time. regulatory bodies. • Courts, including specialist courts such as Making a decision industrial courts. It’s hard to give specific advice here about • Bodies with specific short-term briefs whether certain agencies or laws are likely to such as parliamentary committees and royal be helpful, whether it is the Merit Protection commissions. Review Agency, the False Claims Act or the Just listing all the possibilities can be quite Anti-Corruption Commission. There are too a task and may require some asking around. If many variables to say much reliably. you can find someone who has tried several • Each country has its own set of official options, that’s very helpful. Sometimes ringing channels. Some countries have ombudsmen, a staff person in one of the agencies can some don’t. Some have regulatory bodies for provide information about other options. If particular industries or professions, some you’re worried about revealing your involve- don’t. At the end of this book, the “Contacts” ment in an area, have a friend ring up to ask section gives a few general comments about what someone should do who wants to have a appeal bodies in several countries. problem investigated. • Different states, regions and organisations It may seem like a lot of fuss and bother to have specific official channels. list all these possibilities when you already • Things change. New laws are introduced. know about one or two agencies that seem Effective agencies become muzzled, gutted or quite appropriate. But sometimes it’s worth just lose steam. Ineffective agencies are given a the trouble. Certain agencies may be very well new lease on life. Good advice on where to go known, but that doesn’t mean they are effec- one year may be outdated the next. tive. Quite possibly they are overloaded • The choice of what channel to try depends because so many people contact them. sensitively on the case: what the issues are, Sometimes there is a conscientious agency that how good the evidence is, how much you and only receives a few complaints each year. This others are willing to support it, and other might turn out to be your best bet. factors. The next step is to investigate promising Because of these variables, you need to find options. You can probably eliminate some out for yourself about the most appropriate options quickly because they don’t apply to channel or channels for your purposes. your situation. If you are confronted by Luckily, the general rules for doing this are financial misdealings by top management, then straightforward. internal organisational procedures won’t be of much use, nor will antidiscrimination boards 36 The whistleblower’s handbook

— unless of course the misdealings have some association. ethnic or other element covered by antidis- One warning: make sure that the group is a crimination legislation. However, it’s best not genuine one. There are some groups with the to eliminate options too quickly. Sometimes right-sounding name that are actually industry there are original ways to proceed. front groups or which defend professionals After eliminating some options, you need to from clients. For example, many polluting begin the real task of investigation. What do industries fund bogus “citizen” groups to you need to find out? Here are some key campaign on their behalf. How can you tell the things. difference? Personal contacts are a good way. • What sort of documentation is required? Is Also, you can ask the groups for references to it enough to mention a few incidents and let individuals. the agency investigate from there? Do you If there is no obvious group or individual to need to supply copies of documents, signed give you first-hand advice, then your task is statements, names and dates, etc.? more difficult. Sometimes there are official • How much documentation is needed? Is a statistics about the outcomes of cases. one-page letter enough, or will eventually However, these can be misleading. A large hundreds of pages of submissions be required? proportion of cases, whether in internal • How much work will be involved? Will organisation procedures or in the courts, are the work required take hours, days, weeks, settled before they go through all the formal months or years? stages. You might be able to find records of • How long will it take? Will the process be court decisions, but that won’t give you over quickly (a few weeks), or will it drag on information about cases that were settled out for months or years? of court. • What are the chances of success? Of Try to find a knowledgeable insider who people with cases like yours, what proportion will give you the low-down on what actually win or get satisfaction? One out of two? One happens. In most organisations there is at least out of ten? one individual who knows a lot about the One approach is to look at the formal organisation’s problems and how they have requirements. Agencies often produce guide- been dealt with. If you can track this person lines telling how to make a submission. In down and tap into their reservoir of knowl- some cases this is useful, but it seldom gives edge, the insights you gain will be invaluable, much insight into what’s involved. since often they are about people who tried to By far the best way to get answers is to change the system and what happened to talk to people who have been through the same them. processes. They can tell you all about it and There are such people everywhere, but in give you a realistic picture. most cases you have to be an insider yourself The hard part is tracking down these to gain access to them. For example, in any people. Commonly, the names of prior agency there will be people who can give an complainants are confidential. If there is an honest appraisal of what has worked and what action group, support group or whistleblowers hasn’t. This information will greatly help you group in your area, that is your best bet. For in deciding how best to proceed and how to example, if your complaint is about the avoid pitfalls into which those before you have medical system, try to find a medical consum- stumbled. The best way to track these people ers group. If your complaint is about an down is through friendship networks. environmental issue, contact an environmental Doing a thorough investigation of options organisation. If you are confronted by financial can be very time-consuming and frustrating. If corruption, there may be a shareholders you can recruit some friends or supporters — Official channels 37 especially those with good connections — it • Agency workers. They may tell you the can be much easier. The bigger the issue, the official line, which is invariably optimistic and more careful your investigation should be. sometimes damaging. Sometimes you may get Think of it this way: quite helpful advice. The challenge is to know • If you find out that certain channels are which is which. not worth trying, that may save you thou- • Lawyers. They are unlikely to give you an sands of dollars and months of work. honest account of the downside of legal action, • If you learn a few tips about how to make including great expense and long time delays. A your case more effective, that may make the few are corrupt. difference between success and failure. Who should you trust? You should be wary Chapter 5 emphasised the importance of of those who have some stake in a particular collecting plenty of documentation: more process or outcome, such as officials and documentation than most people ever imagined lawyers. You can have more trust in those who was necessary. The same applies to investi- have nothing to gain by your choice, such as gating options: you should investigate more librarians or researchers. You can have most than you ever imagined was necessary. trust in those who have confronted the same If you are involved in sports, you know sort of problems that you have and who have that preparation is the key to success. This made sacrifices in their pursuit of justice. includes training, mental and physical. It Remember that there can always be excep- includes studying the rules. It includes finding tions. Some lawyers and agency officials are out about opponents. pushing for change and can be your best allies. Making a formal submission is like playing Some researchers are far from independent, a game. You need to have prepared exception- being financially or ideologically in the back ally well, to know your opponent and to know pocket of your opponents. the best way to play. The other side probably Finally, if your information is limited, here has lots more money and resources to use are some rules of thumb, based on the experi- against you. To have a chance of winning, you ence of whistleblowers. need every advantage possible. Being clever • Estimate how much money and effort the helps! process should take if it was handled sensibly Another source of information is books, by all parties. Then multiply by 10 or 100 to journals and the internet. Contact your librar- get an estimate of the actual amounts. If you ian or a friendly researcher to help you find estimate a week’s work (40 hours), then the out about options. Perhaps someone has actual figure could easily be several months or written an article or a thesis about the agency even years. or about the fate of certain types of com- • Estimate how long the process should take plaints. Newspaper articles can be helpful too. if it was run efficiently. Then multiply by 10 You can use computer databases to track down to get an estimate how long it will take. If it articles, court reports and much else. If you should be over in six months, then the actual can find a useful study or commentary about time could be five years. the path you’re planning, that’s useful in • Estimate the chance of success if every- itself. If you have more questions, perhaps thing was fair. Then divide by 10 to get an you can contact the author. estimate of your actual chance of success. If There are some other sources of information you think your chance should be 50% (1 out about which you need to be wary: of 2), then your actual chance is probably • Senior people in the organisation. You are closer to 5% (1 out of 20). unlikely to obtain a realistic picture from them. This may seem terribly pessimistic. Although the numerical procedures are arbi- 38 The whistleblower’s handbook trary, the general approach is right. Most Then there are benefits to you personally. people challenging the system greatly underes- Compensation might be a monetary pay-out or timate how much money, effort and time will retirement package. An improved work situa- be required and greatly overestimate their tion might be a return to the status quo before chances of success. These rules of thumb are you spoke out, a reduction in attacks, or a designed to bring some realism into the change in location or boss. If you lost your process. job, a return to work can be a major benefit. Now it’s time to weigh up the benefits and Finally, there are benefits that are primarily costs of the most promising options. This is a psychological. Pursuing a case can give self- process that involves what you’ve found out respect, regardless of what happens along the about the options, plus your own values and way, because it means that you have taken a goals. stand against injustice and persevered against One useful technique is to write down two great odds. If the case is successful, this can lists: benefits and costs. This helps to clarify vindicate your stand. Even if you lose, you what’s involved. The decision may not be any may feel better than doing nothing and later easier, but you are less likely to miss some feeling guilty when the problem continues and important point. Here are two general lists that claims further victims. cover many typical benefits and costs. Lesley Pinson comments Benefits I felt overwhelmingly that if I didn’t do as Expose problem much as I could and there was a serious acci- Prevent continuation of problem dent, I would forever feel dreadful that I hadn’t Set an example/precedent Compensation done anything. Also, I feared that if I didn’t Improved work situation report corruption and it was subsequently Self-respect exposed, then I would look foolish or be found Vindication professionally negligent if I was ever asked Costs “But you knew about this, why didn’t you Diversion from problem report it?” Time Expense What about motivations that we usually Trauma Worse work situation don’t admit — such as revenge? Well, that’s Discrediting up to you. This book is about being an effec- Diversion from other options tive resister, not getting even. Now for the costs of using official channels. The first three benefits are mostly for the Although in the best scenario, dealing with organisation or society rather than you your case through official channels may bring personally. By taking an issue to an official attention to the problem, in the worst scenario channel, you may help expose the problem. it may do the opposite: divert attention from This is especially the case if you link your the problem by dealing with all sorts of minor appeal with a publicity campaign, as described irrelevant issues. in the next chapter. Also, your action may Major costs are time and expense, as help prevent the problem continuing, by discussed earlier. Months of work and large alerting authorities or by putting the organisa- costs are common. Perhaps you will put your tion on notice. Your case may even set an life savings at risk. Another major cost is example that others can follow or set a prece- trauma. This includes reopening discussion of dent for employees or citizens to take similar topics that upset you before as well as the action. mounting of new attacks. If you still have your Official channels 39 job, the case may make your situation worse towards what is likely. To refine this a bit, it by opening you to harassment and the like. can be useful to eliminate items that aren’t so It’s important to remember that you may important to you, leaving just the ones that are end up with official decisions made against crucial. For example, let’s say that the financial you. This could serve to discredit you and the side is vital, because you have a family to causes you support. Finally, pursuing official support. You have plenty of time — since you channels may divert you from other options. lost your job! On the psychological side, self- All the time and money you spend on the case respect is very important, but you are worried might have been devoted to some other course about reopening the wounds. The list of essen- of action. This is the “opportunity cost” of tials boils down to this. this path. So — you’ve written down the benefits and Definite benefit costs. How do you make a decision? This isn’t Self-respect easy. One of the most difficult parts is that Possible benefit you don’t know what will happen. This isn’t Compensation like buying a house where you know, pretty Definite cost much, what you will get. It’s more like taking a Expense huge gamble. Probable cost To start, it can help to separate out the Trauma certain consequences from the ones that depend on the outcome. You can list things Even with this shorter list, the comparisons that you think are sure to happen as definite, can be difficult. Let’s say you expect the those that are more likely than not as probable expense to be £20,000, including legal costs and those that are less likely than this as and income forgone, and the likely compensa- possible. The lists might look like this. tion if you win to be £100,000. Then, this is a fair wager if your chance of success is one in Definite benefit five. Are you a gambler? Would you bet Self-respect £20,000 on a horse at 5-1 odds? Probable benefit Comparing the financial benefits and costs Expose problem is the easy part! How can you compare Possible benefits maintaining self-respect with a likelihood of Prevent continuation of problem continued trauma? What if other people — Set an example/precedent your family — are affected too? There are no Compensation easy answers. Improved work situation Vindication There’s one sure thing, though. You are more likely to make a sensible decision by Definite costs laying out the options and consequences and Time Expense thinking them through than by acting in the Diversion from other options heat of the moment. Emotions are always involved, to be sure. But when it comes to Probable costs Trauma making a decision, it helps to have thought Diversion from problem through the options. There are several important points to keep Possible costs Worse work situation in mind when making a decision. Discrediting Success is rare. Most people tend to over- Whereas the original list just gave all outcomes estimate their chance of success using official without any assessment, this listing is a move 40 The whistleblower’s handbook channels. Let’s say that you’ve worked out • 70% of final-year high school students that the chance of winning through this said that they had more leadership ability than particular appeal procedure is less than one average; out of ten, because you’ve heard of only one • 60% of these students said they were in definite victory and know at least ten who lost the top 10% in their ability to get along with or gave up along the way. Nevertheless, many others; people tend to discount the figures because • 94% of academics said they were better at they know, deep in their hearts, that their own their jobs than an average colleague.1 case is really good. How could it lose, with Second, success is highly salient compared rock-solid documentation? This is the time to to failure. Those who lose or give up along the remember that success through official way are usually less prominent. We hear a lot channels is not about being right but about about lottery winners but seldom about the winning against the other side’s tactics. many losers. We hear a lot about a few famous Another factor is that most people are not basketball or soccer players but never about good at integrating probabilities in decision the many kids who waste years unsuccessfully making. The chance of winning may be one out trying to make the big time. Similarly, if of ten, but in comparing benefits and costs it is someone wins a major court case against a tempting to think of them on equal terms. corrupt boss, it is likely to be reported in the The key is to compare options. You’ve media and become an example. Losers seldom summed up the benefits and costs of this make the news. option. Now you need to do the same with Third, people tend to throw good money other options. This is a way of finding the after bad. Psychologically, there’s a tendency option that has the best balance of benefits and to try to recoup money lost in an investment costs. You might decide that you would go by putting in more money. Similarly, someone ahead on option A, because by your assess- who has spent weeks of work and waited a ment the benefits outweigh the costs. But it’s year to have a complaint heard is strongly worth checking options B and C too, because tempted to keep trying even though the return they might be even better. Furthermore, you may not be worth the trouble. may find that you can proceed with options A Fourth, many people believe that, after a and B at the same time, improving your odds. string of heads when flipping a coin, tails is Check with others. Be sure to consult with more likely. Actually, the odds are the same. others, especially those who are closest to you After trying a series of appeal channels and and those who know most about the options. being repeatedly unsuccessful, some may think They may be able to warn you if you are they’ve had a string of bad luck and that the making unrealistic assumptions or if you’ve next attempt is bound to be more successful. forgotten some important factors. Ultimately, Wrong. If anything, it’s less likely to succeed though, the decision is yours. since the more promising avenues were tried at the beginning. Extra reminder on overestimating success So — your case is rock-solid and you know There are several common psychological that you are in the right. Other people may factors that make people overestimate their lose cases but yours is different. Think again! chance of success — and to gamble when the Other people also had rock-solid cases and odds are very bad. were in the right — but they lost. The other First, most people are overconfident about their own abilities. For example: • 90% of workers said that they are more 1. Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook, The Winner- Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much productive than the median worker; More Than the Rest of Us (New York: Penguin, 1996), p. 104. Official channels 41 side used legal loopholes, nasty tricks, obfus- improve it from anyone with knowledge and cation and delays, keeping the cases going for experience. years. Victory can be both rare and expensive If you have to speak or answer questions, even when official channels are fair. When do some practice sessions. Prepare your talk officials are corrupt, your task is even more carefully and then practise it by yourself in difficult. front of a mirror. You can refer to brief notes Some degree of overconfidence can be or cue cards, but never read a talk. Practise it useful, otherwise we would never try or risk over and over until your nerves are reduced to anything. But it’s vital to be as realistic as a tolerable level. Better yet, get a tape recorder possible when comparing options. All options and listen to your talk. Then revise the talk, need to be examined in terms of benefits and and your style, step by step. Focus on costs, not just the size of the glittering prize at improving just one aspect at a time. the end. All options are risky. All the more Next, get a friend to be an audience, and give reason to pick the one that has the best your talk. If you’re still very nervous, try it prospects. again — and again. Get feedback from your friend on how to improve, both content and Staying the distance delivery. No one becomes a brilliant speaker You’ve made your decision: you’re going overnight, but it is possible to improve consid- ahead with it. You’ve begun the process: a erably by preparation and practice. You may grievance mechanism, a complaint to an never eliminate nervousness, but it is possible agency, a court case. Soon you’ll know more to keep it under control. about procedures than you ever thought If you have to answer questions, practice is necessary. If you’re going to use this channel, again crucial. Write down the questions that it makes sense to use it well. you think are the most difficult. Work out Learn everything you can about the your best possible answers and then practise process. It makes sense to follow the required them. Give the questions to a friend and have specifications as closely as possible, unless the friend ask you the questions and listen to you have some principled objection. If you your answers. Then get your friend to make have to make a submission, write it well and up new questions and ask you to answer follow the standard format. without preparation. Ask people who’ve been Contact, if you can, people who have been through the process before what sort of through the process already, especially those questions come up. Get advice about what who found it satisfactory. Listen to their sorts of answers are most effective. Answering advice carefully. Look at their documents. Is questions is a skill that can be improved by your own case missing something? Ask them preparation and practice. what they found to be the weakest point in The same applies to your emotions. If you their case, and then work on making your own sometimes lose your temper or get visibly case as strong as possible in that area. upset, your opponents may be tempted to use Make sure you know how many proce- this as a vulnerability, either planned in dures and appearances you could have to go advance or instinctively on the spur of the through, assuming the other side appeals to moment. Think of the sorts of comments or higher jurisdictions. Otherwise, it may be situations that trigger an emotional response halfway through your first case when you find that may weaken your case. Plan a method of out what you’re in for. response that keeps you in control, for Practise to improve your performance. If example a behaviour (“pause and take three you have to make a written submission, write deep breaths before responding”) or a set of draft after draft, getting comments on how to ideas or images (“a calm, crisp reply”). 42 The whistleblower’s handbook

Practise your plan by yourself and then with a which is a diversion from the main game. friend. (Quite a few whistleblowers end up taking action against their own lawyers.) You end up Advocates bitterly regretting that you didn’t do what you Choose your advocates carefully. If you are believed was right in the first place. represented by an advocate, for example by a Much better is to listen to your instincts lawyer in a court case, choose carefully — and do what you believe is right. If that proves assuming you have a choice. Consult with to be wrong, it is a hell of a lot easier to move others to find out their experiences. If someone on and live with your own mistakes. who has been through the same process Whistleblowers tend to put far too much recommends an advocate, that is a good faith in their legal advocates. This is doomed. endorsement. Sometimes you can find out It is important to keep your advocates on their about the advocate by looking up court records toes. It is dangerous to sit back and rest or other files. Don’t hesitate to do so. If comfortably with the expectation that you’re spending lots of money and time on the someone else is now going to solve things for case, it makes sense to investigate thoroughly you. This is when things can go very badly to ensure that you have the best possible wrong. You must always retain control over advocate. your case and be responsible for it. Try to find someone who is oriented to results rather than process. The results- Jean Lennane comments oriented advocate is willing to push things It’s possible to use the legal system effec- forward in order to get what you want most tively, but quite a lot of insight and skill is out of the process, whether it’s an apology, a required. For example, it’s worthwhile aiming pay-out or a precedent-setting judgement. The to achieve a series of small legal wins in order process-oriented advocate, on the other hand, to end up where you want to go. tends to respond to the requirements of the Unfortunately, 95% of lawyers are a waste system, going through a standard procedure, of time or worse for whistleblowers. The cases allowing the maximum time or waiting for the simply aren’t rewarding enough for lawyers to other side to take an initiative. This often do a good job. increases your costs while delaying things. Whistleblowers sometimes qualify as Your advocate should be willing to follow lawyers in order to handle their own cases. If your instructions. Sure, the advocate may your case is likely to last five years or more — know a lot more about the system than you and many do — then qualifying is worth it. do, and therefore you should consider the More specialist lawyers are needed to help advocate’s advice carefully. But you know whistleblowers. more about your case than anyone. If you’ve also learned a lot about the process, you may Change your advocate if necessary. If wish to overrule your advocate’s recommenda- you’re unhappy with the support or advice tion. Go ahead. It’s your choice. you’ve been receiving, go ahead and change. It could be that your advocate is overloaded, has Lesley Pinson comments personal problems, isn’t interested, isn’t You should also listen to and act on your competent or is corrupt. An incompetent instincts. Psychologically, when you act advocate may lose the case by making mis- against your better judgement and instincts takes in procedure, using the wrong arguments because of the advice of others, then if this or just presenting the arguments poorly. A advice proves to be wrong it leads to a lot of corrupt advocate could be paid off by the bitterness and anger against your advocate Official channels 43 other side, hope for some benefit by not There are two catches. First, you don’t rocking the boat, or have friends in high places. obtain a formal victory. Second, and more It’s better to change than to persist with deadly, is the silencing clause. You are someone you don’t trust or who isn’t giving expected, as part of the settlement, to sign a satisfactory service. However, just because statement saying that you won’t reveal you lost the case doesn’t mean your advocate anything about the case or even the amount of was incompetent or corrupt. The other side the settlement itself. might have had more talented advocates hired There are lots of variations on the silencing at huge expense. clause. The basic aim is to shut you up and Obtain independent advice. Talk to people prevent your case becoming a precedent for who have nothing to gain or lose from the others. The other side avoids admitting outcome of your case. See what they think. liability. What is the best next step? Are you being too The settlement is attractive, but the silenc- demanding of your advocate? Is it appropriate ing clause is not. But often the other side will to compromise? insist: no clause, no settlement. Independent advice is vital because you can You have to make your own decision, and trust it more. A paid advocate may well have your personal circumstances may virtually developed a standard procedure that tends to dictate acquiescence. There are a few implica- increase the length of the case — and the tions. advocate’s pay. A union official is likely to • At the beginning of litigation, be aware of put union interests — or personal career the possibility of silencing agreements . interests — higher than your case. This is • Be prepared for options just prior to going natural enough and need not involve conscious to court. scheming or corruption. • Be flexible, because you might change Reassess your strategy regularly. As the your mind if the silencing clause suppresses case progresses, the situation changes. Your basic issues at stake. After all, speaking out in finances or your personal relationships may be the public interest is a matter of making infor- different. Your goals may change. There may mation generally available, not covering it up. be facts revealed that change your perspective • If you are able, resist as much of any about the situation. So go back to the drawing silencing clause as possible. Speaking out board and look at your strategy (see chapter about the issues is more important than 4). Is it time to call it quits? Is it time for a naming the payment you received. dramatic new initiative? Is the present course • Join campaigns to ban silencing clauses. about right? Formal mediation, a semi-official channel Beware the silencing clause If you are having a conflict with someone that Things are looking good. Your case looks like you can’t easily sort out just between the two winning, or perhaps you’ve just won. The of you, then formal mediation may be helpful. other side comes to you offering a settlement (The term “mediation” may be used to de- — usually a large amount of money. It is scribe different processes. This description is bound to be tempting. The money can help one example.) A neutral mediator is chosen, pay off mounting bills. Also, it means no more agreeable to both parties. The mediator meets court appearances. After all, the other side with the two people in conflict and allows could appeal your victory, even if they have them to present and discuss their perspectives. little prospect of success, in an attempt to Various outcomes are possible. Ideally, differ- wear you down through years of additional ences are resolved. More commonly, the litigation. parties recognise that their differences persist 44 The whistleblower’s handbook but agree to behave civilly in future. When the biggest risk is that the mediator is not neutral, process is unsuccessful, one or both parties in which case meetings may be used to blame may decide to pursue their grievance in some or humiliate you. Another danger is that other way. information provided in a meeting may not be The great advantage of mediation is that it kept confidential. In the worst scenario, every- allows people in dispute to lay their perspec- thing you say is fed by the mediator back to tives on the table in front of a neutral party. your boss or antagonist. Finally, after making a Often, this process cools tempers and verbal agreement during mediation, there is no improves relationships. It can open up guarantee that the other party will hold to it. communication channels and prevent a Workplace mediation works best between situation from escalating to far more damaging co-workers who are in roughly comparable and irretrievable steps. sorts of positions and who have a long-term The role of the mediator is crucial. Media- interest in getting along. It is not so well suited tors have considerable latitude. They might for harmonising relations between boss and decide to meet each person separately before employee. holding a joint meeting, to have a series of If you have reason to believe that a par- meetings or to run “shuttle diplomacy.” They ticular mediator is biased or untrustworthy, decide how to conduct meetings and need to request a different mediator. If you don’t fully monitor the conversation sensitively. If the trust the other party, don’t say anything that mediator is not seen as neutral, this under- could open you to attack. If appropriate, ask mines the process. The mediator should not be for an agreement — such as not to discuss a in a position of power over any participant. particular incident any more — to be put in Mediation, as described here, requires a fair writing and signed by both of you. Finally, if bit of trust. Parties participate voluntarily on you can’t see any benefits from mediation, their own, without advocates. Usually no don’t participate. formal notes are taken and there is no formal Sometimes, during a legal battle, the court report to any organisation such as an will offer mediation as a possible means of employer. Agreements are not formally resolution. Make sure that you have as many binding. Mediation does not seek “the truth” people on your side as there are on the other as in a formal investigation or to reach a defini- side. It’s also advisable to specify how long tive ruling as in an arbitration or court the process will last. If you’re stuck in a room proceeding, but rather to help people to get for many hours under enormous pressure to along better. reach an agreement, the risk of making unwise Mediation is frequently carried out in an concessions increases as time goes on and your informal fashion in day-to-day interactions, energy flags. such as when someone tries to help friends or When tempers flare, threats are made and a family members to get along better, or when a relationship becomes seriously soured, media- co-worker swiftly intervenes to hose down a tion can really help. But it’s not a cure-all, and heated exchange. Some people in groups it can be abused. If you’re not sure whether habitually take on the role of informal media- mediation is a good idea, discuss the possibil- tor, acting sensitively and unobtrusively to ity with friends and see whether you can talk prevent things getting out of hand. Formal to others who have utilised the same mediator. mediation is an attempt to build on the best If your problem is mainly a personal aspects of this important everyday process. conflict, mediation can be quite helpful. But if For all its advantages, mediation is not the problem involves much more than inter- always a good idea. If you are being targeted, personal relations, such as serious corruption, mediation can serve as a means of attack. The mediation will be inadequate or even harmful. 7 Building support

Building support means getting others on your side. There are several important techniques, including: • preparing a written account • person-to-person approaches • support groups • action groups • letters • leaflets • using media.

The basic idea in building support is to win • “Decision makers.” However, everyone people to your point of view — namely that makes decisions. Elites make decisions that there is a problem and something needs to be have more impact. done about it. • “Powerholders.” Some critics say that Of course, when you use official channels people don’t hold power; instead, they exer- you are trying to win certain people to your cise power by getting others, by fear, habit or point of view, namely those people in author- conviction, to do what they want. ity, whether it is managers, judges or politi- • “The establishment.” This suggests that cians. The idea in building support, in contrast, powerholders are a solid, cohesive group, is to take your message to lots of other people, which may not be the case. such as co-workers, clients, neighbours and the Next, note that there are different groups of general public. powerholders. Sometimes they support each To compare different approaches, it’s other and sometimes they clash. useful to use diagrams. Let’s start with the people and groups who have the most sway in powerholders society: top politicians, heads of big corpora- powerholders tions, influential government officials, and powerholders powerful figures in media, professions, trade unions, etc. I will call them powerholders. Linked to one of the groups of powerhold- ers is a policy or practice that is the problem powerholders you are concerned about. It might be due to: • a decision the powerholders made and There’s no perfect term to label these people. support, but you think has bad consequences You might prefer a different term. for others; • “Elites.” This may suggest, incorrectly, • a decision that is bad for everyone, that these people are more talented than powerholders included; others, or better in some other way. Actually, • no decision where one is needed; the key distinction is that they exercise more • ignorance of the problem; power. So they might be called “power elites.” • corrupt practice;

45 46 The whistleblower’s handbook

• incompetent or bullying management; parties. You’ll get further by providing a • other factors. motivation for others to act than by simply Whatever the case, it is this policy or demanding an investigation and expecting practice that you think needs attention, people to act accordingly. whether investigation, reform, abolition or replacement. When the stakes are higher and when you How can you bring about change? One have no personal connections, your chance of approach can be called “appeal to elites.” success is tiny — even if what you suggest is Basically, this means that you ask powerhold- eminently sensible. The trouble is that the ers to take action. powerholders are most strongly affected by each other and by the need to maintain their power. powerholders Furthermore, from their point of view they powerholders powerholders have only a limited scope for action because of all the obstacles they face. A politician can receive more correspondence and reports in a policy, day than they can read in a week with nothing practice else to do, and not have a hope of achieving more than a few of the many things they’d like to do. They might actually feel powerless person themselves. They are high-level cogs in a system of power. The classic example is writing a letter to the So your appeal is not heard. Another president or prime minister, or to heads of option is official channels. This includes companies, government departments or televi- grievance procedures, ombudsmen and courts, sion stations. The same approach is involved, as described in chapter 6. in a lesser scale, in contacting the boss, the manager of a local shop or head of a sporting club. powerholders powerholders powerholders This approach has a chance when you know the powerholder personally or when the problem is small or nonthreatening. If you are on good terms with the boss, a politician or the policy, head of the local police station, you might may practice be able to make a suggestion and have it taken official channel up.

Lesley Pinson comments In trying to gain the support of others and to get them to act, it is important to consider person what might motivate them to act. What could they gain by acting? This might change the way you approach them. Others will have When you think about it, it turns out that all different interests than yours. For example, a these channels were set up by the powerhold- politician might be more motivated to push for ers. They are meant to be independent, of an investigation into your allegations if this course, but in practice they have strong links would prove damaging to other political with the powerholders. Your approach now is to be heard successfully through the official Building support 47 channels which, in turn, will influence the powerholders. Some official channels have others quite a lot of independence, notably the courts. Others, like grievance procedures, may be policy, independent in name but little else. person practice If evidence and logic isn’t enough to get powerholders to act, an alternative is to apply pressure. You win the support of friends and others co-workers. You get neighbours to sign a petition. You go on radio. You get an endorse- Juanita was concerned about a nearby ment from local businesses and professionals. vacant block of land. It was overgrown and All of these individuals and groups demand sometimes used as a dump. Recently there had change. been fights there between groups of youths. Since it was city-owned land, Juanita wrote to the mayor suggesting that the block be made powerholders powerholders powerholders into a park, greatly needed in this part of town. After six months she received a reply saying that her suggestion would be examined. She next tried the land commission, suppos- policy, edly set up to deal with conflicting claims over practice land use. This also led nowhere. So she started others talking to neighbours, organised a public person meeting, wrote letters to the newspaper and others even held a protest at the land commission offices. As a result of this agitation, Juanita found many supporters. She heard about This is essentially what is called pressure similar problems elsewhere in the city. She group politics. Instead of using logic and also heard, from disgruntled city officials, that evidence to persuade powerholders to act, vacant blocks like this were purposely being other methods are used: letters, petitions, allowed to run down so they could be sold off meetings, media coverage, voting, rallies. In to developers at a low price, in exchange for pressure group politics, the aim is to use pay-offs to politicians. Juanita continued to numbers and influence to get action from mobilise support. After lots of preparation, powerholders. Politicians often respond if one day she and a large group of neighbours they think popular support is at stake. cleared rubbish from the site, cleaned it up, Corporate executives often respond if they planted flowers and shrubs, installed recrea- think sales are at risk. But there are no guaran- tional equipment, and started using the block tees. Remember that powerholders are power- as a park. However, early in the morning a fully influenced by other powerholders. You week later, government workers cleared the might have massive popular support but some site and put up a barricade to keep people out. other group may have more money or inside The struggle was just beginning. influence. In this example, Juanita used four ap- Another option is direct action. Instead of proaches: appeal to elites, official channels, getting someone else to act, you do it yourself, pressure group politics and direct action. usually after gaining some popular support. However, there’s no requirement to use them in this sequence, or to use all of them. Each case is different. 48 The whistleblower’s handbook

In each approach, there is a need to win relevant official documents or newspaper over some people. articles, and referring them to others. A written • Appeal to elites. You need to convince the account, though, makes things a lot easier. powerholders. • Instead of having to tell each new person • Official channels. You need to convince the entire story, you can give them the write- relevant officials, such as judges. up. • Pressure group politics. You need to • The write-up can be an organising tool, for convince various people, including individuals example circulated along with a petition or sent and leaders of organisations in the community, to potential supporters. and win over some of them strongly enough so • Journalists will present the facts more they will help. You don’t have to convince accurately if they can refer to a short treat- powerholders, but just put enough pressure on ment. them to act. • The process of writing an account may • Direct action. You need to convince at help you gain a better overall grasp of the key least some people to be powerfully commit- features in the case. ted, enough to take direct action themselves. What you need is a short treatment. One If you have truth on your side but what page is ideal. Two pages (fitting on one sheet you have to say is threatening to powerful of paper) is okay. If you have a longer treat- interests, then appealing to elites or using ment, then it’s helpful to have a short official channels is very unlikely to work. You summary. do have a chance of convincing other people though — those who are not compromised by Jean Lennane comments the powerful interests. This is the process of It is just plain rude to expect someone to read building support. It’s the main subject of this through a thick pile of documents — some chapter. files are five centimetres thick! — especially Building support is obviously important for with no summary. Don’t assume that your pressure group politics and direct action, but it case is so important that others must read it no is also important when appealing to elites and matter how you present it. It is simply using official channels. If officials know that courtesy to make it easy for others to under- there is a groundswell of public opinion on a stand your case — and this can help win them subject, they are much more likely to respond over as well. to letters and formal complaints. Anyone planning to use official channels should be The first thing to decide is what the write- aware of the value of building support. up is about. Many cases are incredibly # # # complex, with many dimensions. You need to There are various aspects to building decide what you think is the most important support, including approaching people, writing issue and focus on that. letters, and using the media. There’s no fixed Gale became a friend and supporter to a order for using these techniques, nor any young girl, Aleta, who had physical and mental necessity to use any or all of them. So the disabilities. Some of the treatment that Aleta order I treat them here is just for convenience. received from certain family members was terrible. Furthermore, government disability Preparing a written account service organisations had an appalling record in It is extremely useful to have a written account addressing Aleta’s needs. Gale, in standing up of your case or the problem that concerns you. for Aleta, was criticised by various people and It’s not essential, since you can make do with soon found out that the government bodies had telling people about the situation, giving them a poor record in lots of cases. Gale decided to Building support 49 write an account to tell people about the treated, emergency visits to hospitals and so problems. What should she focus on? Some forth. For example, Aleta had special problems possibilities are: with allergies due to her other disabilities. Gale A. The story of Aleta’s life: who she is and decided to include only a basic statement about what she has experienced. Aleta’s disabilities. Most of the medical B. Aleta’s most imperative needs. history wasn’t relevant to the main story. C. What needs to happen to improve — Aleta had been assaulted on several Aleta’s situation. occasions, almost certainly by one particular D. The failure of family and government to family member. But Gale had no hard proof of fully support Aleta. assault. So she included the fact that a doctor E. Gale’s own problems in trying to had documented severe bruising on Aleta that support Aleta. was very unlikely to be accidental or self- F. General problems with government inflicted. disability services. — Gale had a lot of information about The answer depends on Gale’s goals. If her how obtaining services for Aleta had been primary goal is to help Aleta, then the focus obstructed as a result of a ruling by a court probably should be A, B or C with some that had been interpreted by an agency in a points from D and maybe E. If her primary peculiar way, and only changed as a result of goal is to change government disability serv- several appeals and an involved process ices, then the focus should be F, possibly involving several agencies. Gale decided that using Aleta’s story as an illustration. the complications of the legislation and You also need to decide what to include. administration of services would be too hard to Usually there is so much material that it seems explain in a short account, and so replaced impossible to imagine a short treatment. How them by a short statement summarising the net can years of struggle be summarised in a few effect. paragraphs? There’s no way every detail or Having decided the focus of the write-up example can be included. So you have to make and what sort of items are to be included, it’s some tough decisions. Here are some criteria. time to write. If you are an experienced writer • Every statement should be true. If anyone or have no worries about doing it, go ahead. On might dispute it (including by lying), you the other hand, if, like many people, you are should have documentation to back up it up. not used to writing and are worried it will be • Items should be understandable to an horrible, here are a few suggestions. ordinary reader — straightforward and not • Imagine you are writing a letter about the requiring special knowledge. case to a relative or friend — someone you feel • Items should be clearly related to the main safe saying anything to. focus of the write-up. • Go ahead and write down everything. • If possible, the material chosen should be Don’t worry about length or quality. Just keep able to be put together so that it tells a story. writing. You can fix up problems later. Alternatively, it should use evidence and • If you have difficulty writing the first logical argument to build towards a conclusion. sentence, just start writing anything. “I’m Gale decided to write an article about Aleta. having trouble getting started. That’s because I She wrote down a long list of things that could don’t know what to say first, and I’m worried be included, and then struck out the weaker about what it will look like. Should I start with ones. …” — Gale had lots of information about Getting a first draft is just the beginning of Aleta’s disabilities and health problems, the process. Here’s a typical sequence. including how they were diagnosed and 50 The whistleblower’s handbook

1. Write a first draft. there should be a concluding paragraph that 2. Revise. includes the main points. You may also want 3. Revise. to include some extras: references, further 4. Revise. reading, photos or cartoons, or documents in 5. Give the draft to a couple of friends and support of your claims. supporters to get comments. When you’ve done as much revising as you 6. Revise in the light of comments. can, so you’re not sure how to improve it 7. Revise. further, it’s time to get some comments. 8. Give the revised draft to several other Getting other people to give you feedback is people for comments. vital for several reasons. You may be so close 9. Revise. to the issue that you haven’t explained basic 10. Give the polished draft to specialists in things. This is quite common. Other people are the field to check facts. fresher to the issue. Most of all, they are your 11. Have someone check for defamation. potential audience, and they may be able to tell 12. Revise. you how to communicate to them more effec- 13. Proofread (check spelling, grammar, tively. If they are specialists in some area, etc.). they may be able to help with technical points. 14. Print. Not everyone is good at giving comments. 15. Proofread once more before distribution. Ideally, you need someone who is sympathetic but good at giving you specific suggestions for You may not need to go through such a improvement — such as which paragraphs to lengthy process. Some experienced people can omit, what points to emphasise more, whether throw together an eloquent article in an hour or to reorganise the material, change the tone, etc. two. Journalists do it all the time. But if this is Your friends may be afraid to hurt your the first time you have written about this feelings and just say that it’s good. If so, ask issue, then taking lots of care is wise and which parts they liked the most, and then ask worthwhile. which parts could be improved — and how. It all may seem a lot of trouble just for a Other people are critical but not helpful. If little article. Compared to the money and they say it’s too negative or too complicated, effort you’d put in going through an official ask which parts are causing the problem and channel, though, it’s not much. A well- how they might be changed. constructed article can be an incredibly potent Comments are just that: comments. You tool. don’t have to agree with them. You might Let’s go back to the sequence. After step 1, think that some comments are based on igno- the first draft, there are three types of steps: rance or prejudice. Remember, though, that revision, getting comments, and proofreading. even ill-informed comments give you useful Revision means going through what you’ve feedback. They show that you are not written and improving it: checking facts and communicating as well as you could to that fixing the way you’ve expressed them; rewrit- person. Even if what you’ve written is ing sentences to make them clearer; adding or accurate, you might decide to rewrite it so that deleting material. Also check spelling and it communicates better. grammar. If you have the text on computer, As you get towards the final version, it’s you can run it through a spell-checker and time to pay more attention to proofreading. grammar-checker. This may seem a trivial matter. But even one Be sure to include a title. At the beginning misspelled word sends a signal to some readers of the write-up, it’s often effective to have a that this is a text that is not completely one or two-sentence summary. At the end accurate. Check every detail yourself and get Building support 51 one or two others to do it too. With word level or other. The question is who is con- processors, it’s now possible to produce tacted and by whom. professional-looking printing. So make it look It’s easy to think that talking to someone nice. Get someone experienced to help if about the issues is a straightforward matter necessary. And because every time you do that doesn’t require any preparation. Planning anything with a text, it’s possible to introduce your approach beforehand sounds like errors, it’s worth proofreading the final version manipulation, right? Wrong! Manipulation before making copies to distribute. means trying to get people to do something What about getting someone else to write against their better judgement. You don’t need up your story? If they are keen, good at that with truth on your side. You just need to writing and sympathetic, it’s an excellent be an effective advocate for your cause. option. You will have a little less control over Planning helps. the final product. On the other hand, someone If you have come under attack, you are who is not as close to the events may be able likely to be stressed and possibly traumatised. to prepare a more balanced and effective That means that it’s very hard to appear treatment. “normal” and to be an effective communicator. Writing is one method of communication. It You may become nervous or depressed talking is also possible to produce audio or video about the issue. The same applies if you are records of your story. These could be for radio passionate about an issue and likely to become or television but also could be to circulate excited or angry. In this case, it may help to tapes to people. Producing effective recordings talk things over — your own emotional state is a skill like any other, but unless you have as well as the issues — with a close friend, experience in this already it’s probably easier relative or trusted counsellor before you to produce a written account. Written text is venture to approach others. far more efficient for conveying factual infor- When it comes to talking to people about mation: people can scan a page of writing to the issues, it can be useful to classify people get a quick impression more easily than they into different groups. One useful breakdown is can listen to a tape. On the other hand, likely sympathisers, likely neutrals and likely recordings — especially video — can have a opponents. much more powerful emotional impact. If you • Likely sympathisers. These are people get involved in producing tapes, the same who probably agree with your views on the procedure as writing applies. The script needs matter, at least in crucial areas. This may to be written, revised, commented on and include friends, some co-workers and some checked. It needs to be in a style appropriate outsiders. For example, if you are exposing for the medium — a good radio script is quite illegal pay-offs in an organisation, likely different from a text for reading. Then there are sympathisers might include friends (except the stages of producing the recording, followed those with ties to the guilty parties), co- by editing, again a process requiring continued workers who are not implicated, and those revision and polishing. If you follow this path, losing money from the pay-offs. be sure that you have full support from • Likely neutrals. These are people who someone with plenty of skill and experience. wouldn’t automatically take a stand one way or another, often because they don’t know Person-to-person approaches anything about it or don’t know the people One of the foundation stones of building involved. In the case of the illegal pay-offs, support is contacting people on a one-to-one this might include workers in a different basis. This is nearly always involved at some division and most people outside the organisa- tion. 52 The whistleblower’s handbook

• Likely opponents. These are people who the Stringer pay-off or on the whole pay-off probably will oppose you. This may include culture?” “Will a petition to the board be any those who, for whatever reason, dislike you, use?” plus those who are threatened by your action In approaching neutrals, a suitable goal is to on this issue. Those involved in the pay-off make them aware of the issues and more operation plus those who have covered it up, sympathetic to your point of view. Perhaps a plus anyone you’ve alienated in the past, are few may be willing to take action on your likely opponents. behalf, but that shouldn’t be the main goal. Before you approach anybody, it’s worth Rather, it is to change the general climate of deciding what you want to achieve and how opinion. The vast bulk of neutrals are people you’re going to go about it. It can be disastrous out in the community who know little or to arrange a meeting with someone and then nothing about the issues. If you can convince dump on them at great length with a confusing them that illegal pay-offs are occurring, most story punctuated with anger, outrage and self- will become more sympathetic to those who pity. Save the raves for those who are willing are doing something about it. to support you emotionally. The general climate of opinion, in the long With likely sympathisers, it can be appro- run, can be quite potent. It means that priate to give a moderately lengthy account. opponents have fewer sympathisers. It means But check first. If they are busy, be brief. But that when the issue comes before a manager, a as well as telling the story, explain why you rival firm’s owner, a judge or a politician, that are telling it. Perhaps you are after their advice. person may have been influenced, either Perhaps you’d like some support, such as directly or by comments from a family signing a petition, writing a letter, commenting member, a co-worker, a friend or client. When on a draft article, attending a meeting, speaking a person in a crucial position hears comments to others or to the media. — “Did you know about that pay-off opera- If you are after advice, say so at the begin- tion? It’s a real scandal.” — from a daughter or ning. If you are seeking support, it’s often dentist, it may not make a difference. But better to save requests until later, judging how sometimes it does. responsive the person is as you go along. If Approaching opponents is also worthwhile. they are very sympathetic, you can ask A reasonable goal is to make them less hostile, outright for support: “Would you be willing to perhaps to become a neutral. It can be quite a write a letter?” If you’re not sure, one tech- challenge to approach those you think are nique is to describe what you’re trying to responsible for problems and to present your achieve and how people can help. For example, viewpoint in a reasonable manner. Yet there is “There’s going to be a meeting next week to much to be gained if you can handle the discuss taking action on the pay-off issue. If situation. You don’t need to be hostile or to you know anyone who’d like to attend, here’s expect a conversion. You can simply say that the phone number of the organiser.” you’d like to present your point of view and One of the most useful things you can get that even if they don’t agree with it perhaps from sympathisers is advice. Those who have they can understand where you’re coming been through a similar situation or campaign from. This can be helpful since it is harder to before can be especially useful. Any time demonise someone who is making a sincere you’re telling your story to someone, it is effort to maintain dialogue. Of course, an valuable to observe how they respond. extremely hostile opponent may interpret Sympathisers, though, are more likely to give anything you say in the wrong manner and use you hints on how to improve, especially if any weakness in your case as a point of attack. you ask. “Do you think we should focus on Building support 53

If you think it’s too risky, then don’t make the Often there are rules (stated or assumed) about approach, or get a sympathiser to do it. how long people speak, who can attend, what If your case is long and complex — like issues are addressed, etc. There is no need for most cases! — then a written summary is a office bearers, minutes, motions or voting. valuable tool even with sympathisers. After Meetings are for sharing experiences, not for reading the account, they can ask questions conducting business. and you can amplify points that are especially Sometimes the biggest challenge is getting a relevant to them. For neutrals, a written group going. People may say they are coming account is even more valuable: it puts them in but not show up. Size isn’t all that vital. Even the picture quickly and efficiently. With meeting with just one other person — or opponents, a written account gives them your talking on the phone — can be very helpful. point of view in a precise way that might be Another problem is when a group gets large, hard to achieve verbally, especially if the perhaps over a dozen people. This means time meeting makes you very tense. for each person to speak is limited. A simple solution is to break into two smaller groups at Creating a support group the time. A support group is a group of people who To ensure a smooth operation, it is very give emotional support to each other. helpful if someone involved has experience in Members of the group often have common facilitation of meetings. Sometimes there is a experiences or goals. For example, there are committed person who is willing to do this — support groups for women who have been who may or may not be someone with the sexually abused, for people with diabetes, and same experiences as the others. Because for whistleblowers. Alcoholics Anonymous is people in support groups are often under a lot a type of support group. of stress, there can be conflicts. An experi- The power of a support group comes from enced facilitator will be able to deal with sharing common experiences. Many people difficulties. You can also consult books dealing who suffer from discrimination, disease or with facilitation. Here are a few suggestions. assault feel terribly alone — others just do not • Make sure everyone is introduced. A key understand what they are experiencing. part of any meeting is meeting people. Meeting others in the same situation, and • Make sure ground rules are clear. Is listening and talking about what they’ve gone smoking permitted? What time will the through, is informative and helps with the meeting finish? Who is facilitating? For healing process. sensitive and personal issues, it’s often wise to If a support group already exists that suits request that people treat matters as confiden- your situation, then attend and judge for tial, but warn everyone that there can be no yourself. If not, you can set one up. All you guarantees, so they should take that into need is two or three other people in a similar account. situation. Set a time, invite people, meet and • Give everyone a chance to speak who talk. wants to. This might be at each meeting or The best way to learn about how to make over a series of meetings. This may mean support groups work is to attend some and to setting a time limit for each person’s story. talk to people experienced in running them. Even for the best facilitator, it can be a There are some standard patterns. People challenge getting a speaker who is passionate attending are allowed a fair opportunity to or distressed when telling their own story to speak. Others listen without passing judge- operate within a strict time limit. ment. Confidentiality is expected (though there • If the aim is support, then hostile can never be absolute guarantees of this). comments by others should be discouraged and 54 The whistleblower’s handbook openly countered. It can help to say that no functions, and it’s best to be clear just what is one has to agree with anyone else, or believe intended. someone else’s story, and that the aim is to If you are interested in changing the system, help each person to help themselves. first find out if there is an action group that • Before finishing, make arrangements for already exists, even in a related area. For any future meetings and be clear about who example, if you have discovered that a certain has responsibility for them. bank is misleading farmers and small busi- nesses and stripping them of their assets, you A support group helps, in several ways, in should investigate any action groups that deal the process of building support.1 It puts with the banking sector or, more generally, people with similar concerns in touch with with economic issues or corruption. One of the each other, gives them insights into the best ways to find out what groups exist is to problem they confront, gives them the energy contact other groups. Activists often know to keep going, and so can provide a launching what’s happening outside their own area of point for action. special interest. Libraries have lists of commu- nity organisations. Creating an action group If there’s no group, you can start one. You As the name implies, the primary purpose of just need to find other people who have similar an action group is action — doing something to concerns and call a meeting. If your concerns get things changed. “Action” can be defined in are specific, you may need to broaden the various ways. It can include: issue. Your personal interest may be in • writing letters, exploitative practices by a particular bank; you • making phone calls, can broaden this to include all banks, all • face-to-face lobbying, financial institutions, or even corporate exploi- • circulating petitions, tation of customers generally. There is value in • soliciting support door-to-door, campaigns that target particular organisations • producing leaflets, but there is also value in developing a broad • holding meetings, picture of the problem. • joining rallies, What should an action group do? That’s an • speaking on street corners, enormous topic. There are lots of skills • joining a strike, boycott or sit-in. involved, such as writing media releases, There are all sorts of action groups, such as motivating members, planning campaigns, environmental and human rights groups, of producing leaflets, obtaining funds, running an which the best known are Greenpeace and office and organising vigils and rallies. The best Amnesty International. way to learn such skills is through practice. The primary aim of a support group is to Try to find an experienced activist who will help individuals by sharing experiences. An give you tips, or join an action group — one action group, in contrast, is oriented to doing you are in sympathy with, of course! — in things involving, or communicating to, people order to learn skills. In most cities there are outside the group. In practice, the two are dozens or hundreds of action groups of all often mixed. Action groups provide support sizes, orientations and styles. In rural areas and some support groups decide to take and small towns, there may not be so much to action. There can be a tension between the two choose from. Nevertheless, there are usually some people who have experience in taking action. Ask around to find out who they are 1. The word ‘support’ is used here in two related and then approach them to learn what you can. but slightly different ways. A support group provides mutual help, whereas ‘building support’ means a There are also some good books on taking process of winning allies. Building support 55 action (see the references section at the end of and they care. AI members do not write on this book). behalf of prisoners in their own countries. One An action group doesn’t need to be large to reason is that appeals have greater impact be effective. In a group with a dozen members, when they come from someone who has no often just one, two or three are the driving obvious personal stake in the issue. Another is force and do much of the work. So if you have possible danger from supporting local dissi- a group with just two or three activists, that is dents — also a relevant consideration in the enough to accomplish a lot. Indeed, many case of whistleblowers. groups that seem impressive on the outside are In pursuing your own case, it is a great mostly the work of one dedicated individual advantage to have someone else take initiatives who writes letters, produces a newsletter, on your behalf. The more independent the organises meetings, and appears on the media. person seems to be, and the less they stand to gain, the better. Lawyers are not perceived as Letters independent; after all, they are paid to be Suppose you have exposed an operation in advocates. Family members or business which trade licences are given to people colleagues are a little better. Someone from a without proper qualifications in exchange for field with a reputation for independence, such various favours. There are attempts to as a judge or scholar, is even better. Of course, discredit your claims, your work is put under reputations can be created and destroyed. intense scrutiny and you have been threatened Some lawyers can establish an aura of objec- with losing your job. If you write a letter to tivity and some scholars can be discredited. the top manager, that won’t help much — Back to the writing of letters. If one third that’s where the threat came from! Also, a party writing a letter to the manager has an letter from you on your own behalf has limited impact, then the impact is increased if several impact because it can be dismissed as special others write letters. This shows the manager pleading. But if someone else writes to the that quite a number of people know about the manager expressing concern about the licence issue and are concerned enough to take the issue and supporting your role, that’s a differ- effort of writing. ent story. It accomplishes several things: How are you to get people to write such • it involves someone else supporting your letters? You can, of course, talk to them, stand; explain the case and give them information on • it shows the manager that someone else who to write to. At this point, having a write- supports your stand; up about the case, with a few documents to • it provides an example to others of how back it up, is quite effective. It also means that they might support your stand. you can take the issue more widely. For The someone else can be called a “third example, you can post your write-up to party.” The first and second parties are you selected people in other parts of the country and the manager (or perhaps the organisation or even overseas. as a whole). In a dispute between two parties, anyone else is a third party. Third parties are independent and often seen that way. The whole process of building support involves getting third parties to take your side. When members of Amnesty International write to governments on behalf of political prisoners, their impact comes from being seen to be third parties. They are “someone else” 56 The whistleblower’s handbook

Imagine you are a chief executive officer. about where it might have the most impact. A Your deputy has reported that an employee, letter to the president sounds good, but alter- Jones, whose performance is suspect, has natives might be better. What about a letter to made scurrilous allegations about impropriety a newsletter of a trade union or professional in a subsidiary. Which approach do you take association? A letter that is seen by many more seriously? The rave You flick through a fat wad of others is more likely to build further support. paper from Jones. You read a few para- Letters can be hand delivered, posted, faxed graphs, but it’s not quite clear at first glance or emailed. The old-fashioned printed letter what the allegations are. You notice that still has a certain edge in terms of presentation Jones’ document — an “open letter” — has and impact. A fax gives an impression of been sent to dozens of politicians, government greater urgency. Email has the advantage of officials and prominent figures. It’s filled with claims about corruption, denounced in being very easy to send and reply to. By the CAPITAL LETTERS AND EXCLAMATION same token, many people receive so much POINTS!!! In fact, you may not read this at all: email that one more may be lost in the clutter. your secretary might have eliminated it from That’s all the more reason to take a lot of care your in-tray as not worthy of attention. in presenting a clear and succinct message. The concerned query Three letters have arrived in the past month from individuals expressing concern about the allegations that Leaflet campaigning Jones has raised. They ask you to look into the A typical leaflet is a sheet of paper that matter personally with an open mind. They presents a point of view. It can readily be also say that they have the highest regard for given to someone, for example stuck in a Jones’ integrity and performance. mailbox or passed out on a street corner. The rave might be based on a foundation of Many leaflets are commercial or promotional, facts, yet it is quite unlikely to be effective because it is not targeted, makes excessive for example about a restaurant or a concert. A and unsupported allegations, uses the wrong leaflet is also a potent tool for exposing social style and it comes from the aggrieved party. problems. It has a long and illustrious history. The concerned query is written personally Leaflets have several important advantages. addressed (to the CEO), is a query rather than You can retain full control over what is said, a sweeping accusation, is modest in style and yet get the message out to dozens, hundreds or comes from someone who is apparently independent. The concerned query may not be thousands of people. The cost is relatively effective either, but it has a better chance. cheap. There is no single “best style.” What’s How to produce a leaflet? The best founda- appropriate for a CEO is not what works best tion is the write-up you prepared. There are a for a radio sound-bite. The point is that the few other things to look out for. style should be tailored for the audience and • Make sure that what you write is readily the purpose. understood by a person who knows nothing at all about the situation. In other words, know Sending letters, and getting others to send your audience. Have one or two people who letters, can be a potent method of building are complete outsiders to the issue read a draft support. Letters to a boss, administrator or and give you comments. politician may not change anything directly, • Appearance is more important than with a but they do involve people taking action. To straight write-up. Decide on the style you take the issue a bit more broadly, letters can go think appropriate and then get help and advice to others, such as other organisations, action in presentation. Choose a suitable size and groups, people with a special interest in the font for the title and text. Think about whether area, and the media. There are numerous you want graphics, such as photos and variations. If someone is willing to give cartoons. Do you want it on coloured paper? support by writing a letter, think carefully Building support 57

The choice of style affects people’s responses. message will be circulated more widely than Depending on the issue and the audience, you you imagined. may want a sober, text-based leaflet or a flashy and dramatic leaflet. The activist with no name • Before printing or photocopying the It is possible to produce leaflets and send leaflet, check and double-check everything email while remaining anonymous. Lots of care carefully. You will be judged by its quality and needs to be taken. To begin, it usually means may be attacked for its weakest point. working alone, or with those you can trust There are many ways to distribute a leaflet. absolutely — a rare breed when pressures It all depends on who you want to reach. You become intense. It means leaving no traces that may seek only a limited audience, and so just can reveal your identity. To produce a leaflet, give copies to a few friends or co-workers. the production should be done using machines Remember, though, that as soon as you hand that are either used by lots of people or are one out, it can be copied or passed on and so somewhere that can’t be tracked down or get to many more people. That’s usually the linked to you. The paper also should not idea. provide links back to you. Distribution also To distribute copies at a workplace, you requires care. Use gloves to avoid fingerprints. can pass them out to people directly or stick One method is put leaflets in people’s them on desks or in mailboxes. You can send mailboxes, going out in the very early morning them to people by post, put them in people’s or at night, perhaps even wearing a disguise. mailboxes at home, and pass them out at Anonymous email is easier, just requiring use meetings or on the street. If others are willing of an anonymous remailer. For both leaflets to help, that’s all the better. and email, though, it is the content and style Email campaigning has many similarities to that is most revealing. What you say may leaflet campaigning. Although many people reveal knowledge that only a few people have, whip off an email message in a few seconds, and the way you write, spell or format the text the quality often suffers. On an important may provide clues to a sleuth. issue where you are seeking support, it is Although anonymity is difficult to achieve, worth spending a lot of time polishing your it is possible. More importantly, is it a good message. The subject line and opening sen- idea? tences of an email message are as crucial as the There are some important advantages to title to a leaflet — they determine whether openness. It usually gives greater credibility, people will read any further. As in the case of by giving authenticity to claims and showing leaflets, it’s worthwhile getting comments on a that someone is willing to stand up for what draft before proceeding. It may be best to put they believe. It also provides a focal point for the entire text into the email message. An sympathisers. Mobilising further support is alternative is to have a full treatment on a web easier. Feedback, dialogue and debate are site and use email to publicise it. easier. (Replies are possible through anony- Email can be sent to specific individuals, to mous remailers.) entire departments or organisations (depending Anonymity has the advantage of limiting on the email system) and to discussion groups. the chance of reprisals. This is especially Knowing the audience is crucial to having an important if violence is possible or if others, impact. It’s possible that your message may such as family members, may be targeted. On sink without a trace, or it may create a tremen- the other hand, sometimes there are witch- dous outcry, depending on what you say and hunts for the person responsible for an who you say it to. Since email is simple to anonymous leak, leading to innocent parties copy or forward, it is possible that your being victimised. Anonymity can be an 58 The whistleblower’s handbook advantage when a person can be readily things that has a chance of denting business as stigmatised, for example a former criminal usual. On the other hand, sometimes the media exposing police corruption, so much so that will refuse to touch a story. At other times the message is lost by scapegoating the they will turn against dissidents and make messenger. things far worse. If anyone at all knows what you’re doing, If you’re going to use the media, then it your anonymity may be broken. In witness helps to understand their operations a bit. protection schemes run by police, a crucial After all, organisations pay vast amounts of witness can be kept in a secret location or money, for advertising and public relations, to given an entirely new identity. But some use the media for their own ends. police know the details — and corrupt police For the commercial media, there are two may jeopardise the whole operation. Often main driving forces to be aware of. The first is openness and publicity are a safer route. If an profit and is mainly the concern of owners and attack is made on a well-known witness, this top managers. On the surface, the media’s goal can backfire on the attackers — and they may is to sell its message to readers and listeners; realise it. from a financial point of view, the media’s goal Each approach has its own record of is to sell audiences to advertisers. success and failure. There are, of course, many The second important driving force is successful open challenges to problems. There competition to get a good story, which is are also cases in which anonymous tips, leaks mainly the concern of journalists. Many and campaigns have made the difference. In stories are never run or are put on back pages, some organisations there are regular newslet- often due to shortage of space and audience ters produced by anonymous employees or attention and sometimes to inhibition, such as former employees. the risk of a defamation suit. Journalists like to The decision needs to be made by weighing have their stories run, and run as prominently up the advantages and disadvantages of each as possible. option, in the light of your own values. The dynamics of media operation has led to Generally speaking, the more support you the creation of a set of factors for what makes have, the better and safer it is to be open. a good story. These are called “news values.” Anonymity may be better when you are Journalists and editors understand news values operating in an extremely corrupt and hostile intuitively and will judge events by them environment where inside knowledge, given to instantly. Journalists and editors look for outsiders, may make a difference. stories involving: • local relevance; Using media • human interest; One of the most potent ways of building • conflict; support is through coverage in the mass media • action (especially for television); — newspapers, radio, television, magazines. If • prominence (famous figures rather than you stick entirely to official channels, you unknowns); may avoid the media (though it might get • timeliness; involved even then). If you use the strategy of • perceived consequences. building support, then you should consider If the president of the United States is using the media at some stage. impeached, that is a big story. If Buddhists in When trying to expose a problem, the media Sri Lanka have been promoting communal can generate awareness with dramatic speed. harmony for the past 20 years, there’s no When faced with a corrupt or recalcitrant story. Complex stories pose a special diffi- bureaucracy, media coverage is one of the few Building support 59 culty and often are dropped or drastically tools for building support. This is true even simplified. though many stories are distorted and unbal- Stories about dissent and whistleblowing do anced. In addition, many journalists and have a chance. They involve personalities editors do care about the issues and do their (human interest) and conflict, and sometimes utmost, within the constraints of media prominent organisations. Current cases are far culture, to get a message across. more newsworthy than old ones. Official channels are designed to limit the It’s important to realise the news values number of people who know about a claim. involved. You might believe that the real issue They are a system that organisations know is systematic discrimination due to deep- how to handle, following procedures that are seated bias and distorted organisational struc- relatively predictable. The media, in contrast, tures. That won’t get much attention, even are out of their control, taking a story to all though some journalists may be sympathetic. and sundry. But if the issue is couched as claims of bias by Those who routinely operate through several individuals who have been victimised official channels — such as lawyers — as a result, then it becomes “a story.” The commonly advise against seeking media personalities and conflict make all the differ- coverage. They are not trained and seldom ence. skilled in using the media. More fundamen- Using the media thus involves compro- tally, media coverage gets in the way of their mises. You may think attention should be methods. For lawyers, legal procedures are the directed at the organisation and its deficiencies. way they know how to handle things, and The only story that may get published might other methods are a distraction or disruption. be about the treatment of an employee who Some whistleblower laws specifically rule out spoke out. protection if the whistleblower goes to the Even with their limitations, the media can media before using official channels. be a powerful force against social problems. Don’t let this deter you from using the That’s primarily because they carry messages media. If you’re aiming to build support, you to large numbers of people, some of whom are should always consider media coverage likely to be sympathetic. The media thus are seriously.

Comparing methods letters and circulate leaflets more broadly. The If you aim to build support, using the media is mass media, in contrast, cannot be controlled one approach — but not the only one. As we but reach a much wider audience. Although have seen, awareness can be fostered using many people are cynical about the media, a face-to-face meetings, letters, petitions, story often has considerable credibility. Note leaflets, email, support groups and action that these assessments are generalisations. groups, among others. It’s worth comparing For example, your letter may be badly written several of these. and have low credibility. On rare occasions, With letters and leaflets, what is said is you may be so crucial to a major media story controlled by those who write them. The that you have some control over the way it’s audience is mostly those who receive them presented. directly, though people can make copies of

Control Audience Credibility Letters often great targeted often high Leaflets great targeted plus others variable Media coverage low general fairly high So, let’s say you’ve decided that media cover- Journalists are usually in a rush. They want age would be a good idea. Before you approach documents immediately, which usually means a journalist or issue a media release, you need fax or email rather than the post. Be prepared. to be prepared. Here are some things to be • On the record. Remember that anything prepared for. you say could potentially end up reported — • What are the facts about the case? Who, even if you specify “background” or “off the what, when, where, how? record.” If you don’t want something reported, • Who are you? You need to think about don’t mention it. Journalists will try to steer how much you want to say about yourself. the conversation in certain directions, seeking • Are there any documents? Depending on what they believe is the best story. You can the case, journalists may want copies. follow if you’re happy with the direction, but • Is there anyone else to contact? This don’t reminisce about your personal life unless includes people who will confirm your claims you’re willing to have everyone read about the and sometimes people on the other side. Have most revealing anecdote. phone numbers ready. • Balance. Most journalists seek to present If you have a concise write-up, that is a a “balanced” story. That usually means wonderful advantage — it can help a journalist presenting both sides. After talking to you, the make sense of the issue and get the facts right. journalist may contact your worst enemy. But it’s not essential. Even a journalist who is very sympathetic to Journalists are not an alien species. They you may put in statements presenting the are just people like you and me, doing a job as other side. So don’t expect everything to go well as they know how. Most of them are your way. If a story has nothing critical about friendly. Some will be highly sympathetic to you, it may appear unbalanced and lack your cause; a few may be hostile, perhaps due credibility. Remember that a story that seems to their personal views or political affiliation. balanced to readers may seem incredibly unfair Most of them will behave professionally, to the other side. If you are in a struggle with a within their own codes of professional powerful organisation, even the slightest practice. It helps to understand the pressures criticism of the organisation is like a slap in the they operate under. face of top officials. • Time pressures. Most journalists are • Editing. Journalists do not have final incredibly busy. They have to meet deadlines, control over their stories. An editor decides after all. You may have a wonderful story to whether they get published and how promi- tell, but they don’t have five hours or even half nently. Someone else writes the title. Some- an hour to listen to it. Indeed, to be really times the article is subedited, which may effective you should be able to summarise the involve rewriting sentences and deleting main points in the first minute of a conversa- paragraphs. If there is a potential for defama- tion, or in the first couple of sentences in a tion, a lawyer may recommend changes or media release. deletions. You won’t get to see any of this. If Your case is the biggest thing for you, but a the story doesn’t appear at all, it may be journalist may have a deadline in two hours because it was never written, because it didn’t with three stories to write. So be brief to start meet the editor’s criteria (“news values”), with and find out if there is a chance for a because there wasn’t enough space, or because longer talk. If your case is a significant one, or it got deleted by mistake. If it appears, it may if a journalist has the time to do a major have been chopped and changed by various investigation, there may not be quite as much people. So don’t blow up and curse the of a squeeze on time. But that’s the exception. journalist or editor. Make an enquiry to find

60 Building support 61 out what happened, and find out if there’s A person with plenty of skill in generating anything you can do to help the process along. coverage can, to some extent, overcome the It’s worth visiting a newsroom to get a media’s short attention span. First, it’s feeling for the overwhelming supply of necessary to provide an ongoing flow of information and of the rush, the chaos and the material that is newsworthy. For example, if ease by which a story can be lost in the you have documentation about abuses in an process. You want attention from the media, institution, sometimes it can be effective to but so do lots and lots of other people. release it bit by bit, over a matter of months, • Angles. Journalists and editors need a peg rather than in one batch. If you are using on which to hang your story. It’s not timely to official channels, this can be dramatised: a report that corruption has been going on in the submission, some testimony, a visitor department for years. But if you’ve just sent a commenting on the case, a protest meeting — letter to the head documenting some instances, each step can be promoted as a story. Another that is a peg. Journalists have a good idea of important part of keeping a story in the media what “angles” can be used to make something over time is working with specific journalists. into a story. You can help, sometimes, by Once they have studied the issue enough to suggesting ideas or by taking actions that write a story, then a follow-up is relatively provide angles, such as writing a letter, releas- easy. They may also develop a commitment to ing a report, circulating a leaflet or holding a the issue. What you have to do is continue to meeting or rally. supply them material and access. If you give a big scoop to someone else, that’s not good Media coverage comes in fits and starts. You form. can be besieged by demands from the media Do you have to stick with the same one week and then ignored the next. Part of the journalists? What if they don’t seem to be reason is that media channels feed off each treating you fairly? There are implicit rules and other. For example, staff at many radio expectations that apply. If you’re new to the stations go through the newspapers every day game, you can’t be expected to know them. So searching for people or stories they might ask. Ask people with experience in using the want to follow up. So if there’s an article media, and ask journalists themselves. about your case in a major daily, then you If you start receiving media coverage, it can might well receive calls from several radio seem like a great thing. It can even become stations soon after, inviting you to be inter- addictive! It’s healthy to remember that media viewed. (Less often do newspapers take their coverage is not the goal. It’s only a means to cue from radio or TV programmes.) Another an end. In this case it’s a component of a part of the reason is that when a story strategy to build support. Building support is “breaks” — first becomes reported — it is a method for helping deal with the problem seen as worthy of coverage. A few days or you’re concerned about. weeks later, depending on the issue, it is dated Sometimes the media works miracles in and no longer considered newsworthy. building support, making thousands of people This is when it can become clear that the aware of an issue and making it difficult for media are using you and your story just as powerholders to continue as before. On other much as you are using them. You know that occasions it may seem to have no impact at all the issue that concerns you is an ongoing one — a flash in the pan. Media coverage is not a that deserves continuing attention. But from cure-all. the media’s point of view, it is probably only Sometimes a story in the media builds of short-term interest. It might be a one-day support in an obvious and practical way, by wonder. leading to contacts. Someone reads a story in 62 The whistleblower’s handbook the newspaper or hears you on the radio and trying to expose bias or corruption in the contacts you. Maybe the same thing happened media themselves, getting media coverage is to them. Maybe they have more information. even harder. Maybe they need help or advice. Maybe they If your story is newsworthy but is want to help. suppressed due to the local establishment, one The media are tools to put you in touch solution is to look to media without local ties. with others with similar interests. You might If the city’s newspaper won’t touch your spend years discussing your case with friends story, what about a newspaper in another part and acquaintances, yet only reach a few of the country, or a national newspaper? It’s hundred people. One media story might be all also possible to go international, especially if it takes to put you in touch with a like-minded there are specialist outlets for your issue. person outside your normal circle of contacts. Sometimes an article in a newspaper or Members of support groups and action groups magazine published in another country is the know that media coverage is one way to bring best way to open up the issue locally. in new members. Remember again that media coverage is not Media coverage is frequently a powerful the goal in itself. The strategy is to build tool for whistleblowers — but not always. On support. If the media won’t touch the issue, some issues, it is impossible to obtain media then you just need to rely on other methods coverage. There are several explanations. such as letters, leaflets and action groups. • Your story might not be newsworthy. It An even worse scenario is that the media could be too old, too narrow, too amorphous launch a concerted, unscrupulous, unbalanced or too complex. You need to see whether attack on you and your cause. This does there’s an angle that could be taken up. happen, whether you are trying to use the • Your story might create too great a risk of media yourself or not. defamation. If publishing a story opens a media company to costly litigation, this is a Lesley Pinson comments deterrent. The story can go ahead if the likely It’s very important to decide whether you benefits — wider circulation, greater prestige want to use print or electronic media — — outweigh the likely costs. But if the facts newspapers and magazines or TV and radio. aren’t quite solid enough or if the target is Each has a different way of presenting a story known for suing, that may make the difference. and requires different things from you. If your story is really big, that may be enough You may or may not be willing or confident to overcome the risks. But if it’s only a minor enough to appear on TV or to conduct a radio story to start with, legal risks can sink it. interview. TV also depends on visual effects. • Your story may threaten powerful A story about illegal dumping or faulty interests that have direct or indirect influence equipment would provide useful footage for with media interests. Say you’re exposing a TV whereas a story about financial fraud might company for false advertising. If the manager provide little for TV to present visually. of the company is friends with the editor of TV and radio often follow print media and the newspaper, that may scotch the possibil- thus a newspaper story may lead to greater ity of a story. Or perhaps the company runs a overall coverage by TV and radio. Also, an lot of advertising in the paper. In many small article in a local paper can lead to the main- towns and some cities, there are close links stream media picking up on the story later. between top people in business, government, You will have differing levels of control media, professions and other fields. Your over what is published, depending on which opponents may have powerful friends and this media you choose to use. may rule out local media coverage. If you are Building support 63

It is worth monitoring different papers, • Defence and initiative are both required. If radio programmes and TV shows to see how you are having any impact at all, you are likely stories are presented and which types of to come under attack. You may be harassed, stories are being told. If your story has politi- lose your job, be the subject of vicious cal implications, some papers are more left or rumours, or even come under a concentrated right wing than others. media barrage. Defending against such attacks It is also worth being aware of who is is vital. At the worst times, return to basics. sponsoring (via advertising) various media Review your goals. Consult with your most outlets. Some commercial TV stations and loyal supporters. Make plans based on newspaper, for instance, may be reluctant to building support. If the attack is unfair, and publish a story that is critical of one of their you can show that it is unfair, you can use that major advertising clients. to build support. Whilst monitoring different media outlets, it As well as defending against attacks, you is worth making a note of various journalists need to make initiatives, otherwise the agenda who have presented similar stories or who is always set by your opponents. Again, have presented stories in a way that appeals to review your goals, consult and make plans. you. Direct contact with a journalist who you • Be ready to reassess your strategy. If feel might be sympathic to your story, or have your strategy doesn’t seem to be working, do a some knowledge of the issue from previous careful examination. Is it because you aren’t stories, is far more likely to achieve a result doing it right, because the other side is too than a completely cold call. It also won’t hurt strong, or because it’s a bad strategy? Even if to appeal to the journalist’s ego with some your strategy seems to be working, it may be reference to their previous work, especially worth examining. Perhaps you can do better. something just published. This is a useful way Perhaps there’s a trap looming. to start the conversation.

The ongoing struggle Appendix The strategy of building support is seldom a The sabotage option short-term solution. Indeed, it is best seen as a process rather than a solution. In the long • A systems analyst leaves a firm but leaves term, social problems will only be solved if behind a “logic bomb” that, half a year later, lots of people become aware of them and are wipes out the firm’s entire computer files and willing to take action. If your concern is bias in back-ups. a single appointment, then by the time you • A blast furnace operator, by purposely build support it may be too late to do not making quite the right adjustments, allows anything. But if your concern is bias in a shutdown to occur, at great expense. appointments as an ongoing problem, then • A lawyer, about to leave his company, building support has real potential. For the sends out bogus letters to clients under his ongoing struggle, there are several things to head’s name, undermining the reputation of the keep in mind. firm. • The struggle has phases and ups and • A warehouse employee switches off the downs. There can be periods of intense action electricity for the cold room over the weekend. and periods where nothing seems to happen. • A packaging worker adds a slip of paper Interest in taking action can wax and wane. By with an unpleasant message to thousands of being aware of this, you can avoid being too gifts posted out to competition winners. optimistic during the up phases or too These are examples of sabotage at work. discouraged during the down phases. Such sabotage has a long history, and can be 64 The whistleblower’s handbook found in all manner of occupations. Sometimes person they believe is responsible. So power- workers, under intense pressure, can only ful is this effect that sometimes a scheming obtain relief by causing a disruption to management will carry out the sabotage itself machinery, and the person who does it has but blame it on someone else. The same thing wide support. Sometimes a single disgruntled happens when an agent, for example paid by employee takes action as a method of revenge. the police, joins an action group or attends a Is sabotage a useful option for dealing with rally and tries to provoke violence, knowing problems such as corruption? Usually not. that violence by protesters will often discredit There are some cases where sabotage can them. never be justified. For a mechanic to “fix” a car Thus, there are some strong reasons against so that it breaks down could put someone’s sabotage as a strategy to fix problems. life in danger. For a farmer to poison a neigh- However, sabotage can’t be ruled out auto- bour’s property is environmental vandalism. matically. For example, many factory workers For a doctor to purposefully make an opera- in occupied Europe under the Nazis worked tion fail amounts to assault or murder. These slowly, made more mistakes than necessary sorts of criminal tactics are sometimes used and sometimes wrecked equipment, at great against whistleblowers and social activists. risk to themselves, all in an attempt to reduce Whistleblowers seldom even think of output that served the Nazi war machine. sabotage as an option. They are often the most An ethical resister can ask several questions committed and hard-working of employees, in making a decision. with pride in doing their jobs well. To do less • Could sabotage lead to risks to physical or than one’s best for others is repellent. mental health or the environment? If so, it’s Nevertheless, after being treated in the most not appropriate. abominable way by a management that cares • Does sabotage help solve the problem? If only about its power and is willing to do not, it’s not a good method. (Is the main anything to cover up problems, even the most reason revenge?) conscientious employee may begin to have • Does sabotage have significant support? If dark thoughts of revenge. There are several not, it’s likely to make people more antagonis- reasons, though, why sabotage is not a good tic. strategy. • Are there any alternatives to sabotage, • Sabotage seldom tackles the problem in a especially alternatives that build support? If direct way. If a company is corrupt, then so, they are probably preferable. wiping its computer files certainly causes Ironically, honest attempts to point out havoc but does little or nothing to expose the problems are often called “sabotage” or corruption or institute a process to overcome “treachery.” If corruption is deep-seated, then it. exposing it does indeed undermine the usual • Sabotage usually has to be carried out in way of doing things. It’s important to go secrecy. This means that it has to be an indi- beyond the rhetoric and name-calling and look vidual or small group operation, with little at who and what is serving the public interest. chance of involving large numbers of people. In most cases an open and committed stand Hence it is a poor way to build support, since against corruption and bad practice is far more sympathisers can only observe rather than threatening to vested interests than covert participate. wrecking. To turn around the language, it is • Sabotage can lead to increased support for vested interests who are the real “saboteurs.” management and antagonism towards the saboteur. If co-workers or clients are seriously inconvenienced, they may turn against the 8 Case studies: considering options

These case studies illustrate problems and strategies in: • workplace injury • scientific fraud • bullying • financial corruption • police corruption • sexual harassment • an unresponsive anti-corruption agency.

The following case studies illustrate the a promotion and was put in charge of testing a process of working out a strategy. Any single big and urgent order. His duties required him to case study cannot easily illustrate multiple assume awkward positions, including exerting strategies. To partially compensate, I’ve force with his hands above his head. John introduced various “exits,” where the story began developing pains in his right forearm. would take a different direction following a However, being extremely conscientious, he particular choice. The early exits are actually persisted working for long hours through the the most common outcomes — almost always pain, which soon became much worse. Eventu- unsuccessful. ally he was unable to work without extreme pain, which radiated up through his elbow and Insiders and outsiders shoulder and began appearing in his left These case studies focus on insiders: people forearm. closest to the problem, often working for an Exit 1. John arranges for another worker organisation. They face the greatest challenges to finish testing the urgent order. He then and have the greatest risk of failure. However, resigns and spends several years off work in each case study there is a role for outsiders before his condition begins to ease. who want to take action. Outsiders usually are Exit 2. After reporting his problems to relatively safe from reprisals (though there are his supervisor, John is dismissed for failing exceptions such as tackling organised crime). to finish the urgent order. He spends Outsiders therefore have more opportunities several years off work before his condition for acting openly. On the other hand, outsiders begins to ease. often lack the detailed information available Exit 3. After reporting his problems to only to insiders. Combining the insights of his supervisor, John is put on “special insiders with the actions available to outsiders duties” that supposedly take his injuries can produce a powerful force for change. into account. However, he is victimised in various small ways, sometimes being given A case of workplace injury tasks that are far too difficult to complete John worked for a major electrical company in (even if he had been fully fit) and some- a section that constructed and tested large times being given boring and pointless jobs. transformers. After several years, he obtained When he requests equipment to do his job,

65 66 The whistleblower’s handbook

it doesn’t arrive or he is given incorrect experienced with similar cases. He prepares a items. He encounters problems obtaining comprehensive case. leave (which had never been a problem before), is asked to fill out forms over and Exit 6. In court, John’s case begins to over (copies are supposedly “lost”), is fall apart. Only one of his supportive repeatedly transferred to different loca- witnesses is willing to testify; the others tions, put on inconvenient shifts and given are too afraid. Several managers and co- no sympathy by his supervisor. In the face workers testify against him, claiming that of this petty harassment, eventually he he never worked long hours and never decides to quit. complained about pain or disability before taking sick leave. The electrical company John decides to put in a workers’ compen- presents documents showing that special sation claim. He scrutinises the workplace’s equipment had been purchased and installed occupational health and safety agreement and well before John began work on the urgent finds that management has been negligent: it order. (It is obvious that the dates on these should have, but didn’t, provide special documents had been falsified.) His own equipment to reduce the risk of strain, institute photos are claimed to be from an earlier mandatory work breaks and warn workers of period. His case fails. the initial symptoms of repetition strain injury. He discusses the situation with several Before he goes to court, John makes contact co-workers. with a workers’ compensation support group and meets many others with stories like his Exit 4. Management finds out the John own. He learns that corporate negligence is is preparing a workers’ compensation commonplace, as are injuries and dirty tricks claim. Rumours are spread about him being to discredit those who make compensation a poor performer and malingerer who has claims. He obtains a lot of helpful advice on manufactured claims about pain to draw countering court claims. He compiles a dossier attention away from his own failure and on his own employer. With help from one who is out to benefit his pocketbook at the reliable current worker and several former expense of others. John is so distraught by workers with cases like his own, he obtains the rumours that he leaves without pursu- documents that will counter any falsified ones ing the compensation claim. that the electrical company might use. He goes Exit 5. At the workers’ compensation to court and wins a substantial amount in hearing, lawyers for the electrical company damages. produce evidence of John having been in a minor car accident ten years earlier, which Exit 7. The electrical company appeals. they claim was responsible for his Meanwhile, employers have been pressing problems. John is successful nevertheless. the government over mounting costs due to The company appeals the decision, and the repetition strain injury cases. The govern- appeal board reduces his benefits consid- ment itself is a major employer, many of erably. whose workers are making claims. The government puts a low cap on damages John has another option: pursuing a civil payable through civil courts, making it court action on the grounds of negligence. He impossible to obtain suitable compensation. finds out about what sort of evidence is re- Exit 8. The electrical company offers a quired, and talks to some co-workers about settlement. John will receive a substantial testifying on his behalf. He obtains photos of pay-out, but he must agree to a clause the workplace and typical transformers. He preventing him from saying anything about asks about lawyers and is directed to one the case or the size of his pay-out. Due to Case studies: considering options 67

his inability to work, he accepts the settle- gets a bad report and is terminated at the ment. Later, though, he is distressed to first available opportunity. learn that another worker at the company develops an injury because proper equip- Sarah, having read about some cases of ment and systems have still not been scientific fraud, knows that she must obtain installed. proof. Over the next four months, she is able to photocopy hundreds of pages from Analysis. Employers often attempt to Williams’ lab books. There are quite a number discredit workers who suffer injuries. A small of instances where half or two-thirds of minority of workers’ claims may be contrived Williams’ data are copies of an initial data set (“malingering”) but the bulk are genuine, and (presumably valid). She makes several sets of often the employer is culpable. Employers can copies and gives one set to a trusted friend. always deny responsibility for an injury; in addition, sometimes they can dispute the very Exit 3. Sarah gives all the evidence to the existence of an injury, as in the case of bad senior scientist in the lab. He dismisses the backs, repetition strain injuries and stress. For duplications as insignificant. He says the a lone worker to take on an employer or basic results are correct and have been insurance company that is attempting to avoid confirmed by other labs. The only effect is paying compensation can be as traumatic as to change the size of some of the error bars. the original injury. She writes to the journals that published Williams’ research. They do not respond. She writes to their scientific society and What outsiders can do gets a noncommital response. Sarah gets a Join or set up a workers’ compensation action bad report and is terminated at the first group. available opportunity. Exit 4. Sarah tries to build support by A case of scientific fraud talking to other researchers in the same lab. Sarah, a talented researcher with several years It’s not long before Williams finds out. of postdoctoral experience, obtained a contract Sarah is transferred to menial duties, her position in a major lab, where she worked with equipment is tampered with while she is several others including the prolific Dr away, and rumours are spread about her Williams. Sarah was a hard worker but she dishonesty and psychological hang-ups. could not believe the tremendous rate at which She cannot stand the strain and resigns. Williams produced results. One day, while Sarah investigates the issue of scientific glancing at his lab books, she noticed a curious fraud. She soon learns that formal procedures pattern. It appeared that half of his results for addressing scientific fraud hardly ever work were duplicates of the other half. This made it and that the accuser often pays the penalty. seem that he had done twice as many tests as She decides to lie low for the time being and he actually had. gather evidence and support. She consults a Exit 1. Sarah says nothing. When statistician who agrees to analyse the data and pressed for time she occasionally starts finds that in nearly every case, an initial set of duplicating her own results just like data is reproduced two or three times. But Williams. usually the duplicated points are not in the Exit 2. Sarah comments to Williams same sequence and so not readily identifiable about the results. He passes it off as a by casual observation. She also consults with fluke. The next day Williams’ current lab some senior scientists who are known for their book no longer displays the duplicates and investigations into scientific fraud. They say all previous books are locked away. Sarah that Williams’ actions are definitely improper. 68 The whistleblower’s handbook

Fiddling with data is not uncommon, though cation of credentials — can be extremely risky. the total scale of Williams’ faking is unusual. In developing an effective strategy, Sarah had Sarah writes up a concise, rigorous treat- to decide whether to use formal channels. She ment of Williams’ fraud, backing it with also had to decide who to talk to. Williams was sample data sheets. She prepares a plan of charming, talented and ambitious, and had so action to ensure the issue is not covered up. many supporters that it was risky talking to anyone in the institution. As a result, she was Exit 5. She waits until she is reappointed best able to build support from independent to a five-year post, with a promotion, and scientists and through media coverage. If the then takes her report to the head of the media had declined to report the story, she institution for a meeting. The head prom- could have circulated her report to scientists in ises to seek independent opinion and to the field, perhaps with considerable effect. keep the matter confidential. Within a week it is obvious that Williams has a copy of her report, so she goes as planned to the What outsiders can do media, where a science reporter has been Bring together scientists who have been primed with the story. A blitz of newspa- victimised for speaking out about fraud. Find per and radio coverage causes a storm in the scientists willing to comment on fraud cases institution, which sets up a formal investi- and journalists willing to investigate them. gation — into both Williams and Sarah! She finds that some of her lab books are A case of bullying missing. She is accused, among other things, Steve worked in a government department in a of inadequate documentation of her own large section dealing with trade policy. He was research, of false claims for expenses, and experienced and got on well with his co- of a false statement about a publication in workers. Things changed when a new boss, her curriculum vitae when she first applied Joe, was brought in from another department. for a job. The internal inquiry is a white- Joe was talented, with a reputation for being a wash of Williams. Sarah, under constant task-master. He could be charming but also had scrutiny at work, ponders whether to a dark side. He would suddenly turn on continue, to make an appeal for an individuals, shouting and swearing at them. At independent inquiry, or to leave. staff meetings he would sometimes humiliate Sarah waits until she obtains a job at an individual by making cutting comments another institution. After settling in and about their work. finding that cheating is not carried out or Steve soon noticed a pattern. Joe never condoned, she consults with her boss about attacked those who were totally compliant and exposing Williams. Her boss says the publicity who were no threat to him. But anyone who will detract from their research, but she also showed a bit of independence and talent was a says she’ll support Sarah if that is what she likely target. wants to do. After discussing the matter with Exit 1. Steve decides to stay on Joe’s all of her new colleagues, she releases her good side, does his bidding and informs Joe report to the media. So — the same publicity, about people who are “stepping out of the same accusations about Sarah, the same line.” whitewash. Sarah’s career is held up some- Exit 2. Steve leaves for another job as what, but she has achieved one important aim soon as possible. without massive cost to herself. Analysis. Exposing scholarly fraud — Steve does not want to leave, for two main whether it is fudging data, plagiarism or falsifi- reasons. He enjoys the work, and he is Case studies: considering options 69 concerned about some of his co-workers who actions verge on assault, such as when he are also friends. grabbed one person’s shirt and threw some- Over a period of months, Steve learns more thing towards another. about Joe’s method of operation. Joe’s fierce Steve also finds that Joe makes mistakes verbal abuse has lowered morale; several himself. Some of his decisions are flawed, and vulnerable workers have left or gone on leave he sometimes misuses funds for his own for stress. A few who have attempted to stand advantage. This is minor-level abuse of privi- up to Joe have suffered from sustained lege, but it reveals a major double standard harassment. Joe finds minor flaws in these considering Joe’s finding of fault with others. individuals’ work and demands that it be redone. He arranges assignments so that they Exit 6. Steve submits a formal complaint are likely to fail, and then explodes at them about Joe, using testimony from several co- when they do fail. Few can survive such a workers, to the department’s internal sustained attack on their competence. grievance committee. During the investiga- tion, Joe shows only his good side. The Exit 3. Steve tries to match Joe at his grievance committee is uncritical of Joe, and game, and exchanges shouts and insults recommends only some shuffling of duties with him in a major confrontation. Within and meetings with outside mediators. Top the next month, Steve is set up for an management doesn’t bother to implement embarrassing failure, receives a formal even these recommendations. Joe begins a reprimand and is given a choice: transfer to focused and subtle harassment of every a lesser post or resign. individual whose testimony was in the Exit 4. Steve has a “heart-to-heart” talk complaint. (He has found out several names with Joe, informing him of the destructive from material given “in confidence” to the effects of his behaviour. Joe seems to listen, grievance committee.) Steve is the prime but later Steve is set up for an embarrassing target, but survives because Joe is pro- failure, etc. moted to another department. Exit 5. Steve goes to talk to Joe’s boss, asking for some intervention. Joe’s boss Steve begins to collect information about says Joe is producing results and that Steve bullying at work. He learns that bullies often should just get on with his job. Steve is are incompetent and that they bully others to lucky. If Joe’s boss had told Joe about the cover up their own inadequacies. He finds that meeting, his job would have been on the in his department bullies are usually tolerated line. and that management always sides with bosses against subordinates, no matter how outra- Steve does some investigating. He talks to geous the boss’s behaviour. people who worked under Joe in his previous jobs. His style was the same then. He was able Exit 7. Steve prepares a summary of key to intimidate his subordinates but charm his points about bullying, its effects and how superiors, and his talent and hard work won to respond to it. He circulates copies to all him promotions in spite of the trauma and his co-workers, and this encourages some of demoralisation he left in his wake. them to resist. He finds two others who are Steve begins keeping a dossier on Joe. He willing to work with him to formulate a talks to Joe’s victims and writes up accounts. strategy to deal with Joe. Joe tries every Because he is experienced and trustworthy, trick he knows to break up the group, most of them are willing to sign the accounts befriending one and harassing another. The when Steve promises not to use them without struggle continues. permission. Steve finds that some of Joe’s Exit 8. Steve prepares a statement about Joe’s behaviour, making sure that every 70 The whistleblower’s handbook

statement is backed up by documentation. Dalenz operation but doesn’t want to risk After taking a job in the private sector, he her job. circulates copies of the statement through- out his old department and Joe’s new Over a matter of months, Chris finds out department (Joe has been promoted). The more about the Dalenz operation. By reading statement severely cramps Joe’s style. Joe reports of Amnesty International and search- sues Steve for defamation. ing the web, she finds that Dalenz is a brutal dictatorship known for torturing dissidents Analysis. Bullies in positions of power are and exploiting the workers. She also finds that very damaging, yet managements seldom are the standard executive remuneration package willing to act against them. Building support is includes only some of the perks that come out difficult when bullies use divide and rule of the special fund. She is sure that it is techniques. Yet if no one stands up to a bully, improper for Dalenz money to go into the the problem will just continue. special fund. Exit 3. Chris talks to the head auditor at What outsiders can do the bank about her concerns, and expresses Circulate information about bullying. Set up a her belief that the loans should be stopped bullying support group. and Dalenz money not accepted for any purpose, much less the special fund. The A case of financial corruption head auditor says that the low-interest Chris had years of experience as an auditor in loans are beneficial to the Dalenz people financial institutions. After joining a major and that the payments from the Dalenz bank, she gradually became aware of an opera- government are “just the way they do tion involving a Third World country, business.” Chris says she’s not convinced “Dalenz.” Special low-interest loans were and she’d like advice on how to pursue the being given to the Dalenz government against issue. That night there is a special delivery bank policy, since these were high-risk loans. to Chris’s house: all personal items from Payments from Dalenz — not loan repay- her office, a letter dismissing her due to ments — were being made to the bank and put “urgent administrative reorganisation” and a into a special fund, which top bank officials cheque for three months’ salary as sever- were able to draw on for personal assistants, ance pay. cars, family holidays, cruises and lavish Exit 4. Without telling anyone in the parties. bank, Chris writes an anonymous article in When Chris asked a co-worker about the a financial magazine reporting on “financial situation, she was told that this was standard irregularities” in Dalenz. Although her bank practice for Dalenz — all the other banks did isn’t mentioned, there is an immediate the same — and that the perks provided by investigation to find the source of the story. the special fund were a part of the remunera- She is a prime suspect, partly because her tion package for bank executives. It was denials are half-hearted — lying doesn’t simply a matter of convenience that it drew on come easily. All matters concerning the Dalenz money. Dalenz account are removed to higher levels. Chris’s job becomes highly unpleas- Exit 1. Chris does her best to make the ant after a witch hunt for the informant Dalenz operation appear normal financially leads to suspicions and petty harassment. and to get to a position where she can use the special fund. Chris decides to lie low and gather informa- Exit 2. Chris arranges for a transfer to tion. Over the next year she collects more another section. She’s suspicious about the information about repression and corruption in Case studies: considering options 71

Dalenz. She makes copies of documents about What outsiders can do payments into and out of the special fund. She Join or set up an action group such as makes contact with two independent special- “Financial Justice International.” ists, one on Dalenz and one on financial insti- tutions and corruption. She prepares a careful account of the Dalenz operation at the bank. A case of police corruption Tony was nearly 30 when he joined the police. Exit 5. Chris makes a formal submission He had had a number of office jobs and then to the Finance Regulatory Commission, a studied business computing at university, government body concerned with violation developing an interest in fraud and other white of banking codes. Although submissions are collar crime. After initial police training, he supposed to be confidential, within a was paired with an old hand, Smithers, dealing matter of days Chris is dismissed. The with cases of burglary. Tony immediately had Commission takes 18 months before ruling to decide how to respond to criminal action by that the matters are not in its jurisdiction. Smithers and others on the burglary squad. Chris sues the bank for improper dismissal Often they would steal from the site of a under whistleblower legislation, but this robbery, taking jewelry, cash and sometimes fails because she did not use a designated other goods. Their justification was that “the internal channel first. She makes submis- insurance company pays.” If they could find sions to several other bodies, to no avail. any drugs, they would take and sell them. Politicians are similarly unhelpful. They considered it a normal benefit of the job Exit 6. Through an action group FJI, — “cream on the cake.” “Financial Justice International,” she is put in touch with two other ethical resisters, in Exit 1. Tony joins in the stealing. He different banks, who know about deals with later moves up into the corporate crime Dalenz. Together they prepare a compre- section and makes quite a career for himself. hensive critique which they publish, under Exit 2. Tony reports the stealing to his pseudonyms, in a magazine specialising on commander. He is immediately removed to corporate corruption. FJI sends copies to menial office duties, given a bad report and social welfare groups in Dalenz. After drummed out of the force. resigning and setting up an independent Tony, through his reading on crime and the practice, Chris gives her story to the police, knew that this sort of corruption was national media. However, only a few alter- commonplace. His toughest task is to not native newspapers take it up. The bank participate while not raising the suspicions of mounts a concerted attempt to discredit his teammates, but he manages to pull this off Chris and for several years she barely by appearing to sympathise with their actions. makes enough to survive on her independ- He decides to document police theft as much ent audit consultancy. as possible. He keeps a diary of all robbery Analysis. When corruption reaches to the scenes attended, listing goods taken by Smith- highest levels — top bank officials, regulatory ers and others. He also makes tapes of some of bodies, politicians — then it is extremely their conversations, though these were not difficult to bring about change. From a per- easy to interpret due to use of police jargon. sonal point of view, Chris needed to examine Tony planned to lie low and gather as much her goals carefully. How important was it to material as possible. He is horrified to witness deal with the problem? How important was several brutal assaults on robbery suspects. He her own career? could understand his teammates’ frustration. The suspects were almost certainly guilty, yet in many cases there was not enough evidence 72 The whistleblower’s handbook to convict them, even when the police system- that it is a good story but that the media atically lied under oath to help the prosecu- cannot afford to run it because the police tion. Tony tapes some of these incidents of union has a record for suing, and the costs police assault. would be too great. Tony next takes his material to the national media. Television Exit 3. After collecting a dossier of networks are not interested due to lack of a damning material, Tony prepares a visual dimension — Tony has no videos. comprehensive submission to the Police Most of the national press do not run the Accountability Agency (PAA), a new body story: it is too much of a local issue to set up to deal with police corruption. After justify the investigative resources required. making his submission, Tony is called in by One crusading magazine, though, runs a the PAA to discuss what he knows. major story. Although Tony is not men- Shortly afterwards, Tony comes under tioned by name, he is soon identified as the severe attack. The PAA was supposed to source, and he soon comes under attack, keep his submission confidential, but it though nothing too blatant, since Tony’s becomes clear that some of its members teammates are aware that he might be have links to corrupt police. Tony is recording them. After the media attention personally abused by Smithers and others; dies down, he is thoroughly framed — with the tyres to his car are slashed; he finds alteration of official records — put through threatening notes in his locker; his wife and serious misconduct proceedings and children receive threatening phone calls. dismissed. The magazine makes a major The family cat is found killed. In spite of all story of the dismissal, and a few other this, he sticks it out. Then, one day, as he is media outlets take up the issue at this putting on his jacket, he is arrested. Drugs point. However, Tony’s career is de- and a large wad of cash are found in the stroyed. jacket. Complaints about him are filed with the PAA. He is dismissed. He thinks about Tony decides to find allies before going taking the matter to the Ombudsman or a public. As a precaution, he makes multiple politician but is deterred by the possibility copies of all his documentation and gave of a criminal charge based on his frame-up. copies to several trusted friends. He also manages to obtain a copy of his own police file Tony was aware that the sort of abuse and — spotless so far — and makes copies to corruption he was witnessing was tolerated protect himself in case of future alteration. throughout the force. He decides his only hope After reading further on the problem of of success lies with popular outrage generated police corruption, Tony realises that it is through media coverage. Police beating of systemic in most police forces and that there is robbery suspects is, unfortunately, not likely evidence of a national-level “brotherhood.” to produce all that much concern. But Tony Therefore he cannot expect to address the also witnesses some police assaults on inno- problem by exposing a few individuals. He cent individuals, especially homeless people, makes contact with a national activist group youths “with an attitude” and racial minorities. dealing with police abuses and, as a result, One particularly brutal attack results in two meets several police whistleblowers from young people requiring emergency surgery, around the country. He learns from them the and Tony manages to capture much of this on incredible personal cost of challenging police tape. corruption from the inside and the virtual Exit 4. Tony takes his documentation to impossibility of bringing about change when the local media. However, weeks pass and the major political parties are campaigning on nothing appears. Several journalists tell him “law and order.” Case studies: considering options 73

Exit 5. Tony leaves the police and takes technicians. Lydia needs to learn on the job, another job. He joins a minor political party and some of the technicians know more than and works to implement a policy that anyone about practical things, since many of would address police corruption. the senior engineers have managerial roles. Exit 6. Tony helps the activist group All the female engineers encounter a degree write and produce a booklet designed for of hostility, especially from the technicians. people subject to police brutality. The There is foul language and sexual jokes obvi- stress of keeping all his outside activity ously intended to cause them distress, and with the group a secret becomes too much they are undermined by not being told about and he leaves the force. certain standard ways of doing things. One of Exit 7. Tony decides to keep a low the other new engineers, Alice, is singled out profile and move as soon as he can to the for harassment: certain men stare at her body white collar crime section. Here he finds an while ignoring what she says and put porno- outlet for his computer skills. Before long it graphic pictures in her desk drawer. There are became clear that corruption pervaded this incidents where men grab her, ostensibly to area too. The main differences are that there protect her from a danger. Alice confides that is no direct violence and the amounts of she is thinking about quitting. money are vastly greater. With his links to police whistleblowers he is made con- Exit 1. Lydia shows little sympathy. stantly aware of the difficulty of exposing She tries to become “one of the boys,” joins problems and building support without in laughter at Alice’s expense and ignores sacrificing his career. He keeps collecting the more serious harassment. information, passing it on to criminology Exit 2. Lydia decides to leave at the first researchers and looking for an avenue to use opportunity. She thinks she will be the next it where it might actually change things. target after Alice. Exit 3. Lydia talks to the main harassers, Analysis. It is exceedingly risky to expose telling them that Alice is seriously upset police corruption from the inside, yet exceed- and thinking of leaving. This only encour- ingly difficult to tackle it from the outside. ages them to escalate their attacks. In a Particular circumstances are required to open particularly serious incident, Alice suffers a the possibility of real change. Tony had a far minor injury and then goes on leave for better chance than most, having prior work stress. Lydia joins Alice in making a formal experience and skills, yet none of his options complaint to their manager. Nothing guaranteed anything like success. happens for months, and the harassment continues. Lydia comes under more What ousiders can do systematic attack and eventually leaves. Set up a police corruption action group. Bring They take the company to court under together police whistleblowers. Campaign to antidiscrimination legislation. The company change policies, such as drug laws, that allow fights them tooth and nail, and accuses police corruption to flourish. them of bad performance and even cheating to obtain their engineering qualifications. After two years they lose the case. A case of sexual harassment Lydia is a recent engineering graduate who Lydia undertakes a systematic study of the obtains a job in a major corporation. She was problem. She reads books and articles about one of several female engineers appointed at sexual harassment, and also studies male the same time into an area previously com- engineering culture. She talks to sexual harass- pletely dominated by male engineers and ment counsellors and activists and makes 74 The whistleblower’s handbook contact with other female engineers who have emphasising how the harassment is reducing come up against the problem. She finds out productivity and reducing the chance of that formal complaints have very little chance making the changes needed to keep the of success. company competitive. They also provide After talking to them individually, Lydia some leaflets on sexual harassment. Two of the calls a meeting of all the female engineers to men are openly sympathetic. (The wife of one share their experiences and information. Some of them is also an engineer, working elsewhere of them were not aware of how bad things but confronting similar problems.) were for Alice. They agree to support each Observing a serious “bump-and-grab” other. They begin to systematically collect incident, one of the sympathetic man speaks information about every incident of harass- critically to the harasser, who in turn becomes ment. very aggressive and nearly starts a fight. A manager happens to witness the entire Exit 4. After the harassment continues, episode. Lydia and Alice mount a court case under antidiscrimination legislation, thinking that Exit 6. The harasser is summarily fired. the detailed evidence they’ve collected will A trade union official, with strong links to allow them to win against the odds. The the most serious harassers, gets the techni- case turns their male co-workers against cians to go on strike, telling them that the them and, even without overt incidents, the harasser is the victim of a neurotic feminist hostility leads both of them to resign. After who has just broken up with her boyfriend. three tough years they win the case and are After the company agrees to abide by the awarded compensation. The company decision of an arbitrator, the technicians appeals. After two more years they settle return to work. The arbitrator finds that out of court for a substantial sum which, dismissal was too strong an action, and the however, is small compared to the damage worker is reinstated. The whole episode to their careers. Meanwhile, the court case mobilises most of the workers behind the has triggered some superficial changes by harasser, who is seen as a victim of management but united the male engineers management. and technicians against the two women. Exit 7. Aware of the increasing tensions, Exit 5. The women decide to approach the manager is galvanised into action and is one of the company’s new vice-presidents, able to implement a “restructuring” that the first woman to be appointed to this mostly separates the serious harassers from level. The VP tells them they should just the women. As a result they have an easier tough it out, the same way she did. Later, time but the culture in the work group with when contacting female lawyers and the harassers remains deadly. counsellors, they find that the VP — an influential person in several circles — has Analysis. Sexual harassment is a serious undermined some of their support. continuing problem, with close links to bully- ing. If it is deeply entrenched in workplace Lydia realises that to change the culture in culture, a long-term strategy oriented to the workplace, it is necessary to get the building support is necessary. support of some male workers. By carefully observing them, she notices that several of What outsiders can do them refuse to participate in harassment and a Join or set up support groups for people who few are obviously repelled by what is have been sexually harassed. Produce publicity happening but are not game to do anything. about the problem. Mount campaigns targeting The women speak to several of these men, notorious harassers. Case studies: considering options 75

Case of an unresponsive anti-corruption make a complaint to the review committee, agency pointing out the failure of the CGC to Kylie is a middle-ranking manager at a maintain confidentiality. The review company that successfully tenders for committee, however, gives the CGC a government contracts. She becomes aware of a favourable report. Talking to a member of kick-back scheme by which senior staff at the the review committee, Kylie is told that agency receive payments from companies in there is not any solid evidence that the exchange for favourable treatment. She wants CGC is responsible for her dismissal. to expose the scheme but is aware that her own company might lose some of its contracts Kylie, talking to her friends about her if she does so. problem, is told about someone else who went Kylie decides to make an anonymous to the CGC but obtained no satisfaction. She submission to the Committee on Government contacts this person, hears a similar story to Corruption (CGC), an independent govern- her own, and is told about others. Soon she has ment-funded agency set up to investigate and a list of half a dozen people who are disgusted root out corruption in government bodies. Six with the CGC, either because it has failed to months after making her detailed submission, follow up their information, revealed their nothing has happened. She then rings the CGC identity, or botched investigations so that the and asks what happens with anonymous main culprits escape while penalities are submissions. She is told that the CGC imposed on a few scapegoats. Kylie realises normally doesn’t act on information unless the that her experiences are typical. She and two informants identify themselves, but that others decide to set up the CGC Reform identities of all informants are kept in the Group. strictest confidence. With misgivings, Kylie Exit 3. The Reform Group decides to composes and signs a careful letter asking for lobby government officials who formally action on her previous submission. have oversight over the CGC. They muster Soon after, her company loses an expected all their evidence and arguments against the contract and she is the only person laid off, CGC and then prepare submissions and though her work had been highly regarded. A arrange meetings. After two years it is friendly co-worker tells her that she was apparent that only superficial changes will suspected of having stabbed the company in be recommended. Most Reform Group the back. members lose interest due to lack of Exit 1. Kylie, severely burned by the progress. experience, moves to another part of the The Reform Group decides to adopt a country, obtains another job and vows to strategy based on publicity. After preparing stay out of trouble in future. their arguments to be bold and punchy, they Months pass, and no action is taken in contact some journalists and produce media relation to her submission. Kylie obtains a releases accusing the CGC of being “clumsy on clerical job and decides to persist with her corruption.” The resulting media stories bring concerns. She approaches several other in many new members with further stories of agencies but is told that the CGC is the most CGC failures. They also stimulate a few appropriate body for her complaint. Her calls individuals to write letters to newspapers in to the CGC result in bland assurances that her defence of the CGC. submission is “being looked into.” CGC officials do not comment after the first round of stories, obviously hoping the Exit 2. The CGC is being reviewed after issue will die down. But as the coverage 10 years of operation. Kylie decides to continues week after week — stimulated by 76 The whistleblower’s handbook new Reform Group members — the CGC investigation teams and produce documents. It issues its own media releases. It also promotes soon becomes obvious that this is an enormous stories about successes in dealing with corrup- enterprise and that it will be necessary to tion and attacks the Reform Group for being concentrate on a few specific areas and types ignorant and unrepresentative. of corruption. PCGC organisers realise that they need to set the highest standards for its Exit 4. The Reform Group maintains its investigation teams and that they might be media campaign and is quite successful in infiltrated or set up. One early spin-off is that denting the image of the CGC. Eventually, two workers at the CGC approach the PCGC though, they run out of “new” stories and with inside information about how the CGC journalists and editors lose interest. The operates and why it has avoided tackling well- CGC weathers the storm and continues on known areas of major corruption. as before, though not as many whistleblow- Analysis. Government oversight bodies are ers approach it as before. often under-resourced and lose any drive to Some members of the Reform Group begin tackle deep-seated problems. Individuals who a deeper investigation of the CGC, looking into expect results are often disappointed. Their its history, record of performance and also at best chance of changing things comes from the record of similar bodies in other countries. banding together. Even then, it is extremely They discover that the CGC had never been hard to counteract the advantages of a govern- given the resources or mandate to get at the ment body with formal legitimacy and connec- most significant forms of corruption — tions. Sometimes it can be more productive to especially corruption linked to the politicians take direct action against the problem rather who had set it up — and that it had gradually than continuing with a complaint against an drifted into a pattern of paper-shuffling (to official body’s lack of action. satisfy stringent bureaucratic reporting requirements) and focus on a few superficial What outsiders can do but high-profile cases. Join or set up a group such as the CGC Exit 5. These research-oriented members Reform Group or the People’s Committee on of the Reform Group prepare several Government Corruption. sophisticated papers about the failure of government-initiated campaigns against corruption and get them published in journals and magazines. This academic orientation turns off many other members. In a last-ditch effort to regain momentum, the Reform Group produces an excellent leaflet about the weaknesses of the CGC. However, there is not enough energy to give it wide distribution. Some members of the Reform Group decide that they need to take action into their own hands. By focussing on the CGC, they were assuming that salvation came from someone else. They decide to set up the “People’s Committee on Government Corruption” or PCGC. It would take submissions, establish 9 Surviving

Whistleblowing can have devastating consequences for health, finances and relationships. You should take steps to maintain each of them.

The personal consequences of whistleblowing Regular exercise is important. Walking, or otherwise challenging the system can be aerobics, jogging, swimming and cycling are severe. Unless you’ve been through it your- excellent. They build fitness, reduce bodily self, it can be worse than you can possibly tension and have a psychologically calming imagine. There are impacts in three major effect. Some competitive sports can be good areas. too, though there can be tension due to the Health. The stress of coming under attack competition itself. can lead to headaches, insomnia, nausea, Good diet is vital. This means eating regu- palpitations, spasms and increased risk of larly and in moderation, with plenty of fruit infections, cancer, stroke and heart attack, and vegetables. Vitamin-rich and mineral-rich among others. Psychologically, impacts can foods are especially important; many people include depression, anxiety and paranoia. take supplements as well. A wholesome diet Whistleblowers often suffer post-traumatic makes a big difference in helping resist stress. stress disorder. This is standard advice, but it can be hard to Finances. Many whistleblowers suffer in follow when under intense pressures. There their careers, losing out on possible promo- can be a temptation to overeat or to skip meals tions and new jobs. More seriously, they may (depending on the person) and to eat the take a cut in pay or lose their jobs. On top of wrong sorts of foods. this, legal and other expenses are often more The same applies to drugs. Smoking, alco- than £5,000 and sometimes more than hol and other drugs may give short-term relief £50,000. but they can aggravate physical problems and Relationships. Getting involved in a major cover up psychological problems. case plays havoc with personal relationships, It can be extremely difficult to change due to the allegations and rumours, the stress habits, especially in a stressful situation. and the time and effort taken fighting the case. Willpower is often inadequate. Late at night, This can cause friends and relatives to stay after hours spent preparing a submission, it is away and can break up marriages. far more tempting to reach for a smoke or a Impacts in these three areas interact, of chocolate than for a carrot stick. course. Health and financial problems put a There are several ways to try to overcome strain on relationships, and a breakdown in this sort of behaviour. One is to ask a family relationships can aggravate health problems. member, friend or co-worker to help. If the rest of the family is eating a wholesome meal, Maintaining good health it is easy to join in. If a friend comes by every The impacts of stress are to some extent day to join you for a walk or a swim, it is unavoidable. If you catch the flu, then it will easier to keep up the habit. run its course. But there are ways to reduce A second way is to design your environ- the worst consequences. ment so that bad habits are harder to follow. If

77 78 The whistleblower’s handbook there are no cigarettes in the house, it’s easier fresh perspective on the world. This is vital to to resist the urge for a smoke. If there are tasty be able to build support and to formulate and fresh fruits always available but no rich cakes, pursue a sensible strategy. then snacking on the fruit becomes easier. Retaining a sense of perspective in the face A third way is to establish a routine to deal of harassment and other pressures is a chal- with stressful events or times. You might write lenge. If your body is reacting, with insomnia, down a list of “things to do” whenever feeling headaches or worse, this adds to the challenge. severely stressed. For example: “(1) take 10 Some pressures are external, and it may not deep, slow breaths; (2) walk around the block; be possible to avoid them. Other pressures are (3) write down exactly what it is that is self-imposed, for example spending long hours making me feel stressed; (4) tell myself that I preparing a submission. Try to moderate the will succeed in making a difference.” Pin this self-imposed pressures. Plan ahead to avoid list on the wall or put it in your pocket, and last-minute demands. Ask for extensions to then use it. Experiment to find what works for deadlines. Take regular breaks in work ses- you. sions. If you are a perfectionist, ask a friend to Another important part of maintaining good help you decide when things are polished health is to get plenty of rest. This can be enough. difficult. Insomnia is a common reaction to It can help to learn skills in mental relaxa- stress. It is possible to spend half the night tion. You could try meditation, learning from a awake worrying about what action you should book or a teacher, or something like tai chi, take or what’s going to happen next. There are with both physical and mental aspects. several things that help cope with insomnia. Many people think that emotions just Regular exercise and good diet help. Overuse of happen and that there is nothing we can do cigarettes, alcohol and most other drugs don’t. about them. Actually, emotions can be con- Sleeping pills can help in the short term but trolled to a considerable extent. You can decide over a longer period are undesirable. It is wise what you want to feel and set about achieving to go to bed about the same time every night it. Rather than responding to attacks with fear and, even more importantly, to get up the and anger, you can decide that you’re going to same time. If you can’t sleep, then get up and try to feel filled with confidence, resolve, do something unrelated to what is worrying dignity — even compassion. you, such as read a novel, listen to the radio or One of the ways to do this is through “self- do a craft. Lack of sleep on its own is not talk.” Athletes do this to build up their self- damaging, and most tasks can be carried out confidence and create a deep belief that they with full competence by sleep-deprived can win against the odds. When you are in a people. secure situation, perhaps just after waking up It may seem unfair to have to watch your or before going to sleep, you recite to yourself diet and avoid overindulgence. Why should affirmations such as “I am a worthy person. I you? Think of it as being in training. A top will persist with confidence and good swimmer has to put in lots of hours in the humour.” If you’re a visual person, using pool, eat suitably and get sufficient rest. A appropriate imagery might work better. whistleblower, in order to succeed against What’s happening here is that you control enormous pressures, also needs to put in the your thoughts and this in turn helps shape required hours of preparation and to make sure your emotions. There are limits, though. If a their body can withstand the stress. friend of yours dies, it is natural to feel grief. Just as important as physical fitness is But it is also natural for that grief to decline in psychological fitness. This is not just a matter intensity over a period of time. If it persists, of remaining sane but of keeping a balanced, then it is time to use self-talk to change your Surviving; whistleblower groups 79 emotional state. Similarly, an incident of seri- people don’t know what they are spending. ous harassment can be expected to lead to Keeping a detailed budget over a month or strong feelings, such as anger, fear or depres- more can be helpful. Perhaps there are lots of sion, depending on the person and the circum- expenses for the mortgage, the car, eating out, stances. Through self-talk, these negative medical treatment, buying clothes or sending emotions can be minimised. the children to a private school. The key is to A second limit on shaping your emotions is be aware of them. habit. After a lifetime of feeling excessive Next, prepare for the worst outcome. If you resentment or distress at certain types of are being seriously threatened with dismissal, situations, it is not easy to change. Don’t then prepare for dismissal and a period expect a sudden personality transformation. without work. If you are pursuing a legal case, Just keep working at it. it may take twice as long as the lawyer When under stress, just talking with a predicts and cost twice as much. If you win, sympathetic person can do wonders. It can be the other side may appeal. The worst case is a serious mistake to bottle up feelings. The that you lose. Take this into account when, for more serious the situation, the more important example, considering whether to ask to borrow it is to talk. It can be with a friend or a trained money from relatives. counsellor — someone you trust and who is If you lose your job, you need to cut helpful. If selecting a therapist, try to obtain expenses immediately. It’s tempting to keep advice, for example a recommendation from up the same lifestyle in the hope that you’ll someone who has been in a similar situation. get your job back in an appeal or get a new If, for some reason, you are unable to talk one. This is risky and can make things far about your situation with anyone, you can talk worse later on. It may be wise to move to to yourself. Just say out loud what you’d say cheaper lodging, sell or do without certain if someone were there. An alternative is to luxury items, or to change to less expensive write it down. A diary can be immensely habits or hobbies. therapeutic. Speaking and writing help to get Cutting expenses may seem like giving up. things “out of your system.” Indeed, in a few situations, maintaining appearances can be important to winning a Surviving financially case. But usually the cost of your clothes and A few dissidents don’t have to worry about the newness of your car are far less important money. They may have large savings or a than your ability to survive and keep fighting partner with a secure job. But for the majority, the case. You are much more likely to survive financial survival is a crucial issue. A primary if you are living within your finances and factor that keeps most people from speaking prepared for the worst outcome. Otherwise up about problems is fear of loss of income. you may have to give up in the middle of the On top of this, fighting a case through the struggle due to finances. courts and some other channels can be incredi- If you win a big settlement or get your job bly expensive. back, it’s time to celebrate. But don’t assume The keys to surviving financially are to: money problems are over. If you can’t get a • make a complete and honest assessment of job or are dismissed again, your bank balance one’s situation; could dwindle to nothing before you know it. • work on a minimum weekly budget; Prudent financial planning is essential to give • prepare for the worst outcome; you long-term security. • act now rather than later. It can be difficult to make a complete and honest assessment of one’s finances. Some 80 The whistleblower’s handbook

Maintaining relationships information if they want to. For casual Winning a case can become an all-consuming acquaintances, use only the briefest of summa- struggle, taking up every waking minute and ries. If they want to know more, let them ask. every thought. Since you’re struggling for your If you have a write-up, that can replace a beliefs and your life, it’s natural to become lengthy repeat of the story. single-minded. Since you talk only about your There are several advantages to saying less case, your relatives, friends and co-workers rather than more. You are better able to will start to think that you’re obsessed. maintain relationships and avoid alienating They’re right! people. You create a better image as a sensible, There are two important reasons why balanced person, and this can help you succeed maintaining relationships should be a priority. in the struggle. You can get a better sense of First, personal relationships are important in how other people perceive and react if you themselves. For most people, they are an listen rather than talk. Understanding other essential part of a life worth living. Is your people’s perspectives is very helpful in case so very important that it’s worth alienat- making your own message more effective and ing those who are closest to you? keeping your case in context. Struggles are often far more intense and long-lasting than ever imagined at the begin- A strategy for psychological survival ning. A friend who starts off making a tempo- Anyone who suffers abuse, whether due to rary sacrifice may eventually find that it whistleblowing or some other reason, can becomes too much. Rekindling friendships benefit from the book Work Abuse by Judith may not be so easy. Of course, the struggle Wyatt and Chauncey Hare. This is a compre- may help you decide who your “real” friends hensive guide to surviving harassment, scape- are. But do you want the struggle to define all goating, humiliation and undermining. It is by your relationships? far the most helpful manual that I’ve come The second important reason why main- across. It is directed at middle and lower-level taining relationships should be a priority is workers who would like to change things but that it can help you succeed in your struggle. have no support from, or are actively sabo- Your family, friends and co-workers are taged by, their superiors. potential allies. They can give you direct help The authors have years of experience in and moral support. It’s far better to win them counselling work abuse victims. They are over than to turn them off. blunt in stating that most workplaces are Your case may be the most important thing abusive and that there’s no easy way to in your life but it won’t be for most other change them. Therefore, they argue, the people. A few may join you in your passion individual who is a target of abuse needs to but many others will prefer you to be the way develop personal skills to understand the you used to be. situation, change their emotional response and • Spend time with those you care about the rehearse new behaviours. most. If you are spending lots of time on a Their underlying premise is that in order to case, you won’t be able to do all the socialising survive, change the situation or leave success- you used to do. Time with those closest to fully, one has to change oneself. Although this you should be a priority. will not be welcomed by those who seek to • Focus on the other person. Listen to their confront and expose management, the concerns and perspectives. If the other person approach nevertheless has useful insights for has heard a lot from you about the case, one organisational activists, especially in under- useful technique is not to raise it unless they standing what may be happening to others and ask. Then, be brief and let them ask for more learning how to support them. Surviving; whistleblower groups 81

The authors rely on the concept of shame with shaming by others, avoiding self-shaming as the driving force behind organisational and avoiding futile power struggles. dynamics. People are shamed (humiliated) in Strategic utilisation involves setting goals, various ways, for example by being exposed or planning and preparation, evaluating alterna- criticised for doing an inadequate job, by tives and taking action. One important part of having suggestions ignored or laughed at, by this is working out one’s own self-interests being revealed as too emotional or caring, and a and also the self-interests of others, and then host of other ways. aligning one’s self-interests with those of To develop a method of coping with the others, especially superiors, in order to dynamics of shame in organisations, the achieve one’s own goals while not threatening authors examine the psychology of both others. individuals and groups. They develop the The authors give some lengthy examples, ideas of “cims” (childhood individual mainte- showing how shaming, abuse and their nance strategies) that shape individual recommended strategies operate. Their psychology and of “norms” (native organisa- analysis is based largely on experience with tional maintenance strategies) that shape group US workplaces, but most of it would apply dynamics. Both cims and norms are uncon- readily elsewhere. scious, and their interaction affects how Work Abuse is a long book. It is not some- individuals cope. thing to read in a day or even a week. It does Wyatt and Hare’s basic strategy for not provide a quick fix to urgent problems. workers is to learn how to analyse people and Rather, it is best studied slowly and thought- the organisation (cims and norms) and to fully. The process of changing one’s own develop the capacity to not be affected by habitual ways of responding to abuse is not shaming, but instead to psychologically easy. The authors recommend finding either a distance oneself. In other words, rather than therapist or a friend to help, especially in being caught up in toxic behaviours at work, recovering from a crisis. But most important is they believe it is possible to emotionally being willing to undertake the process of separate oneself, maintaining integrity inter- change and putting in the effort to do so. nally and helping to survive and promote The book is a bargain if it gives even a beneficial change. They are quite clear about chance of avoiding work abuse, which can how difficult it is to get others to change, cause suffering for years, not to mention especially managers, who have a stake in their substantial financial losses. power and who are threatened by those who To a considerable extent, the reader must demonstrate competence (not to mention take what the authors say on trust. There is no those who mount a direct challenge). detailed justification for the analysis (such as They elaborate two major methods for their assumption that shame is the key driving survival: “empowered awareness” and “strate- force in abuse), nor any statistics on the gic utilisation.” Empowered awareness is effectiveness of their methods compared to basically becoming conscious of what is other techniques. Their case rests primarily on happening, including all the abuse, rather than how well their explanation fits with readers’ denying it. It is a process of developing the own experiences and understandings. In other skills for building one’s own inner psychologi- words, you need to ask, does what they say cal world. It involves observing your own ring true? To me it does! feelings, evaluating other people’s character In several places their observations mesh styles and observing the organisation’s norms with views of those familiar with whistle- and power structure. It includes generating blowing. For example, they say you shouldn’t meaning and purpose in one’s own life, coping expect justice from top management. In fact, 82 The whistleblower’s handbook they say, “Justice is a myth, a story; expect- the organisation; the authors argue against any ing it to happen within a negative-norm such self-destructive path. However, they workplace is always self-destructive.” don’t say what to do about large-scale corrup- The authors’ focus is on surviving person- tion or dangers to the public. Just ignoring it in ally and developing strategies to move ahead. order to survive hardly seems enough. Their In most cases, blowing the whistle leads only approach has value, I believe, even for those to grief for the whistleblower and no change in who decide to tackle such problems.

10 Whistleblower groups

A whistleblower group can both support individuals and help tackle social problems. Options include networks, support groups and action groups.

One of the most useful things for any person campaigners. Finding out who these people are with a special problem is to talk with others may not be so easy. One way is to ask who have similar experiences. This is true of prominent whistleblowers, whether local or men with prostate cancer, children of alcohol- from other cities. People who have received ics — and whistleblowers. Meetings of whis- media coverage are often contacted by others tleblowers are remarkably helpful. For with similar experiences. Another way is to newcomers, it is often the first time they have search through newspapers or ask journalists. talked with anyone who really understands Over a year, it wouldn’t be surprising if what they’ve been going through. The relief several cases were reported. Finally, there is and reassurance this provides to someone who publicity. An advertisement or, far better, an has been under constant attack is hard to article or news story about whistleblowing is appreciate. an excellent way to encourage people to So, just contact some local whistleblowers, contact you. call a meeting and away you go! That can be all Sometimes, though, there are plenty of it takes. But things are seldom this simple. people known to be willing to attend a Here I will outline some factors to consider meeting, but no one is willing to do the work. in organising to support whistleblowers. This Calling a meeting is not a big operation. Find a draws heavily on my experience with Whistle- venue — a person’s home, or a room in a blowers Australia but includes insights from library, church or school — select a date and other groups. time, and send out notices. But someone has to do the organising, and only a minority of Getting started people will take the initiative and associated In any city of 100,000 or people, there are responsibility. Action groups and support probably dozens of people with whistleblow- groups depend on these organisers. Many ing experience and many with current cases. groups never start because there is no such As well, there will be others who are sympa- person. Others depend on one person, without thetic or concerned, such as free speech whom the group would collapse. For a group Surviving; whistleblower groups 83 to have resilience, there should be several Being on such a list might seem like a big people who will take responsibility. That’s responsibility, but actually it doesn’t lead to the best situation. much work (and no one is obliged to help, From now on, I’m assuming that there is at anyway). Most people on the DNA list would least one organiser. The next question is, what be contacted no more than once or twice in a should be done? There are a number of year. There are several reasons for this. possibilities, each with advantages and disad- First, a large number of contacts occur vantages. through personal referral. When someone who knows me asks for advice, I often suggest that Networks they contact certain other people (who might A network is essentially a set of actual or be on the DNA list!). Second, people are more potential links between people. One example likely to contact someone in a position of is Dissent Network Australia (DNA), which is power or status. Many more people contacted basically just a list of 30 or so people. Each me after I became president of Whistleblowers person provides contact information, their Australia, even though my knowledge and areas of knowledge and experience, and what skills were not much different than before. they are potentially willing to do to help dissi- (After being in such a position for a while, dents, such as provide advice, write letters, though, one gains knowledge and skills because talk to the media or photocopy materials. The of all the information that pours in.) Third, list is then sent to everyone on the list plus people are more likely to contact someone anyone else who might be interested. After who has a presence on the issue. This is often that, it all depends on someone’s initiative. If through the media. If you are mentioned in a someone contacts me asking for advice or help, newspaper or give a talk on radio, people with I can give them a copy of the list so they can similar concerns may be inspired to contact consult others if they wish. A journalist can you. use the list to find people willing to speak on A network is more than names on a piece of particular topics. Someone on the list might paper. It is a process, a set of active relation- send articles to everyone else on the list. ships. If a network is active, it usually means When you think about it, it’s obvious that that its members are engaged with the issues as every organisation has one or more associated well as with each other. networks. Employees know each other, or at The example of DNA is useful because it least some of them know each other. They shows that there can be a network without an may just meet at the job, or they may ring each organisation. People who are involved in other at home, go to parties, etc. The same organisations often begin to think that the applies to church members, club members and organisational aspects — meetings, regulations, students, among others. policies — are central, and forget about the In all these cases, there is an organisation network aspects. In reality, networks are one and a network. DNA, in contrast, is a network of the most important things about organisa- without an organisation. There are no tions. meetings, no money, no constitution, no office bearers. There’s just the list, and everything Individual support else is at someone’s initiative. The one If someone rings up with a problem, you may exception is that one or two people need to be able to offer information, support and take responsibility for producing, updating and advice. Individual support is one of the most mailing out the list. As in most voluntary vital parts of helping whistleblowers and activities, organisers are vital. promoting dissent. It doesn’t require great knowledge, but rather a sensitivity to a person 84 The whistleblower’s handbook and their concerns. There are a few things that lengthy reports can be helpful for those who are often helpful. have a deeper interest. 1. Listen. Often a person with a problem What should the materials be about? just needs someone to listen without judging • Information about the topic, whether it is them. They may be able to work out a solution ethics in the workplace, corruption, what themselves without any advice. There can be a happens to whistleblowers, or methods of great temptation to jump in and tell a person responding. what they should be doing. That may be • Contacts: names, addresses, phone counterproductive. People need to reach their numbers. own decisions. What can help, sometimes, is • Where to get more information: organisa- suggestions of options or implications — but tions, web sites, references to articles and not a long lecture. Listen…listen. books. 2. Contacts. You may be able to suggest For some people, getting a packet of infor- people who can help or who have had similar mation materials is the main help they’ll experiences. Maybe there is an organisation or receive. They may be isolated geographically a meeting. A lot of support is helping a person or socially, or they may be in a risky position make the right contacts. (Back to the net- and nervous about speaking too widely about works.) their case. Information kits should be designed 3. Information. You may have leaflets, and chosen to help people to become as self- articles or other materials that can help. (See reliant as possible. below.) Nearly everyone has much to offer in giving Support groups and action groups individual support, if they want to. If you Whistleblowers can form support groups or want to improve your listening skills, observe action groups — both of which are described others who are good at this, for example at in chapter 7 — or groups that are combina- meetings. Ask for feedback from people you tions of both. Support groups probably offer talk to. Try some role plays in “active listen- the best chance of giving whistleblowers more ing.” For improving knowledge of contacts, confidence and support without the aggrava- talk to people yourself, ask people for their tion of formal procedures and business. They recommendations, attend meetings and get aren’t necessarily easy to run, and sometimes advice from good networkers. For improving they are filled with tension and anguish — knowledge of information sources, read things many whistleblowers need a lot of support — yourself and ask others what was most helpful but it’s worth the effort. to them. Whistleblower action groups can use a variety of methods, including lobbying politi- Information materials cians, producing newsletters and reports, Talking to people is fine but it takes time and carrying out investigations, making informed can become repetitive. Giving someone a public statements, writing letters, organising leaflet or article that addresses their particular meetings or promoting civil disobedience. situation can be extremely helpful. To provide They can have various goals, such as promot- support effectively, it’s valuable to have a ing whistleblower legislation, changing laws or collection of materials. Then the most relevant policies that constrain free speech of employ- ones can be given or posted to a person ees, opposing the use of defamation law seeking advice. against free speech, exposing corruption and Short treatments are often most helpful to injustice in specific areas (police, banks, begin with. Leaflets are good and so are copies building industry, etc.), opposing censorship of newspaper or other articles. Books and or promoting alternatives to mainstream media. Surviving; whistleblower groups 85

Here I’ll just give a few brief comments about off by the process of scrutiny. On the other some key issues facing whistleblower and hand, all sorts of people can attend an open related groups. group, and this may include a few disruptive Action versus support. In many groups ones who are given no credence by anyone there is a mixture of functions, including both else. action and support. Getting the balance right is hard. Some people are coming to get things Jean Lennane comments done — action. They are oriented to tasks. Whistleblowers are normally very conscien- Others are seeking support. They are primar- tious and often somewhat obsessive people, ily concerned about maintaining relationships. who by definition won’t shut up and go away. Support or maintenance is always involved, When they first come to a whistleblower at some level. If support functions are ne- group, they are also almost always totally glected, personal tensions can tear a group preoccupied with the importance and injustice apart. On the other hand, if support becomes of their own case. This can make it difficult to the primary focus, nothing gets done. Some- run a group. Be aware and be prepared! times it can help to separate these functions, Becoming able to step back from one’s own for example to having personal sharing at the case to see the bigger picture is vital in the beginning of a meeting, or by having separate healing process and makes people far more support and general business meetings. effective in tackling the system. Once there is a Advocacy. Should the group take up an core of whistleblowers who have reached this individual member’s personal case, and thus stage, a group becomes much more productive become involved in advocacy? Or should it as well as far easier to run. stick to support, education, publicity, lobby- ing and/or direct action? Hierarchy. The traditional bureaucratic Some individual cases are very worthy. model is based on hierarchy. People in posi- Such cases can provide leverage for wider tions at the top have the most power and issue change, and associated publicity can further orders to subordinates. Voluntary groups like the cause. The disadvantage is that advocacy is churches also can operate bureaucratically, inevitably selective. Due to shortage of even though those at the top have little or no resources, only some cases can be supported. legal authority. An alternative model is of That means not supporting others. If people equality, in which all members are equal in expect to find advocates, most will be formal status, with no office bearers. Often in disappointed. If they expect to obtain a such groups there is an attempt to rotate tasks sympathetic ear, some information and a few and develop each person’s skills in different contacts, there’s a better chance of meeting areas. their expectations. The hierarchical model gives some advan- Openness. Should the group be open to all tages. Official office bearers have more status comers? Or should it be restricted to those and credibility with the media. If, as is usual, who satisfy certain criteria? they have lots of experience and skill, their If a whistleblower group is restricted to positions give them official sanction to make those who are “genuine” whistleblowers, what key decisions and set policy. But there are is to be done about someone who has spent disadvantages. Hierarchy tends to breed power time in prison and claims he was framed struggles. Ambitious or status-conscious because he spoke out? Someone has to judge people seek positions at the top not because each claim, and this can be contentious. Some of what they have to offer but because they who aren’t whistleblowers will slip through want power and status. Others become resent- the net and some who are genuine may be put ful. This can result in spiteful battles, including 86 The whistleblower’s handbook cliques, backstabbing, sabotage and alienation groups and action groups can all be valuable. of members. Each person can contribute in their own way. Without official leaders, egalitarian groups It might be by offering support to a friend, by sometimes have a difficult time gaining a media joining an action group or by writing a letter or profile. On the other hand, they are often more submission. All sorts of different approaches satisfying for members. However, power are needed, since no single approach is right for struggles can occur even when there are no everyone and every circumstance. We need to formal positions of authority. In all groups help others find the best way they can there are differences in experience, knowledge, contribute, and to keep learning about how to skills and relationships. Some people use these improve. The task is large but, as long as to obtain advantages or personal rewards for people care, there is hope. themselves, such as recognition or paid travel, and others are resentful of those with talent. Whistleblowers Australia, most of whose There can some standard problems, such as members are whistleblowers, has provided hoarding of information, rumours, formation of personal support and advice to hundreds of factions, and attempts to gain power or individuals, produced a variety of information undermine others, that are common to virtually materials and waged campaigns on several all groups. Hierarchical groups, though, tend to important topics (such as the right of workers have these to a greater degree. There are a to make public interest disclosures without number of ways to minimise concentration of reprisal). This activity has been an important power in traditional organisations, including factor in creating a wider awareness in the limited terms for office bearers, postal ballots, media and the community of the significance of external mediators and random selection of whistleblowing. Although Whistleblowers chairs for meetings. Australia has had its share of internal strife, its experience shows that whistleblower groups Assessment can make a difference. There’s no single best way to promote the cause of whistleblowing. Networks, individual support, information materials, support References

There are several ways to obtain written account that everyone has their own likes and material about whistleblowing, methods of dislikes. resisting malfunctioning organisations, or The following list is a fairly short one. I indeed any topic. give what I think are the most important and • Read widely and look out for relevant useful references on particular topics, plus material some of my own writings. • Use a list of references. • Use a catalogue or database. The Whistleblower’s Survival Guide: • Ask someone who knows the field. Courage Without Martyrdom (Washington, Doing lots of reading is an old-fashioned DC: Fund for Constitutional Government, way of finding material. It can mean looking 1997). A summary is available at through newspapers, browsing through http://www.whistleblower.org/gap/. Many magazines and consulting lots of books. whistleblowers say that this is the most Although it is labour-intensive, this method practical manual available. It has lots of can pick up material that cannot be found in information about US official channels which, any other way. Many reports of dissent and however, is of limited value to people resistance to it are tucked away in articles or elsewhere. books about other topics. Jean Lennane, “What happens to whistle- Reference lists come in all sizes and varie- blowers, and why,” in Klaas Woldring (ed.), ties: short, long, specialised, general, idiosyn- Business Ethics in Australia and New Zealand: cratic. If you can find an article or book on the Essays and Cases (Melbourne: Thomas topic, it will often have footnotes or a bibliog- Nelson, 1996), pp. 51-63. A valuable raphy giving further sources. Many lists just summary of insights. give the references. An annotated bibliogra- phy, in contrast, gives some commentary as There are many web sites giving material on well, as I do below. Any list is limited in some whistleblowing and related topics. Two places respects and gets out of date, so you may to start are: want to use the other methods as well. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dis There are lots of ways of searching for sent/. This is my own site, with many references. Computer search tools are now documents, contacts and links to some other standard, whether for library catalogues, sites. databases of journal and magazine articles, and http://www.whistleblower.org/gap/. This is the World Wide Web. The key to successful the Government Accountability Project site, searches is knowing what you are looking for which has many links to related sites. — including key words and their relationship to the field — and knowing how to use the There are many studies of whistleblowing. search tool. For the latter, it is sensible to One of the best, from the point of view of the consult a librarian or someone experienced in whistleblower, is: using the tool. Myron Peretz Glazer and Penina Migdal A knowledgeable person can provide really Glazer, The Whistleblowers: Exposing helpful advice, especially if they know Corruption in Government and Industry (New something about you and what you’re after — York: Basic Books, 1989). It gives a vivid an advantage that cannot be matched by any picture of whistleblowers’ commitment and list or catalogue. You just have to take into

87 88 The whistleblower’s handbook courage and the terrible reprisals visited on Alan F. Westin, with Henry I. Kurtz and them. Albert Robbins (editors), Whistle Blowing! Loyalty and Dissent in the Corporation (New Others include: York: McGraw-Hill, 1981). William De Maria, Deadly Disclosures (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 1999). For understanding the nature of bureaucracy Quentin Dempster, Whistleblowers as a power system and the implications for (Sydney: ABC Books, 1997). whistleblowers, I think the most useful Frederick Elliston, John Keenan, Paula perspective is Deena Weinstein, Bureaucratic Lockhart and Jane van Schaick, Whistleblow- Opposition: Challenging Abuses at the ing: Managing Dissent in the Workplace (New Workplace (New York: Pergamon, 1979). York: Praeger, 1985). David W. Ewing, Freedom Inside the On the use of the US legal system to attack Organization: Bringing Civil Liberties to the those who challenge vested interests, two Workplace (New York: Dutton, 1977). excellent treatments are: Geoffrey Hunt (ed.), Whistleblowing in the Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, No Health Service: Accountability, Law and Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Professional Practice (London: Edward Perversion of Justice in America (New York: Arnold, 1995). Random House, 1996). Geoffrey Hunt (ed.), Whistleblowing in the George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, Social Services: Public Accountability and SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out Professional Practice (London: Arnold, 1998). (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, Nicholas Lampert, Whistleblowing in the 1996). Soviet Union: Complaints and Abuses under State Socialism (London: Macmillan, 1985). On the health problems of whistleblowers Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near, see K. Jean Lennane, “‘Whistleblowing’: a Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and health issue,” British Medical Journal, Vol. Legal Implications for Companies and 307, 11 September 1993, pp. 667-670. On Employees (New York: Lexington Books, dealing with psychological impacts, see Judith 1992). Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery (US: Greg Mitchell, Truth … and Consequences. BasicBooks, 1992). Seven Who Would Not Be Silenced (New York: Dembner, 1981). There is no single reference that gives a Ralph Nader, Peter J. Petkas and Kate comprehensive description of how and why Blackwell (editors), Whistle Blowing: The official channels fail so often. The following Report of the Conference on Professional are useful treatments that deal with aspects of Responsibility (New York: Grossman, 1972). the problem. Charles Peters and Taylor Branch, Blowing William De Maria, “Whistleblowing,” the Whistle: Dissent in the Public Interest Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6, (New York: Praeger, 1972). December 1995, pp. 270-281, on whistle- Judith A. Truelson, “Blowing the whistle blower laws. on systematic corruption: on maximizing William De Maria and Cyrelle Jan, “Behold reform and minimizing retaliation,” Corruption the shut-eyed sentry! Whistleblower perspec- and Reform, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 55-74. tives on government failure to correct Gerald Vinten (ed.), Whistleblowing — wrongdoing,” Crime, Law & Social Change, Subversion or Corporate Citizenship? Vol. 24, 1996, pp. 151-166. (London: Paul Chapman, 1994). References 89

Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, Bullying (Wantage, Oxfordshire: Success “Abuse of authority: the Office of the Special Unlimited, 1996). Counsel and whistleblower protection,” Tim Field’s web site: Antioch Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 5, 1986, http://www.successunlimited.co.uk/. pages 5-71. Paul McCarthy, Michael Sheehan and Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, William Wilkie (eds.), Bullying: From “Whistleblower protection — the gap between Backyard to Boardroom (Sydney: Millenium the law and reality,” Howard Law Journal, Books, 1996). Vol. 31, 1988, pages 223-239. Peter Randall, Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims (London: Routledge, 1997). For skills on analysing the situation, developing a strategy and taking action, see: On sexual harassment: Virginia Coover, Ellen Deacon, Charles Cheryl Gomez-Preston with Randi Esser and Christopher Moore, Resource Reisfeld, When No Means No: A Guide to Manual for a Living Revolution (Philadelphia: Sexual Harassment by a Woman Who Won a New Society Publishers, 1981). Million-Dollar Verdict (New York: Carol, Per Herngren, Path of Resistance: The 1993). Practice of Civil Disobedience (Philadelphia: Martha J. Langelan, Back Off! How to New Society Publishers, 1993). Confront and Stop Sexual Harassment and Diane MacEachern, Enough is Enough: The Harassers (New York: Simon and Schuster Hellraiser’s Guide to Community Activism 1993). (New York: Avon, 1994). Celia Morris, Bearing Witness: Sexual Randy Shaw, The Activist’s Handbook: A Harassment and Beyond — Everyone’s Story Primer for the 1990s and Beyond (Berkeley: (Boston: Little, Brown, 1994). University of California Press, 1996). Katrina Shields, In the Tiger’s Mouth: An For dealing with verbal harassment, see the Empowerment Guide for Social Action superb books by Suzette Haden Elgin, The (Sydney: Millenium Books, 1991). Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense and similar titles. On bullying: Andrea Adams, Bullying at Work: How to On surviving: Judith Wyatt and Chauncey Confront and Overcome It (London: Virago, Hare, Work Abuse: How to Recognize and 1992). Survive It (Rochester, VT: Schenkman, 1997). Tim Field, Bully in Sight: How to Predict, See also: Kathryn D. Cramer, Staying on Top Resist, Challenge and Combat Workplace When Your World Turns Upside Down (New York: Penguin, 1990).