[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.89″ background_layout=”light”]<\/p>\n
Current Whistle Blower Services have chronic under reporting, exposing children, volunteers, administrators and the reputation of the sport at risk. This weak feedback is interpreted by many Boards and Directors as \u201cthere are no issues\u201d.<\/p>\n
Historic reasons for not reporting have been tied to a \u201cself regulating\u201d culture that:<\/p>\n
This approach is reinforced by the \u201creporting\u201d process that engages directly with the administration\u2019s internal functions. \u00a0These internal functions are performed by people who themselves need to maintain their employment.\u00a0 This risk of nondisclosure has been increased though casualistion of the workforce.<\/p>\n
There is normally limited to no testing of the system\u2019s effectiveness.\u00a0 If internal resources are used as first point of contact, then the system is already compromised, as is the organisation and its directors.<\/p>\n
So unfortunately the organisation investigates the person that makes a report, in preference to an investigation of the system failures or the inappropriate conduct.\u00a0 Some of this is born a mythological understanding of the law and its application.\u00a0 Fundamentally instead of being an improvement opportunity, the process becomes one of balancing \u201ccompeting interests\u201d of individuals in the organisation.<\/p>\n
Pre-existing taboos<\/strong><\/p>\n When misconduct relates to personal actions, like sexual harassment (including assault and rape) or discrimination (disability, sex, age, race), many people do not have the skills or moral authority.\u00a0 As opined by Guardian journalist Van Badham, the corporate response falls well short.<\/p>\n In many workplaces and for many employees, the expectation is they do not have to call out the misconduct (or criminal action).\u00a0 They abdicate responsibility, asserting that the person harassed or discriminated against must take action first.<\/p>\n As a passive observer, watching a power imbalance play out, observers confuse what is a very public failure to meet a standard that should be called out, with the social response of \u201cnot my problem\u201d unless it is reported.<\/p>\n In a public place, people may choose to make a poor moral choice.\u00a0 The failure to act in the workplace is very different. \u00a0It is clear people in the workplace have a primary responsibility to act when another person is harassed or discriminated against.\u00a0 This responsibility is not dependent on the action of any other person.<\/p>\n Poor moral choices in the workplace, either as an observer or as an adviser, are no longer acceptable.<\/p>\n Internal Machinations<\/strong><\/p>\n In this process, organisational functions are called to into pay who may perceive their highest duty is to protect the organisation.\u00a0 The highest ranking threat is reputational risk.\u00a0 The divergent pathway for responding to reputation risk can look like:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In many cases the short term approach to \u201cprotect the organisation\u201d is unsuccessful.\u00a0 There are a number of brands that have ceased to exist or are under significant pressure due to this approach of:<\/p>\n Conflicted Roles<\/strong><\/p>\n In many cases the people at the front line receiving disclosures, are already severely conflicted.\u00a0 Where the Board, Director and CEO fail to address this issue, then ultimately the responsibility rests with the Board. \u00a0\u00a0Examples where functions are likely to be conflicted include:<\/p>\n Current Barriers to Reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n Even before the convergence of technology misconduct was underreported and now everyone is well aware of their digital \u201cfoot print\u201d and how this facilitates tracing a person\u2019s web activities.<\/p>\n Given the current low reporting of what is known to be a significant (and in some cases a prevailing problem performance) should put most Boards, Directors and CEOs on notice.\u00a0 If the internal systems are not to some extent reflective of public data, their internal systems may be defective in providing a true picture of the organisation\u2019s exposure.<\/p>\n The recent Queensland Supreme Court decision of Robinson v State of Queensland<\/em> should give many pause for concern, whether management through active participation or passive actions contribute to bullying or harassment.<\/em><\/p>\n The reality is that there a number of personalities that thrive in this disorganised state.\u00a0 They relish in the chaos, rely on power to pursue agendas and count on people keeping quite. In some cases they rely on others to do their bidding, including creating the right environment to allow them to prey on others, reaching settlement deals to \u201cpay off\u201d others and to drafting the Deeds of Release (AND confidentiality).<\/p>\n Knowing what we know, \u201cinternal reporting\u201d is well past the due date for effective governance by Boards, whether ASX and ASIC companies, professional bodies or community organisations.<\/p>\n If we are serious about improving culture we need to empower all employees and contractors to call out misconduct through a process that protects them and the person harassed or discriminated against.<\/p>\n Given past direct and indirect retaliation, the ease with which people can lose their anonymity and the clear need for people who abuse power to be held to account, organisations need to design new ways of uncovering misconduct and making the necessary cultural improvements.<\/p>\n This approach should protect people from harassment and discrimination, act for the benefit shareholders and stakeholders and lead to a sustainable business culture.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n Discloser Focussed<\/strong><\/td>\n Management Focussed<\/strong><\/td>\n Organisation Focussed<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Embarrassing information<\/td>\n \u00fb High achiever needs to be retained<\/td>\n \u00fc Understood as a systems issues<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Need to stop disclosure<\/td>\n \u00fb Won\u2019t happen again<\/td>\n \u00fc System fixed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Pressure on person disclosing<\/td>\n \u00fb Once off incident<\/td>\n \u00fc Performance assessed against system<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb No support for person calling out the activity<\/td>\n \u00fb No support for person calling out the activity<\/td>\n \u00fc Non-conformance identified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Person who identified the issues leaves the organisation<\/td>\n \u00fb Person who identified the issues leaves the organisation<\/td>\n \u00fc Change requested<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb No embarrassing information<\/td>\n \u00fb No embarrassing information<\/td>\n \u00fc Where no change made, the person not meeting the standard exits the organisation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb All disclosures are characterised as a personal grievance of the person who made the disclosure<\/td>\n \u00fb All other employees learn not to speak up<\/td>\n \u00fc Team focuses on improvement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Major disclosure<\/td>\n \u00fb Major disclosure<\/td>\n \u00fc Minor issue<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Major loss of Reputation<\/td>\n \u00fb Major loss of Reputation<\/td>\n \u00fc Reputation neutral<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00fb Write down in goodwill<\/td>\n \u00fb Write down in goodwill<\/td>\n \u00fc Goodwill sustained<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n