News in brief

Whistleblowing – Public Benefit vs Personal Cost

Dr Peter Harvey

The lived reality of whistleblowing which is held to be such a vital democratic function comes at a human cost – not just financially, but socially and psychologically. This quote from the last APPG’s submission to the NHS Leadership, Performance andPatient Safety Review speaks for itself:

‘We heard reports of NHS workers cowed by a ‘culture of fear’ that is driven from the top. They expect to be disbelieved, to be ostracised, put on leave, and most of all, afraid of counter allegations about their practice and referral to their professional body. Many find themselves in disciplinary hearings and employment tribunals. Whistleblowers are routinely subjected to allegations relating to their conduct or capability, and the concerns they raise are subject to flawed or sham investigations.’

Few of these allegations, or those referred to professional bodies, come to anything and the majority are dismissed.

Although specific to the NHS, similar statements apply to all sectors, whether private or public, whether for-profit or charitable – none can assume that it is beyond reproach. It is true that some organisations do manage whistleblowers in a positive manner, but these are in the minority.

A majority of whistleblowers suffer some form of psychological distress both over the period of the whistleblowing act itself and afterwards, ranging from the mild to the severe and this may be transient or permanent.

The causes of such understandable reactions can be because of actions taken by the organisation such as rigged disciplinary hearings and managerial bullying or by colleagues who socially isolate and ostracise the whistleblower. Other causes such as loss of income and loss of status also play a significant role.

Inevitably whistleblowing involves personal moral dilemmas but there are many settings where the ethical requirements of professional responsibility are diametrically opposed to the actions of the organisation.

All healthcare professional are obliged to raise concerns about the treatment of those in their care. The same applies to social workers and teachers. Trustees of charities have a legal duty to report malpractice.

Many whistleblowers find that organisations act to protect their reputation at the expense of public safety and in direct contravention of professional ethics.

The internal conflict produced by a duty of care on the one hand and
organisational and collegiate loyalty on the other can be an overwhelming source of stress.

An organisation that acts in a punitive and detrimental way towards a whistleblower will be further damaged and become a more psychologically toxic environment.

Other workers won’t speak out from fear of reprisal and retaliation and become less trustful of the organisation. Even in organisations which have an explicitly moral and ethical base (religious groups, some charities, for example) act in highly detrimental ways towards whistleblowers.

Is whistleblowing futile?

Some whistleblowers use the word futile to describe their experience because after all their effort little changes and - crucially - people in power and authority are not held accountable. Indeed, many such people either remain in the corrupt organisation or are rewarded with golden handshakes on their departure.

Can we make whistleblowing less costly and less harmful?

Observation of dangerous or corrupt work practices in any organisation is, in itself, stressful. Deciding whether to act or not is a further stressor – it is not a career choice to be a whistleblower. It is rarely a straightforward, easy-to-make decision to act in way which colleagues and the organisation often see as disloyal.

Once the individual has committed to speak up and speak out, further stressors may be heaped on them, testing their courage and resilience to the very limit.

The personal cost is potentially great. It may never be possible to make whistleblowing a painless experience. However, it is possible to make it less stressful, less harmful, less damaging.

New, better laws will level the playing field, re-set the balance, reduce the potential for harm and give a sense of justice done.

The proposed Bill is one way to achieve this.