All photos: Chris Renton

0000

22-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 2221/10/2013 17:00

Blowing the whistle
Ahead of a national report on whistleblowing due to be
published this month, QW speaks to Cathy James, Chief
Executive of the whistleblowing charity Public Concern atWork, about the value of exposing wrongdoing at work

Most people are aware of high-profile
cases of whistleblowing such as HBOS
and Mid Staffs, but in terms of quality
assurance, how can whistleblowing helporganisations to improve?
Cathy James (CJ): There is hardly a sector
that hasn’t been touched by a scandal which
staff already knew about beforehand. That’s
exactly why Public Concern at Work (PCaW)
was set up, 20 years ago, because of a series ofdisasters and scandals where it was clear staff
had known about the risk or danger, but either
were too scared to speak up or had spoken up
only to be ignored.
All organisations face the risk of unknowingly
harbouring malpractice and so should
understand that it is in their own best interests
to know about risk, danger, and malpractice.
Staff are the eyes and ears of an organisationand so it makes sense for them to think about
how they encourage staff to speak up. At
the same time, they need to recognise thatit can sometimes be difficult to speak up,
especially where it’s about pointing out thatsomeone has behaved badly and that can be an
uncomfortable thing to do.
Why do people choose to remain silent?
CJ: There’s a natural reticence; there is the herdmentality and simply doing what others do;there is a sense that if no one else is speaking
about it, why should I? A focus on the shortterm issue of raising the concern rather than thedamage doing nothing can cause, a lack of trustin the whistleblowing system. There are all sortsof very powerful reasons why people stay silent
and we should probably accept that there aresome who will never speak up because of
these issues.
Organisational leaders should try to
overcome these problems by making it very clearthat they want to hear from their staff, that it issafe and acceptable to speak up and that they
will not tolerate reprisal against those that do.
They also need to practice what they preach.
Is that where the Public Interest
Disclosure Act is designed to help?
CJ: While the law is an important backstop, it
should not be the reason that organisations havewhistleblowing or speak-up policies. The law isthere to pick up the pieces when organisations
get this wrong and sends a strong cultural
message that we want to get whistleblowing
right. The law does not, however, require orencourage organisations to do anything.
And it doesn’t look at the regulatory framework
which might provide triggers to encourage
best practice.
So what are the incentives fororganisations to encourage
whistleblowing?
CJ: You start from the premise that this is inyour own best interests. Organisations ought towelcome the opportunity to address the concern
early so the damage is prevented. This is about
good governance and preventing damage, andshould form part of the governance structuresof all organisations. Also in today’s internet age,
if you are not looking at how you encourage
people to speak up, not training people to deal
with whistleblowers, and not ensuring your line
managers know what to do when someone raises
a concern, then your risks are higher now thanNovember 2013 | Quality World | 23

22-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 23

21/10/2013 17:00

they were 20 years ago. Today it’s much easierand faster for individuals to put information into
the public sphere using the internet. This reality
should be one of the triggers for organisations
to say “we want to know” right at the start.
If a company has good, robust
whistleblowing arrangements in place,
how can that be of benefit to thatcompany as opposed to an exercise
in minimising damage or risk?
CJ: There’s a paradox in whistleblowing:
those organisations with open cultures, wherestaff do feel able to question things, wheremanagement do have genuine open-door
policies, where problems are dealt with quickly,
and professionally and fairly, where people
can easily use whistleblowing arrangements toraise concerns, they actually have fewer cases.
Therefore, a good culture will mean that thewhistleblowing policy and the procedure forraising concerns that may form part of thearrangements are less needed.
However, organisations should recognise that
their arrangements will cover all sorts of issues
and so they need to be very broad in scope.
You want to encourage people to raise issues
with their line management, so you don’t wantanything in a policy that undermines that.
Do grievance or complaints procedures
have a part to play?
CJ: Rather than a ‘grievance’ or ‘complaint’
whereby a member of staff is saying: “I’vebeen treated badly and I want an outcome”,
whistleblowing is more about a risk to others.
Of course, in some cases whistleblowing also
includes a personal risk to the whistleblower

such as dangerous driving times for lorry
drivers, but these also affect the safety of thegeneral public. So it is important to distinguishwhistleblowing from grievances or complaints.
Whistleblowing can be a kind of bellwether
for how an organisation deals with staff, and how
open and transparent it is, how prepared it is tolisten to people who may sometimes be raisingsome very difficult issues. These issues will not go
away if whistleblowing is not encouraged – they
will fester and become worse and will often comeout in the end. It’s far better to encourage thedebate and come to a conclusion than hope theproblem will go away if it is ignored. The hope isthat along the way damage is prevented, cultures
improved and problems solved.

“It’s far betterto encourage
the debateand come toa conclusion
than hope theproblem will
go away if itis ignored”

How can organisations establish what
constitutes a significant problem thatposes a risk to others and what is anindividual’s grievance?
CJ: We would suggest that first of all you think
about what types of malpractice you wantstaff to speak up about. The broad definition
would be malpractice, risk or danger that affects
others (meaning the organisation, stakeholders,customers, the public, or the organisation itself).
Then consider more specific risks (eg fraud,
bribery and corruption, codes of conduct
issues), things that you have policies on thatyou expect staff to follow and where you would
want to know about a breach. Ask yourself, what
would you want your staff to tell you about?
Making it clear that if a member of staff has acomplaint that is about their own position, thatis about bullying and harassment for example,
then this is likely to be better dealt with under
the grievance process.

24 | Quality World | November 201322-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 24

21/10/2013 17:00

THE INSIDE STORY ON WHISTLEBLOWERS

83%

of whistleblowers blow
the whistle at least
twice, usually internally.

74%
say nothing isdone about thewrongdoing.

60%

receive no response
from management, either
negative or positive.

15%of whistleblowers
raise a concern
externally.

15%
are dismissed.

Senior Newer Most likelywhistleblowers are more
likely to be dismissed.

“Three outof fourindividuals
get noresponse
at all to theconcern they
have raised”

employees are most
likely to blow the whistle(39% have less than twoyears’ service).

response is formal
action (disciplinaryor demotion) (19%).

How do we overcome the problem ofmanagers who refuse to believe thatanything is wrong?
CJ: An organisational denial about a problem
can be just as damaging to the culture as
anything else. Our latest research report,
Whistleblowing: The Inside Story looked at 1,000cases on our whistleblowing advice line. We
produced this research in conjunction with
the University of Greenwich and it involved adetailed analysis of the journey of those whoraise concerns in the UK. The really worrying
finding from this research is that three out offour individuals get no response at all to theconcern they have raised. Organisations are
missing a trick if they’re not responding towhistleblowers. Even if there isn’t agreementon what the individual is saying, a prompt,
measured, fair, competent, and professional
response can make all the difference between
the whistleblower feeling that they’re being
silenced and a whistleblower feeling that they’vebeen listened to. Even if the outcome isn’t what
the whistleblower wanted.
At what stage do people call yourwhistleblowing advice line?
CJ: The majority of our callers have alreadyraised a concern and are calling for advice because
they don’t know what to do next. This is often
the point at which individuals start to consider
that they are ‘whistleblowers’. Before that they
will often feel that they have simply done theright thing and that the issue will be dealt with.
But if they feel ignored, or that the information
is not welcome, it’s at this stage they will think
about what to do next and perhaps be looking toescalate the matter or take it outside. Only 30%

Source: Whistleblowing: The Inside Story, published by
Public Concern at Work and the University of Greenwich(Work and Employment Relations Unit) which analysed
the experiences of 1,000 whistleblowers.

of our calls are from individuals who haven’t
said anything about the concern yet and haven’t
already raised it.
Is there a process that you would
advocate? For example, if a company
has no procedures in place to deal withwhistleblowing, where should it start?
CJ: A good starting place is the BSI code ofpractice on whistleblowing (BSI Whistleblowing
Arrangements Code of Practice PAS1998:2008)
that was developed with a broad working groupof organisations. It explains what we mean bywhistleblowing, why it’s necessary, why it’s good forthe organisation, and why it can go wrong if you
don’t have good whistleblowing arrangements.
We also provide support and advice toorganisations through a subscription service andthis will often include access to our advice line forindividuals within the subscribing organisation
who are unsure whether or how to raise a concern.
It operates as a safety net. We also provide policy
guidance on whistleblowing; we’ll do a review ofthe organisation’s whistleblowing policy and its
arrangements generally.
This has to be about more than just having
a policy. It’s about how you make sure that staff
know about it, that they have confidence in it,that they actually trust the process, how it’s being
used and if so by whom and how many times.
Are the concerns coming through minor in natureor serious? Have things come through incident
reporting that you might have expected somebody
to raise through the management line or throughthe whistleblowing policy? Looking at the way
in which critical information comes into thecompany and whistleblowing is part ofthat review.

November 2013 | Quality World | 25

22-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 25

21/10/2013 17:00

Should all organisations have awhistleblowing policy and are there
difficulties for smaller enterprises?
CJ: I would say any size organisation shouldhave thought about how staff can raise concerns
about wrongdoing, risk or malpractice. PCaW
is very small (we have 12 staff), plus the boardof trustees, and whistleblowing is written into
our contract of employment. We include avery simple statement asking staff to raise any
concerns with one of the directors or chiefexecutive. If that doesn’t feel comfortable, they
can raise it with the chair of the board or oneof the trustees. And if that isn’t possible, thenthey can consider external options and go to aregulator – these are set out in the statement.
For small organisations there will necessarily
have to be a very simple process – to dootherwise doesn’t make sense.

Employers must recognise that sometimes
people want to raise things in confidence, so
be very clear about ensuring confidentiality.
Too often the assurance in a policy will be“we’ll protect your identity if we can, as far aspossible”. But that’s not good enough, you haveto say: “If you ask we will not disclose youridentity unless we are required by law to do so.”This means that there are only very limited
circumstances such as money laundering or
safeguarding the vulnerable, for example, wherein order to investigate the concern the identityof the person raising it will be disclosed. It
would include circumstances where the public
interest outweighs keeping the identity of theindividual secret. This area is fraught withdifficulty and does need some thought andtraining of staff. It is often where things cango wrong.

When trying to create a culture that
supports or encourages whistleblowing,
how can you encourage or incentivise
the workforce to report problems? Forexample, it might be an NHS nurse whois having to report systemic failures andthat’s a big step to take.
CJ: Yes, you have to recognise that there may
be a power imbalance, but I don’t think that’s
something you need to put into a policy. What
the board of an organisation must say is:“We’re absolutely committed to encouraging
you to speak up; we recognise it can sometimes
be difficult; we will not tolerate any victimisationof somebody who raises a concern using
this policy.”

How do you ensure the process continues
to work well?
CJ: Reviewing how the policy works in practice
is important, as well as regularly communicating
the policy messages. Not necessarily every six
months, but perhaps every year or every coupleof years, organisations should look at how
the policy is working. It depends how big anddisparate the workforce is, whether staff haveaccess to computers and policies etc. Such an
exercise is not expensive, but it requires a bitof time and energy, a bit of thought from theboard, and I think sometimes that might bewhat’s missing; a policy is issued and publicised
and then left to gather dust in a drawer.

“Like Davidand Goliath,
it’s often thelone voice
up againstthe bigcorporation”

26 | Quality World | November 201322-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 26

21/10/2013 17:00

BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON COLLABORATION
Public Concern at Work (PCaW) iscampaigning to strengthen the protection
for whistleblowers and recognise their value,
and joins the CQI for an unmissable World
Quality Day event ahead of the launch of theWhistleblowing Commission’s report thiswinter.
In collaboration with Birmingham CityUniversity, the CQI is proud to bring you
the Midlands region World Quality Day
event entitled ‘Blowing the whistle oncollaboration’. In addition to a speech fromPCaW’s Chief Executive, Cathy James,
the line-up features keynotes from Debbie

Simpson, Founder and Acting Chief
Executive at the Institute for Continuous
Improvement in the Public Sector, and BSI’s
Suzanne Fribbins, EMEA Product Marketing
Manager – Risk Portfolio.
The event (at Millennium Point,
Birmingham, on Wednesday 20 November)will also feature the prestigious Loxham
Lecture, which will be delivered by thearchitect of BS 11000, David Hawkins, fromthe Institute of Collaborative Working.
To book your free place, visit www.
thecqi.org and click on Community – World
Quality Day – Events.

What is the Whistleblowing Commission“Sometimesand what will its report cover? (due to bea policy ispublished November 2013)
CJ: This is one of our big policy initiatives
issued andthis year and involves a thorough review ofthe whistleblowing framework in the UK. The
publicisedissued a public consultation andand then left Commission
its report will look beyond the operation of thelooking at attitudes to whistleblowing, theto gather dust law,regulatory framework and the thorny question
in a drawer” of whether whistleblowers should be rewarded.

It also considers the Public Interest
Disclosure Act and ways in which this vital pieceof legislation could be strengthened. And thenlooking at tribunals and whether there are someareas in which we can encourage government toprovide more help for individuals through theprocess.
So whereas The Inside Story research wasbased upon individual experiences, theWhistleblowing Commission’s report isabout the system as a whole?
CJ: Yes, with the aim to improve the wholeframework and so looking at attitudes
and awareness, thinking about how wecan encourage best practice. I think acode of practice may well be one the key
recommendations of the panel.
We’ve also done a business survey thatwe’ve used as part of the evidence for theCommission; we’ve got the Inside Story findings
for the individuals’ experiences; we’ve done a
survey of public attitudes that we’ll draw uponfor evidence and obviously there’s been no endof public inquiries where whistleblowing has

featured. There is the Mid Staffordshire hospital
public inquiry, the Leveson inquiry into phonehacking and the media, and the Parliamentary
Commission on Banking Standards. The latterhas made some very strong recommendations
around whistleblowing for banks. Some of thoseshould be mirrored in other sectors.
Looking further ahead, where would you
like to get to?
CJ: I think having more official backing ofindividuals – by that I mean thinking about
how they struggle with the legal process. We’redealing with an imbalance of power. LikeDavid and Goliath, it’s often the lone voice
up against the big corporation. While not allorganisations get it wrong all the time, too many
do and it’s the individual that is left to enforce
an employment right as opposed to seeing thisas having a public interest element that should
be supported by government. In future I’d liketo see something more from government andregulators that recognises the need to support
the individual nCathy James is Chief Executive of Public
Concern at Work. For more information
visit: www.pcaw.org.uk

Join the Twitterconversation about QW
articles: #QWdebate
November 2013 | Quality World | 27

22-27 Whistle Blowing QWNov2013.indd 27

21/10/2013 17:00