by: Neil Fletcher

One of our Whistleblowing / Speak Up Experts – Neil Fletcher - shares his thoughts with us from his 20+ years’ experience working across the world as an internal, in-house Whistleblowing / Speak Up Program Manager, as an internal Director of Investigations at some large multinational corporate brands and at providers of externally managed speak-up channels.

I have witnessed the good and the bad across the world and have seen what works and what doesn’t work when promoting a corporate culture underpinned by ethical and responsible business practices. I have learned first-hand that a healthy workplace culture is a key element of any successful organisation. In modern organisations, some senior management are starting to see the benefits of promoting transparency and encouraging employees to raise concerns in good faith.

When it comes to implementing a mechanism by which people can raise matters in a confidential and secure manner, a key consideration is whether to utilise an internal and/or external channel. There are pros and cons with both an internal and/or external Whistle-blower / Speak Up channel as pathways for employees to report issues/concerns. Both options aim to create a culture of accountability and open communication, but they bring distinct advantages and disadvantages to the table. This article delves into the comparison between these two approaches, shedding light on their respective merits and considerations – for those who get to the end, I’ll provide my recommendation.

Internal Speak Up Channel: Building Trust from Within

The Case for internal Whistle-blower / Speak Up channels

Having been an internal in-house Whistleblowing / Speak Up Program Manager for organisations, I know first-hand that internal Whistleblowing / Speak Up channels managed by the organisation itself, offer several compelling benefits. One of the key advantages is that an internal person is readily available to discuss concerns and provide advice fostering a sense of trust and commitment to employees. By providing a platform and/or an internal person where concerns are remedied internally, organisations demonstrate their commitment to responding to issues. This approach can lead to increased employee satisfaction and a sense of belonging.

In my experience, internal channels also allow organisations to maintain control over the process. The company can oversee the procedures, ensuring confidentiality and reducing the risk of sensitive information leakage. This control extends to the management of outcomes, enabling organisations to tailor responses to their unique circumstances.

Considerations:

However, I have learnt from personal experience, internal Whistleblowing / Speak Up do come with challenges. Concerns may arise about conflicts of interest or bias when issues involve senior or key individuals or important suppliers. Employees may have already reported the issues and have seen no response and now feel they have no place to go. Employees may be hesitant to report sensitive matters internally if they believe it could lead to repercussions for themselves or another person. Additionally, the internal approach may lack the neutrality and objectivity that some employees seek.

I have also witnessed instances where there has been an inadvertent disclosure of the reporters identity which destroys trust and faith in the internal whistleblower platform. For example, the details of a confidential disclosure made by a whistleblower were emailed to a senior executive but several Executive Assistants had access to the executive’s mailbox and therefore had knowledge of the concerns raised. This undermined the trust in the handling of sensitive matters and saw a decline in disclosures made via the whistleblower hotline underpinned by a lack of trust in the process as reflected in employee survey data.

Externally Managed Whistleblowing / Speak Up Channel: Anonymity and Independence

The Case for External Whistleblowing / Speak Up Channel

On the other hand, having been a Whistleblowing / Speak Up Program Director/Consultant providing independent third-party managed Whistleblowing / Speak Up channels to a wide range of organisations, one of the distinct advantages of an external channel is anonymity. Maintaining anonymity is a cornerstone of this approach. Employees can report concerns with or without revealing their identity to the organisation, alleviating fears of retaliation and ensuring that employees feel safe speaking up. The level of commitment by the organisation to the welfare of employees can engender trust and help boost the workplace culture. The sense of safety also enhances the level of trust and leads to an increased level of reporting.

Independence is another major advantage of externally managed Whistleblowing / Speak Up channels. Third-party management brings an unbiased perspective to recommended responses/courses of action including investigations, helping ensure that resolutions are fair and objective. This objectivity can help organisations avoid internal politics and conflicts of interest.

An experienced third-party supplier who provides an independent assessment service of reports when they are first disclosed can assist in avoiding unnecessary investigations which can often be stressful for all involved.

Considerations:

However, as I have learnt firsthand, externally managed Whistleblowing / Speak Up channels may also have its drawbacks. Some organisations might hesitate to relinquish control over the reporting process given that potentially sensitive information is outside the organisation’s orbit. There may be concerns about the third party’s familiarity with the organisation’s context, leading to misunderstandings or incomplete assessments. There may have been concerns raised internally and these issues may have already been investigated and resolved, which an external provider might not have an awareness of.

Navigating the Choice: Balancing Factors

My advice regarding whether to go with an internal Whistleblowing / Speak Up channel or an external independent Whistleblowing / Speak Up channel depends on a range of factors including the organisational culture, leadership behaviours, the nature of the concerns typically reported, and the level of trust employees have in internal systems all play a role.

My Recommendation

Based on my experience working in-house and as an external provider/manager of Whistleblowing / Speak Up channels, I recommend a hybrid approach, where an organisation offers both internal channels (Line Manager, HR/P&C, Compliance etc.) and external options (e.g., Whistleblower hotline managed by an independent third party) for raising concerns. This balanced approach provides a choice for employees/individuals, allowing them to feel more in control of the process and select the best option based on their level of trust and the nature of their concerns.  The organisation benefits by learning about an issue that they may not otherwise have known about and enhancing their workplace culture.  A true win-win for all parties.

If you would like to discuss the potential benefits of introducing a safe and independent channel for your staff and other stakeholders to Speak Up, please feel free to contact me at neil@curbymclintock.com.au

Linkedin – Internal whistleblower option vs Externally managed solution: Exploring the Pros and Cons