Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide

Whistleblowing A Practical Guide Brian Martin Ω Irene Publishing You discover some wrongdoing, such as corruption, injustice or danger to the public. What should you do? If you do nothing, the problem will continue. If you speak out, you become a target for attack — and the problem may still continue. Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide tells how to assess your options, prepare for action, use low-proile operations, negotiate oficial channels, leak, build support and survive the experience. It is illed with sample cases that show what can happen when you make incorrect assumptions or fall into common traps. The advice in this guidebook is based on the author’s contact with hundreds of whistleblowers and dissidents, plus consultation with others experienced in the area. Although there are no guarantees of success, Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide can improve your odds of making a difference. Even if you never expect to challenge the system yourself, it will give you valuable insight into the dynamics of individual struggles and what is happening to others. Brian Martin has been involved with issues of dissent and whistleblowing for over 30 years and has extensive experience with social movements. He is active in Whistleblowers Australia and edits its newsletter, The Whistle. Professor Martin has a PhD in theoretical physics and now works as a social scientist at the University of Wollongong. He is the author of a dozen books and hundreds of articles in diverse ields including dissent, nonviolent action, scientiic controversies, strategies for social movements, democracy and information issues. Ω Resistance Studies Series ISBN 978-1-291-54819-8 90000 9 781291 548198 Whistleblowing: A rcticl Guide ublished by Irene ublishing prsns, weden irene.publishing@gmil.com www.irenepublishing.com is is  revised nd updted version of e Whistleblower’s Handbook: How to Be an Effective Resister, originlly published in by Jon Crpenter in Chrlbury, K nd Envirobook, ydney. Attribution-hreAlike . nported ( - - - - (pperbck) - . ) - - - - (hrdbck) Lyout nd cover design: ormod tter Johnsen  . ckling rident, edited by Vinthgen, Kenrick & son . Beyond Celebrtions - Anlysing Impcts of the onviolent Arb Revolutions (forthcoming ), edited by Johnsen . Whistleblowing: A rcticl Guide by rtin . Wht would it tke? How  strtegy of unrmed resistnce could win freedom in West pu (forthcoming ) by cLeod Contents Preface 1 Seven common traps 5 9 2 The problem 23 3 Speaking out and the consequences 29 4 Personal assessment: what should I do? 51 5 Preparation 65 6 Low-profile operations 81 7 Official channels 89 8 Leaking 129 9 Building support 151 10 Case studies: considering options 197 11 Surviving 229 12 Whistleblower groups 239 References 249 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 do something, see chapters 5 and 6. If you are already involved in making a complaint, see chapter 7. If you’re up against a deeply entrenched problem, see chapters 8 and 9. If you want to become active and work for social change, see chapter 12. Preface to the second edition In nd , when I ws writing the rst edition of this book, I hd been president of Whistleblowers Austrli for severl yers, nd regulrly received phone clls from whistleblowers seeking dvice nd support. eir stories were remrkbly similr, typiclly involving someone who spoke out bout  problem t work, suffered reprisls nd then tried to del with the sitution by going to some officil chnnels such s ombudsmen but received no useful help. Wht I hd to sy in response ws oen long stndrd lines: identify your gols, nlyse your sitution, consider your options nd tke ction  nd don’t rely on officil chnnels. ying the sme sort of thing over nd over ws becoming monotonous, so I decided to write  book spelling out wht I knew in  cler nd ccessible fshion. At the time, there wsn’t  whole lot of prcticl mteril for whistleblowers. e best dvice mnul ws om Devine’s e Whistleblower’s Survival Guide, but it ws oriented to the  sitution, with hlf the text devoted to vrious  procedures nd gencies. Becuse whistleblowing follows  firly predictble pttern, I set myself the tsk of writing  mnul tht could be red by nyone in the world who cn red English. t ment it hd to be generl, rther thn referring to speci c legisltion or circumstnces. ere- fore, I focussed on nlysis, options nd strtegy, in n ttempt to counter the common tendency to spek out rst nd then, encountering reprisls, ssume tht officil gencies re the solution. e book seems to hve been useful to mny reders. Aer the originl print run sold out, I put the text on my website, mking it freely vilble. I ws hppy to leve it tht wy, until my friend Jørgen Johnsen suggested I prepre  second edition. He hd herd how useful the book ws to  orwegin whistleblower. Hving set up  new publishing opertion, Jørgen wnted to mke the book vilble gin in print. As I worked on this second edition, I found much of the generl dvice to be just s relevnt s it ws yers go. But times hve chnged, especilly with the impct of the Internet, nd I found more to chnge thn I hd expected. e rrivl of WikiLeks on the scene hs publicised n option  leking  tht lredy existed but hd not been considered very oen by whistleblowers. o I hve dded  new chpter bout leking, the chllenge being to write it in  generl wy tht won’t be dted in  yer or two becuse of new technologicl developments in communiction nd surveillnce. I’ve lso dded  chpter on low-pro le opertions, n pproch tht deserves fr more ttention. In the pst couple of decdes, whistleblowing hs received ever more ttention, especilly in the medi. In the erly s, the very term “whistleblower” ws somewht disreputble. ody, the lbel is more commonly worn with pride. ere is  lot more whistleblower legisltion, but little evidence tht it provides ll tht much protection. e big chnge is the huge mount of informtion vilble on the Internet. Insted of whistleblowers ringing to obtin informtion nd dvice, they now serch the web to lern on their own. I m fr more likely to receive requests vi emil thn by telephone. Although there is plenty of informtion, only some is helpful in  prcticl wy, especilly in helping to think strtegiclly. erefore, I think there is  continuing role for this book. For the rst edition, I sent the text to severl highly experienced individuls who regulrly gve dvice to whistleblowers. ree of them  Jen Lennne, Isl cGregor nd Lesley inson  wrote comments tht I incorported into the text. is time round, I hve followed the sme process, so now you will lso nd comments from two other experienced whistleblower dvisers, Robin Cosser nd Cynthi Krdell. Ech of these individuls lso provided suggestions tht helped improve the text, s did Gbriele Bmmer, AJ Brown, tewrt Den, rgret Love, ed itew nd one person who prefers to remin nonymous. ne of the most promising developments in recent yers hs been the grdully incresing number of experienced whistleblower dvisers, in severl countries. is mnul cn t most give  generl pproch to options. For more personlised dvice, it is worthwhile trcking down knowledgeble individuls in your country nd re of interest. 1 Seven common traps eople seeking to expose wrongdoing oen fll into seven common trps. • • • • • • • rusting too much ot hving enough evidence sing the wrong style ot witing for the right opportunity ot building support lying the opponent’s gme ot knowing when to stop ociety despertely needs principled nd courgeous people, nd it needs them to be effective in exposing problems nd promoting solutions. ou cn cll them workers nd citizens who re doing their ethicl duty or you cn cll them whistleblowers, dissidents, gittors, conscientious objectors or whtever. e nme doesn’t mtter much, but effectiveness does. nfortuntely, mny of the principled nd courgeous people who set out to expose wrongdoing re completely unsuccessful. ey fll into stndrd trps. is is prtly becuse they re trusting. ey trust people in power nd they believe wht they’ve been tught bout how the system opertes. eir cynicl co-workers wouldn’t try nything so foolish. is is not  book bout ethics. It is bout people who ct on the bsis of principles such s honesty, ccountbility nd humn welfre nd who resist corruption, discrimintion nd exploittion. It’s not bout people who “resist” primrily to serve their own interests. 1. Trusting too much ere’s  serious problem: money is being siphoned from ccounts; the orgnistion’s public sttements re misleding; cronies without skills re being promoted. Wht to do? An honest, communityspirited person of course reports the problem. turlly mngers will be eger to x the problem  or will they? For those who discover problems, one of the biggest trps is to trust tht others will lso be concerned nd tke ction. ny whistleblowers, burned by their experiences, sy tht they were nive. ey trusted. ey trusted tht mngement would ct. ey trusted tht co-workers would support them. ey trusted tht the union would bck them. ey trusted tht government gencies nd the courts would work to ensure justice. ey trusted tht others would do the right thing nd hence didn’t expect retlition. ey didn’t nticipte tht their efforts might fil. ometimes this trust is wrrnted, but ll too oen it is not. Cynicl workers don’t ct becuse they ssume mngement knows bout nd tolertes the problem nd tht if they do nything bout it they will suffer reprisls. In mny cses they re right. Helen ws  conscientious employee in  lrge employment gency. Aer being promoted into  new position, she begn to notice  bis in results. ome clients hd only  smll chnce of success, wheres others  who pid  “bonus fee”  received fvoured tretment. he tlked bout it with her boss, who explined tht the fee nd other grtuities were  stndrd prt of the business. he becme even more disturbed nd wrote  memo to the chief executive ofcer sking for  review of the bonus fee system. Within  few dys she ws crpeted by her boss for indequte performnce, especilly for lleged complints received from clients  yer erlier. he then rised the issue of bonus fees t  stff meeting. one of her collegues would support her. he grdully relised tht the bonus fee ws prt of  system of bribery ccepted by ll mngers. Aer being red, Helen sued her former employer on the grounds of unfir dismissl. Her professionl ssocition refused to support her. In the middle of the hering, it becme pprent tht her lwyer hd been conspiring with the compny. Helen hd stumbled upon  corrupt prctice tht ws so entrenched tht everyone ccepted it s the wy things were done. he trusted her boss; she trusted her CE; she trusted her co-workers; she trusted her professionl ssocition nd her lwyer. Could she trust nyone t ll? 2. Not having enough evidence Humns hve  gret cpcity to think up explntions for things they observe. However, becuse more thn one explntion might be possible, it’s importnt to obtin dditionl evidence to con rm or deny wht you think is hppening. is is just wht detectives re supposed to do when investigting crimes. It is lso wht  concerned worker or citizen needs to do when discovering something suspicious. e big trp here is to mke clims bout wht’s going on without rst hving evidence to bck up every detil. e clims might be The examples e exmples in this hndbook re not directly bsed on ctul cses, in whole or prt. ey do drw on common themes in rel cses, nd re intended to illustrte points tht become fmilir to nyone who listens to dozens of stories. e exmples differ in  few wys from ctul cses. • ost ctul cses re incredibly complex, with ll sorts of detils nd bywys. It’s impossible to convey such complexity in  prgrph or two. • Actul cses re fr more trumtic for the trget of the ttck thn ny description cn suggest. (ee chpter for more on this.) • In ctul cses there re rel people nd rel consequences. Without knowing the people involved it is hrd to grsp the personl dimensions. • e ttcks I describe re bd enough, but in mny ctul cses the ttcks re fr worse: spiteful, insidious, unremitting nd intensely debilitting. If nyone thinks the exmples here re unrelistic, they’re right: the relity could be even grimmer. For those who’d like to red bout ctul cses, there re mny good references given t the end of the book. Even better is to tlk to someone who hs been there. entirely correct, but clims without evidence cn be plusibly denied, nd even ones with evidence cn be discredited. Furthermore, the evidence needs to be solid, so the fcts mke the cse without the ddition of suspicion or specultion Fred ws  customs officer who hd just moved to  new posting. He begn to notice tht certin types of goods were lwys put through on  prticulr shi involving the sme group of officers. He knew from previous experience tht these types of goods were regulrly used to smuggle drugs. In the fce of much resistnce, he mnged to get on the shi himself, nd uncovered  mjor drugs shipment. en he ws trnsferred to  less desirble job. He went to the medi with clims of corruption in customs. But in the fce of blnd denils by customs officils, nothing could be done. ere wsn’t enough hrd evidence even to justify n inquiry. Fred ws stymied in his creer in customs, so he obtined  job in  trucking compny checking inventories. With his nose for corruption, he soon detected  scm in which certin goods were trucked without going through ccounts, in return for  bribe. is time Fred collected detiled evidence, including tped converstions nd photos. But he wrecked his credibility by climing tht the opertion ws pproved by top mngement. is ws probbly true but, without hrd proof, regultors could do nothing. Fred lost his job. He won his cse for unfir dismissl but the mngers sued him for defmtion, successfully shiing the focus from their culpbility to Fred’s behviour. 3. Using the wrong style Who is more believble:  serious-looking nd sober-sounding scientist or  dishevelled, rnting street-corner speker? As much s we might dispprove, style is  crucil prt of getting  messge cross. eople who try to expose problems such s child buse, public helth risks nd corruption re usully outrged. et n pproch with too much overt emotion  shouting, hectoring, disgust  cn be counterproductive. A sensible, to-the-point pproch my be more effective. It is possible, though rre, to pper to be too clm. An effective style hits the right note for  relevnt udience. Another problem is tht concerned people get enormously involved in the issue. ey re so involved tht they forget tht others know little or nothing bout it. ey jump right into the middle of the story without explining the bckground. Allen ws the victim of  construction swindle. He hd contrcted for improvements to his home. Aer pying  , , the work done ws woefully indequte, nd  different contrctor quoted Allen  , to x the problems. However, the originl contrctor climed tht Allen owed him money nd refused to do nything until being pid. e building industry wtchdog body took  yer to decide there ws no cse to nswer. Allen berted nyone who couldn’t get wy. Even sympthisers soon becme tired of his tirdes. He compiled  -pge document titled “BILDIG IDR CRRI.” It ws lled with sttements of outrge nd extreme clims, including letters he hd written to vrious officil bodies. He sent this document to hundreds of politicins nd government deprtments, but only received  few polite letters in response. Even though he hd  good cse, Allen’s style scremed “crnk.” 4. Not waiting for the right opportunity ny  good exposé is ineffective becuse it is mde t the wrong time, to the wrong udience or in the wrong circumstnces. ny people believe tht the truth is enough on its own nd tht it shouldn’t mtter when or how they spek out. But it does! Even er crefully collecting evidence, it my be necessry to wit months or even yers to hve the best chnce of mking  difference. It’s  common trp for people with n importnt messge to go public s soon s they re redy  rther thn when the opportunity is just right. Dolores, n experienced politicl ctivist, collected evidence of surreptitious dontions to  politicl prty from foreign vested interests. he mde contct with n investigtive journlist, who produced  series of excellent stories in  mjor newspper. However, the prty ws ble to wether the storm without much difficulty  it hd just been elected to office with  lrge mjority nd ws enjoying  honeymoon period with the public nd medi. o other outlets took up the story. Just over  yer lter, though, the prty’s populrity hd dropped, it ws in the midst of  bitter internl ght nd n opposition prty ws sniffing for blood. e sme story would hve been dynmite t the time, but since it hd lredy been broken, journlists were not s interested s they might hve been. 5. Not building support If truth ws enough by itself, it shouldn’t be necessry to build support. It would simply be enough to spek the truth. Relying solely on the truth is  serious trp. o hve some chnce of success, it is vitl to hve supporters. is oen requires  ptient effort to nd out where people stnd nd then to mobilise those who re sympthetic, win over some of those who re neutrl nd to reduce the hostility of some of the opponents. It’s not enough to be correct nd to be serving the public interest. When the old-fshioned politicin  without money for medi cmpigns  goes door-to-door meeting people nd exchnging ides nd plns, this is  form of grssroots politics. A similr pro- cess is required in orgnistions nd communities on mny issues, even when the fcts re cler-cut. It is tempting to skip this lborious process nd just run with the fcts. It’s oen disstrous. Frnk ws  socil worker with lots of experience. ired of the big-city rt-rce, he moved to  smll town, where he ws ttched to the locl hospitl. oon er rriving, he strted receiving reports of busive behviour by  locl government officil, eterson, including verbl buse nd ssult of eterson’s neighbours nd nyone who dred criticise him. Frnk rrnged  privte meeting with the myor. He described some of wht he’d herd, suggested some constructive responses nd sked for dvice. ot long er, he ws dismissed from the hospitl. ix people  ve clients nd one person he’d never met  led complints bout him, including sexul ssult. ese complints were written up in the locl newspper. Frnk ws referred to  psychitrist nd hd his licence s  socil worker removed. He only found out lter tht eterson hd lots of connections in the town, including  brother who ws the hospitl superintendent nd  nephew who ws editor of the pper. 6. Playing the opponent’s game ere re ll sorts of gencies nd forml processes for deling with injustices, including grievnce procedures, ombudsmen, ntidiscrimintion bords nd the courts. When n individul ppels to one of these gencies for ction to be tken ginst buses in n orgnistion, the orgnistion’s mngers hve ll the dvntges: fr more money, unlimited time nd usully little individul responsibility. ngers cn stll, resist giving informtion, hire expensive lwyers nd mount ttcks. In mny cses, to stick to forml chnnels is to ply the opponent’s gme lrgely by the opponent’s rules. e individul is worn Jeffrey Wigand was a tobacco company whistleblower. He was played by Russell Crowe in the lm e Insider. down emotionlly nd nncilly while the orgnistion continues on, unchecked nd unchnged. Even if the individul wins  settlement, it is usully yers down the trck, is too little nd too lte for much stisfction, nd does nothing to chnge the originl problem. Agencies nd forml processes present themselves s mens to justice, nd mny people believe in them. ey trust the system to provide  mens of policing itself  n extension of trp  , trusting too much. If you’re going to use forml processes, you hd better lern the rules well. When plying the opponent’s gme, the rules might ctully be used ginst you. Joy received  fulty dignosis from n estblished physicin nd ws treted incorrectly for two yers, leding to dditionl helth problems nd costing her tens of thousnds of dollrs in lost income nd expenses, not to mention pin nd suffering. he hd kept meticulous documenttion nd obtined correct dignoses from severl doctors. ne of them con dentilly told her tht she ws only one of mny who hd been misdignosed by this physicin. Joy mde  complint to the medicl ppels tribunl. Aer  desultory investigtion nd months, it reported tht no ction would be tken. he followed up with  complint to  consumer justice bord. is time the process took over two yers, with  similr result. Finlly, she sued the physicin for dmges. e physicin’s insurnce compny delyed the cse for three yers nd then mounted  smer opertion, questioning her motives nd snity. Joy nlly won the cse er ve yers. e insurnce compny ppeled nd, severl yers lter, eventully won the ppel. enwhile, the physicin retired with his public reputtion untrnished. 7. Not knowing when to stop nce embrked on  quest for justice, it cn be hrd to let go nd get on with life. is is relted to the type of psychologicl phenomenon by which people, er losing money, re inclined to risk more to recoup the loss. et oen it’s better to cut your losses nd go on to more productive ctivities. is is especilly true when it’s pprent tht the chnce of success is smll or tht further gins will require more effort for fr less return. It’s useful to remember tht your fmily nd friends didn’t decide to tke  risk: you did. ou need to tke their needs into ccount throughout your journey. ome of those who hve  commitment to justice nd truth become used to hering others sy they re wsting their time. If they hd listened to every sceptic they would hve never cted in the rst plce. But the rel trde-off is not between ction nd no ction, but rther between different types of ction. When the use-by dte of  cmpign rrives, it’s time to shi to  different diet, otherwise the tste will become ever more bitter. Helen ws  high school rt techer who hd tught for mny yers t different schools, moving becuse of her husbnd’s creer. he liked to experiment with different teching methods nd ws populr with students nd other techers. At one school, though, the young uthoritrin principl ws thretened by her success nd populrity. He rrnged to get her red er  series of negtive evlutions nd trumped up chrges. Deeply shocked, she tried severl forml chnnels nd er ve yers received  substntil py-out, though the detils remined con dentil nd no ction ws tken ginst the principl. Helen wouldn’t let go of the cse, though, nd continued to write letters to politicins nd government gen- cies nd to tell the story to nyone who would listen. he did not return to teching or tke ny other job. Conclusion eople shouldn’t be blmed for flling into these trps. Even those with yers of experience in difficult jobs re like bbes in the woods when suddenly confronted with the full force of the system. Why wouldn’t they trust people with whom they hd worked for yers? Where would they hve lerned skills in collecting nd sticking to evidence, developing n effective style nd witing for the right moment? How would they hve lerned orgnising skills when it’s not prt of the job? How would they know tht forml processes give only n illusion of justice when everyone ssumes tht they re there to x problems? Aer yers in  lonely struggle nd mny betryls, how re they to mke  sensible judgement bout the next step  nd when to bow out? o, flling into these trps is entirely predictble, which is why story er story sounds much the sme. It is only by lerning from wht hppens to others, nd from the ccumulted wisdom of dissidents nd justice-seekers, tht  better pth forwrd cn be nvigted. e following chpters give some ide of wht’s involved. Frank Serpico, a New York police officer, exposed police corruption. In the lm erpico, he was played by Al Pacino. 2 The problem Figure out wht the problem is nd wht cuses it. e problem is tht something is seriously wrong nd no one is ble or willing to do nything bout it. Here re some exmples. • A compny is regulrly defruding clients by dding  fee for n unnecessry (nd unperformed) service. • ny employees receive con dentil pyments  bribes  in order to ignore  violtion of procedure. • Friends of  prticulr boss re given jobs, promotions nd specil opportunities; those who hve fllen out of fvour with this boss re given  hrd time. • In pplying policy, certin groups re discriminted ginst: n ethnic minority, members of  certin religion, bckers of  prticulr politicl prty. • An orgnistion persists in  prctice tht is hzrdous to the public. • A boss humilites subordintes, cusing mny to resign or tke sick leve due to stress. • Bltnt sexul hrssment by one prticulr powerful individul is tolerted by top mngement. • e public reltions deprtment is instructed to lie to the public to cover up  serious mistke by mngers. • e high idels of n orgnistion re ignored by most employees, who nd it sfer to do shoddy work. • A mnger is embezzling money. e central issue is how to solve the problem. But rst,  preliminry question. Do you wnt to try to help solve the problem? erhps you don’t cre. erhps you hve been prt of the problem, nd don’t pln to chnge. If so, this book is not for you. If you do cre, then this book is for you. If you wnt to try to help x the problem, then the centrl issue is how. Wht is the rst step? Who will be willing to help? Wht re the likely repercussions? Is it possible to mke  difference? Is it worth doing nything? When there re severl problems, which should be the rst priority? ese questions re delt with in lter chpters. Let’s look  bit more t the problems. ey involve ll sorts of different res. But mny of them t  few ctegories. • Injustice, unfirness nd discrimintion. is includes bis in fvour of friends or reltives nd bis ginst out-groups. • Violtions of lws nd/or morlity. is includes steling, bribery nd deception. • Dngerous prctices. is includes cusing hzrds to helth nd the environment. • Abusive behviour. is includes bullying, hrssment nd scpegoting. • Complicity. is is covering up or doing nothing bout  problem. Is it bribery? It is importnt to work out exctly wht you think the problem is, nd why you think it’s  problem. Example A phrmceuticl compny hs been selling  certin drug for severl yers. ome of the compny’s scientists cme up with  nding tht suggests  new risk for certin users. It hs been  yer since the scientists reported on their nding but the drug is still being sold the sme wy, with no chnge in the informtion sheet bout dverse effects. Wht is the problem? ne problem is  potentil dnger to the public. Another is tht the drug’s informtion sheet is incomplete: this might be considered flse dvertising or, in other words, lying. Finlly, there my be complicity: the unwelcome dt re being knowingly ignored. n the other hnd, mngement my sy there’s no problem t ll, since the new nding hs not been con rmed nd they don’t wnt to lrm people who re bene ting from the drug. Which problem is most importnt to tckle? Is it to lert consumers to the hzrd? Is it to undertke more reserch to gin  better understnding of the risk? Is it to chnge the compny’s pproch to possible drug risks, so tht consumer sfety is given  higher priority? Is it to chnge the culture of conformity, in which no one wnts to do nything tht might hrm sles of  pro tble drug? f course, you might be concerned bout ll these problems. But to be effective, it’s useful to know where your priorities lie. The source of problems It cn be very helpful to understnd why  problem rises nd why it persists. e most immedite explntion is tht  person or group hs something to gin, typiclly money, power or sttus. Finncil frud cn be motivted by greed. Hzrdous prctices cn be motivted by the push for pro ts. Climing credit for other people’s ides cn be motivted by the desire for promotion. Covering up for mistkes by collegues cn be motivted by the desire to protect the group’s reputtion for good work. o begin n nlysis of the source of  problem, sk “who hs something to gin?” Although mny problems cn be explined this wy, there re numerous exceptions. ometimes the immedite explntion doesn’t work. A compny might be losing millions of dollrs due to frud but mngers don’t do nything bout it. is might be becuse the mngers re in on the frud. Another possibility is tht if nyone tried to stop the frud, they would get no support or even come under ttck, so it’s just esier to let it continue. Cynthia Kardell comments If  problem could be cused by either corruption or incompetence, it is more likely to be incompetence. o, in getting someone to investigte, it’s best to cll it incompetence nd let the investigtor discover whether it is corruption. king n exggerted clim might persude the investigtor tht you should not be tken seriously. Another sort of explntion is tht problems occur becuse of the wy things re orgnised. Insted of blming individuls, this explntion trces problems to procedures, orgnistionl structures nd sets of expecttions. For exmple, the rules on sfety t  workplce might be so complicted nd difficult to follow tht most workers ignore them just to get the job done. It is esy to blme the workers for not following the rules or mngement for not enforcing them, but perhps  better pproch is to simplify nd clrify the rules. In the cse of burglry, mny blme the burglrs. thers blme prents for not bringing up children to be honest, or techers for not educting students properly. But does blme help solve the problem? Another pproch is to look t solutions tht involve chnging the system. erhps if there were more opportunities for stisfying work, fewer people would resort to burglry. erhps prt of the problem is the pervsive role of dvertising nd commercilism, which present cquisition of products s the symbols of success, nd mke some people feel excluded. ese re explntions tht blme “the system” or “society” rther thn individuls. ou don’t need to gree with ny prticulr explntion in order to relise there is  difference between blming individuls nd seeing the problem s due to procedures or structures. sychologists hve found it is very common for people to blme individuls for problems rther thn socil rrngements. For exmple, if the government develops  bd policy, it is esy nd common for critics to blme politicins, oen  prticulr politicin. It is hrder to grsp nd dopt  less individulistic explntion, for exmple tht there is  complex interction between pressure groups, legisltive restrictions nd medi-driven expecttions tht led to the policy in spite of everyone’s good intentions. e explntion does mke  difference. If problems re seen s due to individuls, then the solution is usully to del with the individuls, for exmple to replce or discipline them. ometimes this works but oen the problem continues on s before. If the orgnistionl structure gives mple opportunities for frud, then it’s not much use getting rid of  few individuls, since their replcements re likely to succumb sooner or lter. A better pproch would be to chnge the structure. But tht’s usully  much more difficult tsk. 3 Speaking out and the consequences If you spek out, you my be ttcked. • ere re mny methods of ttck. • o reduce outrge over their ctions, ttckers regulrly use the methods of cover-up, devlution, reinterprettion, officil chnnels, intimidtion nd rewrds. • ere re severl resons for ttck. • ou should determine who is cusing the problem. • e ttckers feel entirely justi ed  you should understnd the wy they think. ccsionlly those who spek out bout problems re treted with the respect nd seriousness they deserve. Aer ll, if everyone tolertes corruption nd dngerous prctices, the problems will continue. e person who speks out is the key to nding  solution. ometimes  just sometimes  tht’s ctully wht hppens. When n ctul re is thretening lives, the person who yells “ re!” is ppluded. If only it ws lwys tht esy! In lots of cses, unfortuntely, the wrning is treted entirely differently. It is  signl to ttck the person who gve the wrning. Fred ws  building surveyor. He noticed tht  block of houses,  decde old, ws built on unstble soil in n re potentilly vulnerble to slippge. He mde  routine report bout this; nothing ws done. Fering the consequences of  mjor storm, he mde his concerns known to the builder nd the relevnt locl uthorities. In the following months he noticed he ws being shunned by some of his collegues. He noticed his commissions were dropping off. en there ws  forml complint bout his performnce. (And so on.) ry ws  new surgeon in  hospitl, working under  prominent doctor in the eld. he noticed tht he ws mking poor judgements in some cses nd tht he hd been using  lot of drugs, esily obtined t the hospitl. Aer she mde  cutious comment to him bout it, he begn to criticise her performnce t every opportunity, s his own continued to deteriorte. en she reported her concerns to the hospitl dministrtor. e next time one of her ptients did poorly, she ws crpeted, reprimnded nd put on notice for dismissl. (And so on.) Arnie ws  young policemn, intelligent nd enthusistic. He discovered tht mny of his collegues, on getting to the scene of  burglry, would stel things themselves before the owners rrived. ince he refused to prticipte himself, his collegues becme suspicious or hostile. en he reported his observtions to  police integrity unit. Although the unit ws supposed to keep ll such reports con dentil, shortly erwrds Arnie ws openly bused by his collegues, being clled  “dog” nd other nmes. He ws repetedly reprimnded for slight or imginry violtions of dress code nd driving. His wife received thretening phone clls. (And so on.) Jcki, who lived ner  light industril district, found out bout plns for  new plnt tht would produce  chemicl she hd herd bout. Aer tlking to some friends nd locl experts, she lerned tht the chemicl production process could cuse  long-term environmentl hzrd nd tht similr plnts hd been opposed in other loclities. he held  meeting with neighbours, wrote  letter to the newspper nd orgnised  petition. he then found out tht slnderous rumours were being spred bout her motives nd mentl helth. e police serched her house for drugs, supposedly on the bsis of n nonymous tip. he ws served with  writ for defming the chemicl compny. Her children were hrssed t school. (And so on.) Methods of attack ny techniques re used ginst those who spek out. ome of them re: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • strcism Hrssment preding of rumours rets (of reprimnds, dismissl, etc.) Referrls to psychitrists Censorship of writing Blocking of ppointments Blocking of promotions Withdrwl of nncil support Forced job trnsfers Being given impossible tsks Denil of work opportunities Forml reprimnds Legl ctions Dismissl Blcklisting utting in dnger tlking hysicl ssult e most common reprisl for speking out is ostracism. is is when co-workers turn wy rther thn sying hello, when they sit t nother tble during te breks nd lunch, when they stop dropping by to hve  cht, nd when they mke excuses to leve whenever you pproch them. Co-workers might be frid to tlk to you becuse bosses hve wrned them not to. Friendly or t lest cordil reltions with co-workers re highly importnt for job stisfction. Hence this “cold shoulder” tretment cn be very hrd to hndle. Another common reprisl is harassment. is cn be quite petty. For exmple: • ou no longer get helpful hints on upcoming jobs. • ou re given no notice of meetings. • ou re given less desirble tsks. • ou re sked to crry out unnecessry bureucrtic procedures tht re normlly ignored or postponed, nd then to repet them due to minor discrepncies. • e compny cr is never redy when you need it (but it is for others). • our requests for leve re misplced or pproved only for inconvenient times. • our roster ends up being unnecessrily wkwrd. • ou re sked to chnge offices severl times. • our norml job, t which you re skilled, is given to someone else. • ou re given too much work. • ou ren’t given enough work. Rumours re common enough in ny orgnistion or neighbourhood. As  form of reprisl, they cn be especilly vicious, nd lso ttck  person’s reputtion in  pointed fshion. Robina Cosser comments Bosses sometimes tell people there is  secret reason why you hve to be punished  nd tht they will get into serious trouble if they discuss the sitution. is tctic cn turn your supporters into helpless bystnders. A common wy to discredit someone is to sy they re mentlly ill. is is more pointed when they re formlly required to see  psychitrist. is is  form of hrssment nd cn lso fn the rumour mill. Reprimnds, censorship, blocking of ppointments nd promotions, withdrwl of nncil support, forced job trnsfers, legl ctions nd dismissl  ll these re strightforwrd forms of ttck. Reprimnds, legl ctions nd dismissl re obvious enough: if your boss serves you with  writ for defmtion, you cn be in no doubt bout who is the trget. n the other hnd, it is usully hrd to know why your ppliction for  job hs filed, unless you hve inside informtion. ere’s one extr level to ll these forms of reprisl: the threat tht they might be pplied. ou might be told you’d better be creful in order to void  forml reprimnd. Comments might be mde tht those who criticise the orgnistion’s policies will hve  difficult time getting promoted. ou might be thretened with  trnsfer,  legl ction or dismissl. Blacklisting is when mny different employers in  eld conspire not to employ someone. If you’ve exposed corruption in your rm nd re dismissed, it cn be difficult enough to get  job elsewhere. If other rms nd out bout the dismissl, perhps due to  few quiet words, you my be denied employment in the eld ltogether. Finlly, there cn be threts nd ttcks on your physicl sfety. For exmple, the wheel nuts on your cr might be loosened, leding to  potentilly hzrdous brekdown t high speeds. Assults nd cretion of hzrds re  relity in mny workplces, nd there re even murders. However, physicl violence is used in only  smll frction of reprisls. ne reson is tht violence cn bck re, creting sympthy for the victim, becuse physicl ttck is difficult to justify. In contrst, ostrcism nd petty hrssment re more subtle nd hrder to expose. Robina Cosser, vice president of Whistleblowers Australia. (Sharan Rai Photography www.sharanrai.com) What powerful attackers do owerful individuls nd groups  clled powerholders here  include governments, corportions, police nd senior officils in orgnistions. When they do something potentilly seen s unfir or wrong  nything from hrssment to torture  they oen tke ction to reduce dverse rections, nmely to prevent or decrese feelings of concern, nger, disgust or outrge. Five types of methods re regulrly used. . Cover-up. e unfir ctions re hidden from wider udiences, for exmple through secrecy or censorship. . Devlution of the trget. Anyone who thretens the powerholders, for exmple by exposing their ctions, is discredited through rumours, circultion of dmging informtion, denuncitions nd referrl to psychitrists, mong other methods. . Reinterprettion of the ction. e events re explined in  wy fvourble to the powerholders, using lies, minimising of consequences, blming others nd presenting things from the perspective of the powerholders. For exmple, unfir dismissl might be explined s due to  funding cut or reorgnistion. . fficil chnnels tht give the ppernce of justice. fficil chnnels such s courts nd grievnce procedures offer the promise of justice, but seldom deliver when powerholders re responsible for problems. ee chpter for more on this. . Intimidtion nd rewrds. rgets nd their llies my be thretened nd subjected to reprisls. Attrctive opportunities  jobs, promotions, protection, py-offs  my be offered to those willing to support the ttckers. If top mngers re involved in corruption, it is predictble tht they will use cover-up, devlution, reinterprettion, officil chn- nels nd/or intimidtion/rewrds to reduce wreness nd ction ginst their corrupt behviour. When they tke reprisls ginst whistleblowers, they oen use the very sme methods to reduce outrge bout the reprisls. Be prepred for these methods. o counter them, you cn use counter-methods. . Expose the problem. is is the counter to cover-up. It is why speking out is so powerful. . Vlidte the trget. ou need to show you re credible nd be ble to mintin your credibility in the fce of ttempts t devlution. ee chpter . . Interpret the ction s n injustice. ou need to emphsise the injustice nd to counter the lies, minimising, blming nd frming tctics used by the other side. . Build support. Insted of relying on officil chnnels, you should seek to win llies nd mobilise supporters to tke ction. ee chpter . . Resist intimidtion nd rewrds. o tckle the problem, you  or someone  need to be ble to stnd up to intimidtion nd refuse rewrds. ou don’t hve to do ll this on your own. ou cn work with others. ee chpter . e key point here is to think bout wht the perpetrtors re likely to do, nd pln ccordingly. Reasons for attack ou’ve spoken out nd then come under ttck. t mens tht you’ve come under ttck becuse you’ve spoken out. Right? Well, yes in mny cses. But not lwys. A person cn come under ttck for ll sorts of resons. Here re some of them. Bad luck. ou re blmed for something just becuse you were in the wrong plce t the wrong time. Mistake. our nme ws mentioned only becuse someone ws confused. Personal dislike. omeone  mybe your boss  doesn’t like you. ybe you remind them of  prent or spouse. ybe you hve  mnnerism tht nnoys someone. ou re victimised. Scapegoating. Bd prctices hve been in plce for  long time nd hve just been exposed. It’s convenient to blme someone. ou re  convenient trget. Caught in the cross re. ere’s  long-stnding feud between two powerful fctions. Anyone nd nything is used to wge the struggle. ou re ttcked s  mens to get t someone else. Obstinacy. ome bosses, er they begin  course of ction, will proceed no mtter wht. Whtever the reson for coming under scrutiny to begin with  bd luck,  mistke, etc.  you re now  perpetul trget. In this wy, the boss’s originl judgement is vindicted. e rst step is to decide whether you’re under ttck. If so, the next step is to decide why you’re under ttck. e next question er tht is wht to do bout it. t’s the subject of the next chpter. ost people prefer not to be ttcked t ll. f course not! ny of those who spek out don’t expect ny reprisls. ey see  problem nd report it, ssuming tht ll resonbly minded people will then investigte nd do something to x it. When people know reprisls re possible, tht chnges things. eople become frid nd most of them don’t spek out. e problems fester. Who is causing the problem? In mny disputes, both sides believe they re the victim. Rchel rised concerns bout record-keeping nd suffered ll sorts of flse ccustions nd buse. But Rchel’s boss nd co-workers believe it is Rchel who hs mde flse ccustions nd bused them. Who is right? ere’s no bsolute wy to know, especilly for those in the middle of the dispute. In mny cses, the ccounts from the two sides re so different tht n outsider wouldn’t know they re tlking bout the sme sitution. ltimtely, the only wy to determine the source of the problem is to crry out  detiled investigtion, obtining s mny fcts s possible. A judgement bout the fcts must be bsed on  set of vlues, such s common community ssessments of wht is honest nd proper. Even without  full investigtion, there re some good pointers you cn use s guides to wht is probbly going on. • • • • • e double stndrd test. iming. Who hs the power? Who re complints mde to? Who is willing to discuss the issues? e double standard test. Is one person being treted differently from nother? If so, there is  double stndrd. Commonly, there is one stndrd for ordinry employees nd nother  much more demnding  for employees who question or chllenge those in power. Rchel is given  reprimnd for being hlf n hour lte three times in  month, while co-workers re lter more frequently. t ppers to be  double stndrd: Rchel is being singled out for criticism. e double stndrd test is extremely useful in determining whether someone hs been victimised for speking out or otherwise chllenging the system. Double stndrds re lso to be expected in forms of systemtic discrimintion, such s bis ginst women, ethnic minorities or lesbins nd gys. Timing. If  person speks out nd then suddenly is subjected to criticism or hrssment  llegedly on other grounds  this should give  strong suspicion tht the criticism nd hrssment re  consequence of speking out. Rchel hd been doing her job for yers nd lwys received fvourble performnce reviews. Immeditely er she rised concerns bout record-keeping, the boss nd other senior people suddenly found  lot to criticise bout her performnce. ey lleged tht she hd missed meetings, been brsive, lled out forms incorrectly, been  poor performer, etc. ome complints bout her from  disgruntled customer were pulled out of  le, even though they hd been mde ve yers previously nd never shown to Rchel. ings tht were dismissed s trivil previously were blown up into mjor issues. e key thing is tht criticisms weren’t mde before the person spoke out, but were mde erwrds. A close look t timing revels  lot bout who is cusing the problem. Who has the power? If one side or person hs more power thn nother, it is possible to use tht power to suppress dissent. Rchel my receive  reprimnd from her boss, but she cn’t give  forml reprimnd to her boss. ere’s n intrinsic symmetry in ny hierrchy. Just becuse one side hs more power doesn’t men tht the other side is in the right. Rchel might hve ll her fcts wrong nd be cusing distress mong her co-workers by her behviour. If there re llegtions by both sides tht the other side is suppressing free speech, it is worth looking t who (if nyone) hs the power to stop someone’s speech. ose who don’t hve much power cn’t do much to suppress others. Who are complaints made to? In  dispute or disgreement between fir-minded people, there is open discussion of the issues without threts or exercise of power ginst the other side. In  cse of suppression of dissent, one side ttempts to use power to silence the other. e firest wy to mke  complint is directly to the person complined bout. t wy they know wht the complint is nd hve n opportunity to respond nd perhps to x the problem. In contrst,  complint to  person’s boss is oen n unfir method, especilly if the person complined bout doesn’t receive  copy or even know bout the complint. Json hs been blogging bout the helth hzrds of eting met. ny of his blogs re reproduced nd recommended by others. Response A. Helen, n independent met dvocte, writes her own blog rebutting Json’s clims. Response B. A representtive of the Beef Industry Forum responds to Json’s blogs, rebutting his clims. Response C. Helen writes Json  vehement letter criticising his views. Response D. e Beef Industry Forum sends Json documents presenting its viewpoint. Response E. Helen sends  letter of complint to Json’s boss. Response F. e hed of the Beef Industry Forum rings Json’s boss to complin. Response G. e Beef Industry Forum compiles nd sends  dossier bout Json nd his lleged personl shortcomings nd sends it to the website dministrtor hosting his blog, but not  copy to Json. Response H. A member of the Beef Industry Forum rings the website dministrtor to sy tht legl ction might be tken if Json’s blogs continue to be published. Responses A to D re open nd fir. ey engge in dilogue. ey my be distressing to Json, especilly if the lnguge is strong. But they re fir becuse they re either directly to Json or in the sme forum (blogs) tht Json used. Responses E to H re not open nd not fir. ey re ttempts to ttck Json or to prevent his views being herd, even though Helen nd the Beef Industry Forum my feel personlly under ttck nd feel tht Json hs mde incorrect clims. Flse clims, though  which might be felt to be “unfir”  re not the sme s unfir methods of crrying out the dispute. ne of the most useful wys to decide whether one side in  dispute is ttempting to suppress the other side is to see whether complints hve been mde tht ffect the other side’s bility to spek out. Complints to superiors re  very common method of this sort. Who is willing to discuss the issues? Another chrcteristic of suppression is voidnce of open discussion. Rther thn welcoming n opportunity for dilogue nd debte, the focus is put on the other person’s behviour or on officil procedures. Alterntively, interction is voided ltogether. (ometimes it is too dngerous to go stright to the person responsible for the problem  perhps it is the boss! But this should not be  fctor when the other person is  co-worker or  subordinte.) *** ese tests re helpful in determining wht’s going on, but re not foolproof. If you try pplying the tests to cses you know  lot bout, you’ll lern to recognise the signls of fir ply nd the signls of suppression. How the other side thinks Wht bout those who lunch the ttcks? ey re the ones who hrss their collegues, mke threts, issue disciplinry notices, dismiss employees nd continue with dmging prctices. It’s esy to imgine tht they re corrupt, scheming nd just plin evil. Actully, this is not  useful wy to think bout it. How do they perceive the problem? How do they justify their behviour? From their point of view, the person who speks out is t fult. e ttckers usully think they hve been remrkbly restrined. ey focus on the trget’s indequcies (nd who doesn’t hve some?) nd on the rel thret to the orgnistion cused by the person’s unnecessry nd destbilising clims. In prctice, wht this mens is tht reprisls re never  bsolutely never  clled reprisls. erly lwys, these ctions re justi ed in terms of the trget’s indequcies nd filures: their inbility to do their job, their disloylty, their violtion of orgnistionl norms, their prnoi. erefore, it is lwys best to ssume tht officils whom you think re corrupt nd unscrupulous re ctully, in their own minds, totlly justi ed in everything they do. erhps there re  few people who sy to themselves, “I’m dishonest nd I’m going to victimise tht honest person who’s trying to expose me.” But don’t count on it! Becuse ech side believes it is correct, the struggle is one over credibility. Who will be believed? Few books bout bureucrcies provide much insight into these issues. ne tht does is Robert Jckll’s Moral Mazes: e World of Corporate Managers. Jckll obtined ccess to  couple of big  corportions s well s  public reltions rm. He spent mny months interviewing mngers nd wtching them in ction, s well s reding mny documents. Jckll treted the world of corporte mngers s  culture. He ws like n nthropologist studying n lien tribe. His im ws to understnd the socil dynmics of corporte culture. He gives mny cse studies of ctivities nd crises to illustrte his nlysis. Moral Mazes cn be hevy-going t times, s some of the quotes below indicte. But it is worth persisting with the book becuse of the insights it offers. Here re some of Jckll’s observtions. • Corportions re in  constnt stte of uphevl. When  new executive tkes over  post, he (or occsionlly she) brings in  whole new crew of cronies. Bureucrcy is  set of ptronge networks. • Corportions oen respond to the whims nd inclintions of the chief executive. Even n off-hnd comment by the chief executive cn trigger subordintes into frenzied ctivity to do wht they think is being suggested. In mny cses the result is ill-dvised or disstrous. • Conformity is enforced to mzingly ne detils. • ngers, to be successful, must continully dpt their personlities to t the current sitution. is is not just cting. ey must become so nturl t wht they do tht they “re” their ct. uch of this dpttion is tting in. Clothes must conform to expecttions, but so must speech, ttitudes nd personl style. ose who don’t dpt don’t get hed. • ngers don’t wnt to ct until the decision is generlly ccepted. ey experience  pervsive indecisiveness. Ech one looks for signls on wht decision will be fvoured. ignls from the chief executive officer  the top boss  re especilly importnt. • Responsibility is diffused nd hrd to pin down. ngers void tking responsibility. e key thing is to void being blmed for  filure. • orlity is doing wht seems pproprite in the sitution to get things done. orlity is doing wht the boss wnts. Hving independent principles is  prescription for creer stgntion or disster. • e symbolic mnipultion of relity is pervsive. For ny decision, mngers discuss vrious resons in order to settle on  wy to give legitimcy for wht the corportion does. • ublic reltions is simply  tool. ruth is irrelevnt. e successful mnger is one who cn dpt to the previling ides, who cn plese the boss, who cn void being blmed for filure, nd who cn build llinces with supporters bove nd below. Jckll devotes  chpter, “Drwing lines,” to the corportion’s response to whistleblowers. White ws  helth professionl who tried to rise concern bout hering loss mong mny workers t  corportion’s textile mills. He collected dt nd wrote  report. Due to his professionl trining nd religious bckground, he felt this ws  cler morl issue. But his ttempts filed. He did not hve supporters higher up. As well, his recommendtions for chnge thretened powerful interests. ther mngers felt uncomfortble with White’s morl stnce. Without cler uthorittive snctions, morl viewpoints threten others within n orgniztion by mking clims on them tht might impede their bility to red the dri of socil situtions. As  result, independent morlly evlutive judgments get subordinted to the socil intriccies of the bureucrtic workplce … ngers know tht in the orgniztion right nd wrong get decided by those with enough clout to mke their views stick. (p. ). White ended up leving the compny. Brdy ws n ccountnt who found vrious discrepncies in  compny’s nncil opertions. At one stge, Brdy discussed the mtter with  close friend,  mn who hd no de ned position but considerble in uence in the compny nd ccess to the highest circles in the orgniztion. He ws r. Fixit   lobbyist,  front mn, n ll-round fctotum,  mn who knew how to get things done. is friend took Brdy’s nonymous memorndum to  meeting of top gures in the corportion. “Immeditely er the meeting, Brdy’s friend ws red nd escorted from the building by rmed gurds.” (p. ). Brdy now relised it ws the chief executive himself who ws ddling the books. Brdy ws under suspicion of hving written the memo. He eventully presented ll his evidence to the compny’s chief lwyer, who wouldn’t touch it. “Right er Brdy’s boss returned from Europe, Brdy ws summrily red nd he nd his belongings were literlly thrown out of the compny building.” (p. ). othing new here. Another whistleblower is dismissed. Wht is most interesting in Jckll’s ccount is his description of how other mngers sw the sitution. ey sw Brdy’s dilemm s devoid of morl or ethicl content. In their view, the issues tht Brdy rises re, rst of ll, simply prcticl mtters. His bsic filing ws, rst, tht he violted the fundmentl rules of bureucrtic life. ese re usully stted s  series of dmonitions. ( ) ou never go round your boss. ( ) ou tell your boss wht he wnts to her, even when your boss clims tht he wnts dissenting views. ( ) If your boss wnts something dropped, you drop it. ( ) ou re sensitive to your boss’s wishes so tht you nticipte wht he wnts; you don’t force him, in other words, to ct s boss. ( ) our job is not to report something tht your boss does not wnt reported, but rther to cover it up. ou do wht your job requires, nd you keep your mouth shut. (pp. – ). e second response of mngers to Brdy’s cse ws tht he hd plenty of wys to justify not cting. thers obviously knew bout the ddling of the books but did nothing. ey were ll plying the gme. Why should Brdy worry bout it? He would only mke himself vulnerble. e third response of mngers ws to sy tht those things tht Brdy got upset bout  “irregulr pyments, doctored invoices, shuffling numbers in ccounts”  were ordinry things in  corportion. oreover, s mngers see it, plying sleight of hnd with the monetry vlue of inventories, post- or pre-dting memornd or invoices, tucking or squirreling lrge sums of money wy to pull them out of one’s ht t n opportune moment re ll prt nd prcel of mnging  lrge corportion where interprettions of performnce, not necessrily performnce itself, decide one’s fte. (p. ). e fourth nd nl response of mngers to Brdy’s cse ws to sy tht he shouldn’t hve cted on  morl code tht hd no relevnce to the orgnistion. Brdy refused to recognize, in the view of the mngers tht I interviewed, tht “truth” is socilly de ned, not bsolute, nd tht therefore compromise, bout nything nd everything, is not morl defet, s Brdy seems to feel, but simply n inevitble fct of orgniztionl life. ey see this s the key reson why Brdy’s bosses did him in. And they too would do him in without ny qulms. ngers, they sy, do not wnt evngelists working for them. (p. ). Aer ll these events, the chief executive  the one who ddled the books  retired, elevted his loyl lieutennt to his former position nd took n honorry position in the rm, s hed of internl udit! Concerning this cse, Jckll concludes: Bureucrcy trnsforms ll morl issues into immeditely prcticl concerns. A morl judgment bsed on  professionl ethic mkes little sense in  world where the etiquette of uthority reltionships nd the necessity of protecting nd covering for one’s boss, one’s network, nd oneself supersede ll other considertions nd where nonccountbility for ction is the norm. (p. ). Jckll’s nlysis is bsed on just  few  corportions. He hd to pproch dozens of corportions  nd dpt his pitch  before he found  couple tht grnted ccess. ere is no esy wy of knowing which of his insights pply to other corportions, other types of bureucrcies, nd in other countries. But in s much s the sme sorts of dynmics occur, Jckll’s exmintion shows tht whistleblowers re up ginst something much bigger thn  few corrupt individuls, or even  system of corruption. e problem is the very structure of the orgnistion, in which mngers who dpt to the ethos of prgmtism nd who plese their bosses re the ones who get hed. o eliminte wrongdoing in corportions requires not just replcing or penlising  few individuls, but chnging the entire orgnistionl structure. It is the structure, within the wider corporte culture, tht shpes the psychology of mngers nd cretes the context for problems to occur. Appendix: The language of exposing problems e words we use hve  gret effect on the wy we perceive the world. When people use the sme words, oen the menings or ssocitions re different. is pplies to speking out bout problems. e following tble lists some words commonly used to refer to exposing  problem. e words depend prtly on who reports the lleged problem to whom, nd whether the exposure is done openly or covertly. exposing equals or subordinates to those more powerful exposing superiors to higher officials or outside authorities exposing superiors or officials to the public open reporting, dobbing, informing, snitching, whistleblowing whistleblowing exposés, investigtive journlism, socil ction, whistleblowing covert reporting, dobbing, informing, snitching, nonymous whistleblowing nonymous whistleblowing leking, nonymous whistleblowing Reporting  clssmte to  techer is oen clled “dobbing” or “informing.” Is the ct of reporting bd just becuse people frown on “dobbing”? Wht if the clssmte ws rping  young child? hould reporting  burglr to police be clled “informing”? Judgements re oen implied in our use of words. It’s importnt to consider the ctul ct being referred to nd not just the lbel. 4 Personal assessment: what should I do? Before cting, puse nd re ect. • Check your ssessment: her the other side, get dvice, exmine your motives. • Clrify your personl gols. • Develop  strtegy. o there’s  problem tht needs ttention. ere re risks in speking out, but the problem is urgent nd it’s worth tking the risks. o … ction! Right? Well, mybe not. Aer nding out bout  problem, it cn be very tempting to ct immeditely. But unless you’re very experienced nd know exctly wht’s involved, it’s wise to puse nd re ect  indeed, puse nd re ect severl times. Check your assessment of the problem ome problems seem obvious enough: embezzlement, ssult, hzrdous prctices. But it’s best to be bsolutely sure before lunching into the issue. ere re severl wys to check. Ask to hear the other side. is mens tlking to people who seem to be responsible for the problem. For exmple, if there seems to be  bis in ppointments, sk to see the selection criteri nd, if vilble, job pplictions. lk to someone on the selection pnel. ere might ctully be good resons for the ppointments. ometimes there re other explntions even for pprent cses of embezzlement, ssult nd hzrdous prctices. It my be, for exmple, tht someone else wnts to mkes  person look bd. It’s remrkble how oen people re willing to believe the worst bout someone or something without tlking to the people concerned. ome very nsty con icts could be voided by this simple precution. ou notice tht  compny is selling outdted stock s if it were new. is could be  corrupt prctice. It might lso be becuse no one noticed. When in doubt, it is better to ssume incompetence or bd procedures rther thn corruption nd bd intentions. Very few orgnistions re perfectly efficient. Likewise, very few individuls re ble to do everything they re supposed to. … except in some cases. In  few cses, it cn be risky to sk to her the other side. It might show tht you suspect something, nd led to n ttck. It might lso lert people so tht they cn cover up by hiding or destroying records, estblishing cover stories nd the like. Robina Cosser comments Don’t lert the “other side,” or they will lunch  pre-emptive strike ginst you. Gther your evidence very, very quietly. ometimes your questions re quite innocent. ou don’t suspect nything. But just becuse you’ve sked bout certin sttements, ccounts or events, perpetrtors my think you know much more thn you do. As  result, you my come under ttck for no pprent reson. If you do come under ttck in such cses, tht’s  good indiction tht the problem is  serious one. But it’s not  gurntee. It could be n ttck for some other irrelevnt reson. Anywy, if it’s risky to sk to her the other side, you hve to decide the best wy to proceed. It might be sfer to pper to be on  person’s side. ou might use n pproch like this: “omeone ws sking bout the events lst ursdy. I’m sure there’s not really ny problem. Cn you suggest the best wy to explin the sitution to them?” If you suspect the worst, this is  bit devious. A more direct pproch is, “I’m concerned bout wht hppened on ursdy. I’d like to her your explntion.” If you re known for being strightforwrd  in other words, blunt  this my be oky. In some cses, though, it is not effective to sk to her the other side. If you hve solid evidence of mjor frud by top mngement, rising your concerns is  mistke. ou could be dismissed on the spot nd  cover-up initited immeditely. Get independent advice. o determine whether your ssessment is sensible, it cn be very helpful to tlk to someone who’s not involved. Describe the cse to them nd present the evidence you hve. Ask whether there could be n innocent explntion. Also sk whether they think the issue is s serious s you think it is. For exmple, there hve been severl incidents tht you think revel pervsive rcist ttitudes, though the employer officilly opposes rcism. Is your interprettion resonble, or re you exggerting the signi cnce of the incidents? Even if there is  serious problem, is there enough evidence from these incidents to relly show it? e sort of person who cn give the most helpful independent dvice should be blnced, concerned, sympthetic, honest nd totlly trustworthy. ey should be ble to give  balanced ssessment, not being too bised for or ginst nyone involved, nd not being distorted due to pssionte views on certin issues. ey should be concerned bout problems such s corruption or rcism or whtever. If they don’t cre bout the problem, they re hrdly in  position to tell whether it’s relly serious. ey should be resonbly sympathetic to you personlly, enough to be willing to help you be s effective s possible. ey should be honest, which mens willing to tell you wht they relly think even if they think you’re wrong. Finlly, they should be totlly trustworthy. ou don’t wnt nyone repeting your privte concerns to ll nd sundry, including those you suspect of cusing the problem. ere re few people who re idel in ll these respects. Finding someone who is both sympthetic nd honest is difficult enough. But you don’t hve to nd  perfect person. Just nd someone who is resonbly good nd who hs time to help. How to nd someone? e best wy is by sking round nd going by  person’s reputtion. If others sy someone is honest nd discreet, tht’s  good recommendtion. If the independent person supports your view, well nd good. If not, then you need to reconsider. Are you still convinced there’s  serious problem? If so, then you might contct nother independent person. e rst person might hve  bis you don’t know bout. If you’ve been to severl independent people nd none of them thinks your concerns re wrrnted, it’s time for  rethink. erhps you re imgining  problem where none exists. erhps it’s better to wit  while. Even if there’s  serious problem, you hve little chnce of doing nything bout it if you cn’t convince independent people. ybe you need more evidence. Robina Cosser comments ometimes it is better not to discuss it with nybody, especilly if you live in  smll town, where everyone hs worked with, wnts to work with, is  member of  club with or is  reltive of everybody else. Hrold used to work in bnks nd, since leving, begn investigting corruption in the bnking industry. However, his investigtions were hmpered in vrious wys. ome of his documents disppered, people refused to tlk to him nd he suspected tht there ws constnt surveillnce of his movements. He then pproched severl independent people for their ssessment. While sympthetic, they sid more evidence ws needed, both of corruption nd of surveillnce. Hrold remins convinced tht both re occurring. Examine your motives When you cll ttention to  problem, in principle it shouldn’t mtter wht your motives re. Aer ll, if there’s  dnger to public helth, the key thing is to ddress it. o wht if there’s  promotion involved for the person who exposes it? In prctice, motives re importnt. If your reson for cting is personl dvncement or sttus, tht my distort your view of wht the most serious problems re. ou discover tht the boss hs been tolerting minor pilfering from the storehouse. If the boss goes, you re next in line for her position. How does tht ffect your perception of the seriousness of the issue? ore importntly, if your motives re suspect, you my not be s effective in cting ginst the problem. e reson is tht people will ttribute your ctions to your self-interest. Cynthia Kardell comments If your primry concern is the motivtion of the wrongdoer nd your im is to hve them punished, you re likely to be seen s mlicious nd your complint seen s vextious nd brushed side. Insted, focus on wht ws ctully done nd llow others to come to the sme conclusions s you. However, if no one ever cted except with the purest of motives, then not much would ever be ccomplished. ome situtions re so corrupt tht everyone is tinted. In  corrupt police force, sometimes the best people to expose the problems re police who hve been involved themselves. Even if your motive is to escpe corruption chrges, your willingness to spek out cn be  vluble socil service. A warning If you re compromised by your prticiption in unsvoury prctices, you my be in specil dnger of being victimised. ome compromised whistleblowers re ttcked out of ll proportion to wht they’ve done, while the most corrupt individuls escpe unscthed. n the other hnd, being spotless is no gurntee of sfety. ome whistleblowers who re totlly innocent of ny wrongdoing hve been frmed for mjor crimes. Clarify your personal goals Aer checking tht your ssessment of the problem is correct, it’s time to decide your gols. t my seem obvious enough. Fix the problem. Justice. Get everything working the wy it ought to. Clrifying personl gols hs to be more precise thn this. It needs to include wht you’d like to chieve for yourself nd towrds xing the problem, nd wht costs you’re willing to ber. trt by being s precise s possible bout your gols. • • • • • • • • • Is it to ensure tht key decision mkers know bout  problem? Is it to publicise the sitution so lots of people know bout it? Is it to rectify  prticulr sitution? Is it to trnsform n entire orgnistion? Is it to expose wrongdoers? Is it to subject wrongdoers to pproprite penlties? Is it to obtin or regin n pproprite position for yourself? Is it to obtin compenstion for the injustices you’ve suffered? Is it to obtin personl stisfction tht you’ve done wht you cn? In mny cses your gols re mixtures of things, for exmple xing the problem, penlising the wrongdoers nd obtining compenstion. ry to seprte out the different components. Which ones re most importnt to you? Is it more importnt to prevent future problems or to bring wrongdoers to justice? ry to be even more speci c. If you wnt to publicise the sitution, would  notice to ll employees be sufficient? Wht bout n rticle in the locl newspper? If you wnt something personlly, wht exctly would suffice? A forml pology? A pyment? How much? It cn be difficult to clrify gols, but it’s importnt. In mny cses individuls spend months or yers pursuing  cse only to nd tht they re disstis ed with the outcome. t’s oen becuse their underlying gols were different from wht they thought  or becuse they never thought crefully bout their gols nd so didn’t hve  hope of chieving them. Being speci c bout gols is  crucil rst step. Another vitl step is to try to be relistic. If your gol is to trnsform the orgnistion, tht’s possibly  lifetime tsk. Even to expose wrongdoing cn be  mjor opertion. e costs of seeking chnge re oen much greter nd longer lsting thn imgined. Wht seems like it should tke six months cn tke six yers. ere cn be vst nncil costs. But even more serious re the helth nd emotionl costs. our helth my suffer from the stress of the process, nd your closest reltionships my be strined or broken. ore detils re given in chpter , including dvice on reducing these consequences. o work out the likely impcts, think of the worst scenrio tht seems possible. en multiply the costs  time, money, helth, emotions  by ten. es, things could be mighty tough! By dopting wise strtegies nd precutions, you cn reduce the hrmful consequences. Who knows, you might be one of the exceedingly lucky ones who comes out of the process better off thn before. Lots of people think their cse is so good tht they cn’t lose. t’s n illusion. It’s fr better to be prepred for the worst. t wy you will be redy when things get relly difficult. Cynthia Kardell comments ou need to be ble to recognise success when it hppens, becuse you rrely get everything you wnt, nd it never comes in the form tht you wnted or rst nticipted. Build a strategy A strtegy is essentilly  pln for getting something done   pln tht tkes into ccount where you re to strt with, wht resources you hve nd wht obstcles you fce, nd where you’re trying to go. If you’re going to be successful, developing  strtegy cn mke  big difference. A re brigde or  sporting tem without  pln cn only succeed by being lucky, nd the sme pplies to others. Let’s look t things in terms of  movement from the present to the future. We re in  certin sitution now; we tke vrious ctions nd use vrious methods; we end up in some other sitution down the trck. present situation actions methods future situation We don’t control everything bout this process, of course. ther people get in the wy with their own ctions, nd there re ll sorts of other fctors, including opportunities, constrints (time, money, resources), interctions between people nd pure chnce. In order to do the best we cn, we need to understnd nd pln. is cn be thought of this wy: analysis present situation strategy actions methods goals future situation In this digrm, the bottom level  from present to future sitution  involves wht ctully hppens. e top level  nlysis, strtegy, gols  involves thinking bout wht hppens. Analysis is wht we do to understnd the present sitution. It’s vluble to know, for exmple, how n orgnistion opertes, wht your own skills nd resources re, nd who your likely supporters nd opponents re. o crry out n nlysis, you cn study books on orgnistionl theory, sk knowledgeble people nd build  mentl model of your own bout how society opertes. Anlysis, if tken seriously, is n enormous tsk. ny scholrs spend their whole creers undertking n nlysis of some smll fcet of socil life. Wht you need is n nlysis oriented to prcticl ction. ou don’t need to know things for their intellectul vlue, but rther so you cn gure out wht’s likely to hppen when you do something. Goals re wht you wnt to chieve. If you’re going to get there, you need to know wht they re. As discussed erlier, clrifying your gols is vitl. ere’s  dnger in spending too much time on nlysis nd not enough on clrifying gols. Strategy is your pln for going from present to future. It cn be considered to be n nlysis of ctions nd methods. It builds on your nlysis of the present sitution nd tkes into ccount your gols for the future. It includes plnning for contingencies. Developing n effective strtegy is vitl. Eline,  doctor t  hospitl, is concerned tht there re fr too mny referrls for  procedure using n expensive scnner, when ctully  simple visul exmintion would do in most cses. he thinks this is becuse of pressures to justify the expense of the scnner. As prt of her nlysis of the sitution, she nds tht some medicl reserchers t the hospitl hold  ptent on the scnner nd re pushing strongly for its use. Also, mny other doctors re generlly in fvour of high-technology medicine. Her speci c gol is to hve  forml ressessment of the vlue of the scnner. A more generl gol is to reduce the bis in fvour of highly expensive medicl equipment. he decides to circulte  memo sking for  comprison of the scnner versus visul exmintion. o her surprise, she is personlly ttcked t the next stff meeting for questioning the scnner. he lso strts receiving excessive scrutiny from one prticulr senior doctor, nd is ssigned to less plesnt nd less stimulting rounds. Aer tlking to  few others  only some of whom re sympthetic  she decides to lie low for  while, collect more informtion bout the scnner nd its effec- tiveness, nd to contct  locl medicl consumers group. (And so on.) Eline’s initil strtegy ws circulting  memo, which seemed resonble in the sitution. When tht didn’t work, she ressessed the sitution  more nlysis. In fct, the response to her memo reveled  lot bout the dynmics of the hospitl. ometimes ction is the best wy to nd out how things relly operte. Eline is now trying  new strtegy. he my lso ressess her gols in the light of her further experiences. is exmple illustrtes n importnt point: nlyses, strtegies nd gols need to be regulrly exmined nd updted. ou might decide to continue s before, but you need to be open to chnge. Cynthia Kardell comments Get to know your enemy. Lern from wht they’ve done. Lern bout how they usully respond nd tke it into ccount before you tke  step. It’s  bit like  chess gme, in which you pln hed nd mke moves tht counter likely moves by your opponent. Find  buddy to strtegise with. ne of the hrdest things is to know when to stop. Aer spending two yers in  court bttle, should you gree to  settlement? Aer bttling the orgnistion for ve yers, should you resign nd leve? ese re difficult sorts of decisions. ey need to be mde. ne wy to think bout this is to look t the “opportunity cost” of your ctivities. If you weren’t bttling the orgnistion, you might insted be spending your time working somewhere else, nd perhps helping to chieve the sme or different gols. ere is  “cost” in Australian whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg drew this cartoon to illustrate that “social justice agencies” do not welcome whistleblowers. your present ctivities, nmely not tking up other opportunities, or in other words doing different things. o get n insight into this, think of the most generl formultion of your gols. Are they to chieve personl stisfction, or help promote ccountbility? en think of other strtegies  other jobs, other cmpigns, other plces  to chieve these gols. our tsk is the sme: to work out the best strtegy for your own life. 5 Preparation Before tking ction, prepre. • Document the problem: letters, photos, recordings, sttements … • Know the context (consult well-informed people, consult reserch ndings). • ropose solutions. • Get dvice nd support: fmily, friends, co-workers, others. Document the problem Documenting the problem is the foundtion of success. Without documenttion, you hve to depend on other people bcking you  nd ll too oen they won’t. With documenttion, you t lest hve  chnce. eres, n experienced worker, ws  bit disturbed to her from her boss t  stff meeting tht  contrct hd been given to the mith Consultncy without n open bidding process, but she set side her doubts when the urgency nd specil requirements were explined. e next week it ws reported in the press tht the mith Consultncy hd been chrged with vrious crimes including bribery. he confronted her boss bout it, only to be told tht she must hve misherd him  they hd only been considering giving the contrct to mith’s. Her co-workers either refused to tlk bout it or sid the boss must be right. For evidence to hve credibility, usully it must be in permnent form. Letters, memos, reports. ese re the core of most documenttion. Ensure tht you hve copies of nything tht might be useful. ometimes written records re self-explntory, but oen it is helpful to keep notes of ny necessry informtion. For exmple, if  document doesn’t hve  dte, dd  note sying when you received it. ou cn crete your own records too. If you’ve just been to n importnt meeting, it cn be useful to write  letter to the convenor summrising wht hppened. “Helen  Just to con rm, t tody’s meeting it ws greed tht I would hed  tsk force …” Cynthia Kardell comments Don’t send documents from work to your home ddress, s your messges cn be trced. In fct, when collecting documents, don’t use your employer’s emil or other communiction systems from the time you nd evidence of wrongdoing, becuse they could nd out wht you’re up to before you wnt them to know. Even worse, they could reprimnd or dismiss you for using work resources for n improper (non-work) purpose. Photos. ometimes  picture is worth  thousnd words, for exmple in cses of environmentl dmge or physicl ssult. But pictures don’t usully explin their context. It’s vitl to record the dte, time, loction, photogrpher, nd ny other relevnt informtion. If possible, hve nother person verify the informtion. Recordings. A recording is  powerful chllenge to people who clim they didn’t sy something. As in the cse of photos, record the time, loction nd other detils. Diaries. If you re cught up in  difficult sitution, keeping  diry is n excellent ide. ou should record ny events of signi cnce, giving time, plce, sitution, people present nd your interprettion of wht hppened. A diry is fr more ccurte thn memories if you ever need to check the sequence of events or determine who told you something rst. ou cn write s much s you like, but  brief summry is quite sufficient: “Fridy ctober : Just er rriving t work t . , Fred told me tht three of us  him, Cth nd me  would be crpeted becuse of the lek bout the budget blowout.” A diry is lso n excellent wy to get some of the worry out of your system. Statements by witnesses. ince witnesses cn leve or chnge their minds bout wht they sw or herd, getting  sttement cn be  good ide. If you hve just ttended  crucil meeting where  shdy prctice ws discussed or where n unscrupulous ttck ws mde on you or someone else, write your own sttement nd try to get others to sign it, for exmple sying “is is n ccurte ccount of wht occurred.” (ote tht if you ever need to use  witness sttement, this potentilly mkes the witness vulnerble to reprisls.) unil hd been clling for n open nd ccountble process for grnting building licences, s there hd long been suspicions bout bis in the process. As  result, his work hd come under intense scrutiny by the deprtment hed. He ws prepred when he ws clled to  meeting with the hed to tlk bout his performnce. In  previous job, he hd been cught unwres in  gruelling dressing down by three mngers. is time he took long  co-worker s  witness  someone known to be honest nd no one’s pwn. He lso took long  tpe recorder nd sked to record the meeting. e hed sid he hoped it wouldn’t be necessry. e meeting ws  low-key ffir. Aerwrds, unil wrote  letter to the hed summrising wht hd been sid, nd hd his witness sign  copy. *** How much documenttion is enough? robbly more thn wht you hve! en it’s better to lie low nd collect more evidence rther thn risk  premture disclosure. e bigger nd more serious the problem, the more evidence you need. In the cse of deep-rooted corruption, for exmple, you need enough mteril to counter highly determined efforts to deny the problem, including: • • • • destruction of documents systemtic lying mnufcture of flse documents elborte frme-ups. Documents re the foundtion of your cse, but no one likes ploughing through  gint pile of pper. ou lso need to write  concise summry to put everything into context. ere’s more on this in chpter . It is wise to keep copies of crucil documents in  secure plce. If your only copies re ll in  le in your office, you might nd them missing one morning  or even nd tht you’ve been red nd locked out of your office. If you’re  community ctivist, your documents could be tken in  burglry. o keep copies in  loction besides your usul one, plus perhps with  trusted friend or legl dviser. Jean Lennane dvises hving t lest four copies in different loctions, in cse of  rid. he sys the key thing to protect is evidence. If in doubt bout the relevnce of  document, keep it plus copies. Wht risks should you tke to obtin documents? is is  difcult question. It rises legl nd ethicl issues. In mny situtions it is  violtion of the lw or forml policy to mke copies of documents, tke them off the premises or show them to outsiders. If you re cught violting procedures, you could be sued or dismissed. is could hppen even if lots of people violte the sme procedures. elective ttck is the essence of victimistion. If the documents revel  multimillion dollr scm or  serious hzrd to helth, then you my consider tht you re justi ed in violting the lw. is is especilly the cse if the min effect of the regultions is to prevent public scrutiny nd cover up corruption. n the other hnd, there might be other ethicl fctors involved. For exmple, the documents might include personl detils bout clients or ptients. ere re, er ll, some good resons for con dentility of documents. o choose the most pproprite course of ction, you need to use your judgement nd to obtin dvice from people you cn trust. Wht bout mking recordings surreptitiously? ou cn buy tiny recorders tht enble you to udio-record converstions nd meet- ings unobtrusively. In some jurisdictions, secret recordings re illegl, such s some recordings of telephone converstions. But more importnt thn this is the effect on the wy people will rect to you if they nd out you hve recorded converstions without telling them. Bsiclly, they will trust you less, perhps not t ll. t’s  serious consequence. For ordinry purposes, secret recording is not  good ide, especilly if you hope to continue intercting with the sme people. It my be wrrnted in the cse of serious corruption, such s undercover opertions ginst corrupt police or in the cse of serious hrssment. If you don’t intend remining t  job, the impct on your reltions with co-workers my not be so importnt. Know the context It is extremely vluble to be ble to put your own sitution in context. t mens compring it to similr situtions nd compring the nture of the problems nd the types of solutions proposed. ri ws new to the job. he ws disturbed when Jonh,  senior co-worker, mde sexul jokes, stood close to her nd touched her on the rm nd shoulder nd sked her out for dinner. he wsn’t sure whether to void him or le  complint. he tlked to other women who worked with Jonh nd lso red some books on sexul hrssment. he decided tht she’d hve to be rm with Jonh  she told him to cut the jokes nd give her some more spce nd tht she wnted to keep their reltionship professionl. ey got on ne er tht. ri lso wrned other new workers wht to expect. In other cses, the problem turns out to be more serious. en it’s time to strt documenting everything. In the cse of lrge-scle problems, you need to nd out how pervsive they re, whether others re wre of them nd whether Jean Lennane (in white) and other members of Whistleblowers Australia on the steps of the New South Wales parliament in , aer the parliamentary review of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. nyone is trying to do nything bout them. It is sensible to join others, or to get their support if you decide to tke ction. Alexi worked in the subsidiry of  multintionl corportion. He noticed tht the subsidiry ws buying inputs from the prent t in ted prices nd selling bck output t unrelistic discounts. e result ws the subsidiry mde no money, thereby reducing its txes. is bene ted the corportion overll but strved the government where the subsidiry ws bsed. Alexi ws concerned bout the mnipultion even if it ws techniclly legl. He strted investigting nd found tht this system of trnsfer pyments to void tx ws commonplce mong multintionls nd tht some governments nd consumer groups were trying to do something bout it. ere re severl good wys to lern bout the context. Talk to experienced and knowledgeable people  old-timers with long memories. en they cn provide insights unvilble ny other wy. As well, they my be ble to tell you bout other ttempts to chnge things  nd wht hppened to the would-be reformers. Did they suffer reprisls, quit trying, or end up being rewrded? Talk to campaigners  people who re tking ction bout socil problems. ey oen hve  relly good grsp of why things hppen the wy they do. If you re concerned tht unemployment gures re being ddled to mke politicins look good, tlk to ctivists who del with jobs, poverty or socil justice. Find out if anyone has done research into the area. is could be cdemics, investigtive journlists or independent investigtors. If you’re concerned bout the oil industry, sk t the locl university or medi outlet for the person who knows the most bout it. When you nd someone who knows something bout the topic, sk them to recommend the most knowledgeble people in the region or country. eople reserching  topic usully know who re the top people in the eld. is is the quickest wy to tp into relevnt expertise  or to nd out tht there isn’t ny. Undertake your own investigation. ou cn nd out wht hs been written lredy by going through librry ctlogues nd indexes nd the Internet. Librrins cn help you get strted. If you don’t know much bout doing investigtions, you my be ble to nd n cdemic,  good student or n independent resercher who is willing to help you. If your gol is doing something bout the problem, then lerning bout the context is not  gol in itself, but just  wy to improve your chnce of success. ou re looking for insights tht re prcticl: they should give you  better ide of wht to do nd wht not to do. Be wry of cdemics who only provide intellectul insights, which re ll very well for scholrly journls nd conferences but not much use otherwise. Be wry of journlists or ctivists who wnt to use you for their own purposes   story or  cmpign  without concern bout your own gols. Lesley Pinson comments It is extremely importnt tht  person who hs blown the whistle  or who is contemplting blowing it  lerns s much s they cn. nderstnding s much s possible helps to minimise the confusion whistleblowers feel nd mximises the individul’s bility to mke the best decision bout tctics. “Informtion is power.” Propose solutions Documenting nd exposing the problem is vitl, but wht then? If the problem is reveled, does tht men tht powerholders will “do the right thing” nd x it? Hrdly. ere re severl stndrd responses. . Complints nd complinnts re ignored. A powerful estblishment cn tolerte  bit of dissent, s long s no one tkes much notice. . Complinnts re ttcked. If the complints become too loud or re tken seriously by too mny people, n ttck on the complinnts is mounted. . Ressuring sttements re mde. If the pressure is too gret to ignore or suppress, then the problem my be cknowledged nd sid to be being delt with. en this is just public reltions. . rocedures re chnged so it is hrder to detect nd document the problem. . A few super cil improvements re mde. o ese the pressure, some new policies might be nnounced or  few individuls scri ced  but the sitution is relly unchnged. . teps re tken tht genuinely reduce the problem. ost chllengers never get pst responses nd . But if enough pressure cn be mounted, there is  chnce of rel chnge. e biggest risk is getting stuck with responses , or . our im is to push pst these to response . ne wy to help chieve response is to propose solutions s well s highlight problems. e solution needs to be chllenging yet chievble. It should be relistic nd sound sensible. It should be difficult to fke. As n experienced ccountnt with  successful creer in severl industries, Enrico discovered  mssive insurnce frud. He fed informtion to  smll but effective consumer group with links to  few trusted politicins. As  result of publicity, the government set up  commission of inquiry into the industry. e commission ws better thn most. everl top corporte gures lost their jobs (nd lter were quietly employed elsewhere). e commission mde some blnd recommendtions, but no lws were pssed  the industry hd some powerful politicl friends. Enrico ws fr more effective thn others before him, hlf  dozen of whom hd given up or lost their jobs er speking out. But Enrico nd his llies needed to tie their exposure of the frud with speci c suggestions for how to x it  such s legl provision for oversight with consumer-group input nd public interest disclosure cluses in employment contrcts. It seems to be sking  lot of someone to not only expose  problem but lso come up with  solution. urely it’s enough just to revel the problem! Although it is extremely chllenging to come up with n pproprite solution, this is  good discipline. inking through the sorts of solutions tht would be stisfctory nd sleble cn be helpful in deciding the best wy to document nd expose the problem. Best of ll, there my be  wy to pckge together  problem nd  solution. Obtain advice and support Before embrking, it is bsolutely vitl to obtin dvice nd support. is pplies whether you re pproching someone you think copied your work inppropritely or whether you re tckling orgnised crime. Family. lk to everyone you live with or re close to, including prtner, prents, children nd siblings. Explin wht you know nd wht you’re plnning to do  nd wht might hppen. If they re willing to bck you, then you re in  much stronger position. If they re strongly opposed to your plns, you need to think gin. In this sitution, there is no right or wrong decision. ou need to weigh up the likely consequences in light of your own vlues. Remember lso tht in some cses fmily members my come under ttck becuse of your stnd. If you re publicly ttcked, perhps even frmed, then your children might be scorned t school or your sister could be thretened with losing her job. Even short of these consequences, your fmily will be gretly ffected by wht hppens to you: enormous stress, loss of creer opportunities, perhps unemployment. n the other hnd, stnding up for wht you believe cn be enormously empowering. elf-respect nd mutul respect cn mke up for  lot of other losses. Friends. lk to those you trust the most. But be wre tht mny “friends” my turn wy if you chnge. ey wish you wouldn’t tlk so much bout the problems of embezzlement, drug cover-ups or pedophili. ey’d prefer wtching sport or tlking bout the kids  “lighten up,” they might sy. If you tke  strong stnd on n issue, you my lose some friends but gin others. When you become relly involved in the issues, friends nd fmily cn be helpful in giving n outsider’s viewpoint. It’s esy to become obsessed with detils nd lose sight of the overll picture. Ask for dvice on how to present your ides. But don’t overstep the mrk by letting your concerns dominte the reltionship. Friends who re sympthetic cn be very helpful. ey my hve contcts, skills nd sge dvice. ry to sense when you re strining the reltionship. If your best friend sks for more detils, proceed. If she repetedly tries to chnge the subject, tht’s  different signl. Co-workers. Co-workers my be your friends too, but their commitment is not likely to be s high. Don’t be surprised if mny of them turn wy when the het is on. evertheless, mintining good reltionships with t lest some co-workers is extremely vluble. ey cn give you feedbck bout how others see your ctions, nd wht impct your inititives re hving. ou don’t need to sk them to support you. ome my volunteer to do tht. But just mintining open chnnels of communiction is importnt. e more sensitive the issue, nd the less public your role, the more cution is needed in con ding with co-workers. ome of them my go stright to the boss with everything you sy  not to mention  few exggertions for good mesure! Trade unions and professional associations. If your union or ssocition is behind you, you hve  powerful lly indeed. But don’t count on support. ny union officils re unwilling to tckle mngement on nything except nrrow industril issues. ey my not ct unless there is overwhelming support from the membership  nd sometimes not even then! ome union officils re tools of mngement, or just hope to obtin  promotion by not rocking the bot. Get to know your union officils nd study their trck records. If it’s  principled union or you know the right people, you my be ble to get support  nd tht is  tremendous dvntge. But be prepred for little or no support. Even worse, the union my ctively oppose you. Isla MacGregor Isla MacGregor comments ome union officils don’t wnt to support whistleblowers becuse in doing so they might ttrct ttention to their own orgnistion’s lck of ccountbility or democrtic process. ome senior mngement people, prticulrly in the public sector, delibertely join unions to frustrte ttempts by co-workers to enlist support of unions in discrimintion nd victimistion disputes or public interest disclosures. Lesley Pinson comments Remember tht if you re complining bout the ctivities of coworkers, they my lso be union members, so your union my hve  con ict in providing support. Cynthia Kardell comments If union officils re less thn supportive, keep your complints bout the union to yourself nd lern to use them, s nd when you need to  just don’t rely on them. When it is ll over, then consider rising your complints. Others. ere re lots of others you cn contct to obtin dvice nd support. is includes socil ctivists, journlists, politicins, lwyers nd mny others. is is discussed further in chpter . Lesley Pinson comments It is useful to seek legl dvice s erly s possible. Although this might involve  nncil outly, it could sve greter costs if you lter end up with legl problems tht could hve been voided. ou re lso well dvised to keep your doctor informed bout wht you re proposing to do. /he might be ble to dvise useful stress mngement techniques nd will be better ble to ttest to your snity nd stress-relted symptoms, should this ever be necessry. ny whistleblowers hve postponed seeking legl or medicl dvice until fr too lte, typiclly only when they hve serious legl or medicl problems. ey then hve unrelistic expecttions tht their lwyers nd doctors will be ble to x their problems. It is lso useful nd empowering to know you hve the support of  sympthetic lwyer nd doctor, should you need it. Cynthia Kardell comments If wht unions nd lwyers re sking you to do leves you feeling cornered nd scred, with tightness in your chest, sy no to whtever is being sked of you nd sy you will need some time to think it through. en get dvice from someone you cn trust to think it through with you, mke  choice nd stick with it. ou’ve mde  creful ssessment of the problem nd wht you cn do bout it (chpters to ). ou’ve collected more documents thn you know wht to do with, studied the sitution t length, formulted  solution nd obtined dvice from vrious sources (this chpter). Wht next? ere re four min pproches. ou cn use low-pro le opertions (chpter ), proceed through officil chnnels (chpter ), mke nonymous disclosures (chpter ) or build support (chpter )  or some combintion of these. 6 Low-profile operations ou cn seek to ddress  problem by tlking to people, introducing ides, encourging discussion nd fostering wreness  nd doing it inconspicuously. Is it possible to help get  problem xed while keeping  low pro le? ometimes it is nd, if so, it’s de nitely worth trying. our tsk is to gure out how the system works nd tlk to people in wys tht encourge them to do things differently. ost commonly this is inside n orgnistion. e bsic elements of this strtegy re: • understnd the orgnistion, the people nd the possibilities for chnge • know your own sitution nd skills • sow subtle seeds for chnge. e following cses illustrte some of the wys to go bout this. Bob’s boss ws strting to set  bd exmple. e boss would bost bout the success of the deprtment while ignoring indictions of impending disster  in prticulr, service stndrds in some res were flling, with serious impcts on  few clients. Bob wnted to chnge this trend but ws wry bout speking out becuse the boss did not welcome bd news bout performnce. Bob needed to ct without mking himself  trget. o whenever someone xed  problem in  wek re, Bob  when tlking quietly with the boss, or in  csul group sitution  sid it ws wonderful wht his co-worker hd done in preventing  bigger problem lter on. Bob used the boss’s rhetoric nd style but with  slightly different orienttion. Furthermore, Bob ws ble to get the boss to tke credit for this new orienttion. Bob’s subtle interventions chnged  trend tht could hve been disstrous, without nyone relly noticing he hd done nything. Aln strted working in  non-pro t orgnistion where most of the other workers knew ech other well. Aln quickly lerned tht ppointments nd promotions were bsed on who you knew, not how well you did your job, nd this ment some workers were llowed to buse their positions, for exmple running personl businesses during working hours. Aln sought out  senior, well-respected member of the orgnistion, Heloise, nd tlked to her bout the issues, introducing some ides bout best-prctice ppointment procedures. Heloise strted sking questions nd mentioning some of these ides, but in  wy tht didn’t offend nyone: everyone knew Heloise hd the best interests of the orgnistion t hert. As  result of Heloise’s suggestions to experiment with different procedures, severl new workers were ppointed from outside the trditionl nrrow circle, nd grdully the complcent culture begn to chnge. gu worked in  light mnufcturing plnt, nd noticed lots of breches of sfety regultions. Hving seen others lose their jobs for mking forml complints, gu strted  rumour  bsed on truth  bout  competing plnt tht hd received  surprise sfety in- spection, pssed with merit nd subsequently been wrded lucrtive contrcts. e rumour spred to mngement nd led to improvements. gu then strted  rumour  lso bsed on truth  tht morle nd productivity hd improved due to pride over sfetyconsciousness. (gu knew tht flse rumours could end up mking things worse.) lly ws n ctive member of her church, nd becme concerned bout  shi in emphsis from meekness nd chrity to snobbery nd rrognce towrds people of other ntionlities nd religions. lly ws lredy known for circulting “interesting reding”  rticles she found on the Internet, with her own brief commentries  to  church emil list. he occsionlly chose items highlighting issues of religion nd intolernce nd other problems she sw emerging in her church. ome of these stimulted discussion nd led to n tmosphere of opinion in fvour of the church’s trditionl orienttion. l worked in  unit whose top mngers were giving themselves unwrrnted privileges  extr-lrge offices, rst-clss ir trvel, generous expense ccounts  despite declining performnce. ese displys of privilege undermined morle s well s costing the rm. l ws in touch with  nerby university tht regulrly crried out studies in conjunction with the unit. l found  receptive cdemic nd suggested  type of mild “ction reserch” involving sking questions of ll stff in the unit. e questions were ostensibly bout surveying opinions but ctully drew ttention to the privileges of mngers, contrsting them to the stted vlues of the rm. e reserch project stimulted wreness mong severl of the stff so tht spending priorities were put on the plnning gend, leding to some restrint in the executive behviour. Heidi worked in  lrge lw office. he discovered tht two senior lwyers were tking credit for her work nd billing clients multiple times for it. he considered mking  complint but relised she would probbly be sidelined or lose her job s  result. Insted, she continued her creful work nd begn regulrly giving updtes nd copies to her boss nd severl others so it would be hrder for the two lwyers to misuse it. he quietly wrned her boss bout the risk to the rm if clients discovered ny frud. e two prtners found they couldn’t so esily use Heidi’s work for their personl dvntge. ne of them retired nd the other took  different job. ese re exmples of how members of n orgnistion cn try to bring bout chnge in smll, subtle wys. o do this effectively requires  good understnding of the orgnistion nd the people in it, plus skills in intervening. • • • • • Bob used his interpersonl skills to in uence his boss. Aln chose to in uence Heloise, n opinion leder. gu rised ides vi truth-bsed rumours. lly introduced ides vi rticles she circulted. l fostered wreness by involving outsiders in  questioning process. • Heidi protected herself nd gined support by providing informtion to others, especilly her boss. Advantages Low-pro le opertions re reltively low risk, compred to complining to the boss or n externl gency. is mens reprisls re fr less likely. is is  mjor dvntge. Rising ides in  low-key fshion sometimes cn be more effective in bringing bout chnge, becuse people re less resistnt: they re not being personlly chllenged, but rther encourged to see things in  different wy. In contrst,  forml complint oen puts others into con ict mode, thinking in terms of defence, counterttck or dmge control rther thn enbling chnge. With low-pro le opertions, the focus is more on issues thn the person rising them. ere is less ttention to the individul nd more on wht’s hppening. is is ctully wht whistleblowers wnt but seldom chieve. Becuse these sorts of opertions re low risk, it’s usully possible to sty in the job nd try gin. Becoming successful t low-pro le opertions is n cquired skill: prctice is vitl. ome people hve  hed strt, lerning these sorts of skills in their fmily, school or prior workplces. Even so, nyone cn cquire greter skill in  reltively sfe wy. Low-pro le opertions cn provide  model for others. ome co-workers my understnd exctly wht is hppening nd, ssuming they pprove, ssist the opertions or undertke some of their own. thers my not relise tht these sorts of opertions re occurring, but nevertheless be in uenced by the tmosphere in the workplce in which mngers show some receptivity to chnge without mjor interventions. If  culturl shi cn occur towrds greter selfwreness bout processes, stndrds nd integrity, this is the most positive outcome. With ll these dvntges, you might think the low-pro le route is de nitely the wy to go. But there re shortcomings too. Disadvantages ometimes problems re deeply entrenched. For exmple, corruption might be pervsive or bosses might be set in their wys. In mny such circumstnces, low-pro le ttempts t chnge simply won’t work. ey re too wek to mke ny difference. ey might be worth trying just to be sure, but if it’s pprent tht problems re not going to be shied this wy, it’s  wste of time nd effort to persist with this pproch. ometimes you re not the right person to chieve low-pro le chnge. It might be the boss hs singled you out for scrutiny, so nything you do is treted with suspicion. If the boss is thretened by your presence or contributions, then suggesting chnge might ctully be counterproductive: the boss might be perverse nd do the opposite. (However, this might open options for suggesting the opposite of wht you wnt.) erhps you re so junior tht your efforts re totlly ignored. erhps the orgnistion hs  sort of initition, forml or informl, nd until you hve pssed it, your efforts re in vin. Getting yourself into  position of some potentil in uence might be so difficult or compromising or slow tht it’s not worth the effort. If you hve lredy spoken out bout problems, it my be too lte for low-pro le opertions. If you’re seen s  troublemker, your interventions will be treted with suspicion. e best person to foster chnge within the system is someone who is  trusted member of the tem, nd if you’ve been outspoken this my not be you. In some plces, there re so mny reorgnistions nd chnges in personnel tht it’s not esy to exert ny in uence. All your creful work in building reltionships nd suggesting ides is overturned in n instnt when  new mngeril tem is instlled nd new procedures introduced. In  turbulent environment, it is still possible to hve n in uence, but different skills re required: the key is to intervene in the ongoing chnge process. However, if the chnge is driven by outside pressures, such s mrkets, intervention might be only  rer-gurd effort. Another constrint is shortge of time. ou might hve  chllenging job nd hve little spre time to devote to fostering chnge. ou might be doing worthwhile things in your job. Diverting some of your energy to low-pro le opertions might not be the best use of your cpbilities. It might be tht you hve few skills nd little interest in lowpro le opertions. ome workers re oriented to doing  technicl job nd my not be comfortble trying to chnge things vi interpersonl interctions  it might feel mnipultive. Furthermore, if you hve no enthusism for this sort of pproch, you my bungle it. Imgine, on the other hnd, tht you re  sophisticted prctitioner of the rts of fostering chnge through seeding ides nd building reltionships. ou might become frustrted becuse some of your co-workers re trying to chieve the sme gols but mking  mess of it by tking rsh ctions, ntgonising the boss, telling everyone wht you re trying to do, or in other wys spoiling the ground with premture, inept nd counterproductive ctions. o succeed in such  sitution, you will need to be very skilled indeed! Conclusion It cn be very worthwhile to ddress problems through low-pro le opertions. Anyone thinking of mking  complint, especilly  forml complint, should think rst bout how they might bring bout chnge with much less visibility. As discussed in the next chpter, forml complints re fr less likely to be effective thn most people imgine. Low-pro le opertions might seem too smll nd too slow  but they still might be better thn the lterntives. However, there re mny circumstnces in which this pproch is not suitble. e problems might be too entrenched nd you might not be in the right sitution or hve the time or skills to hve n impct. Figuring out how you cn be effective is vitl. e news is lled with stories bout mjor problems in orgnistions, nd occsionlly there re stories bout courgeous whistleblowers. In contrst, low-pro le opertions re hrdly ever reported. ome of the most skilled prctitioners hve  signi cnt in uence without others even being wre of wht they hve done. eir work is behind the scenes, nd ll the more effective by being invisible. o do not discount this option. e world is  better plce becuse of the mny people who bring bout chnge in low-pro le wys. 7 Official channels • Whistleblowers seldom get much stisfction from officil chnnels such s internl grievnce procedures, government gencies or the courts. • fficil chnnels seldom deliver justice becuse they nrrow the issues nd don’t hve enough resources or willpower to tke on powerful offenders. • o mke  decision bout which officil chnnels to use, list possible options, investigte promising ones nd weigh up their likely bene ts nd costs. • Improve your chnces of winning by lerning bout the process, polishing your submissions nd choosing your dvoctes crefully. ere re ll sorts of wys you cn try to get  response, or obtin justice, through estblished procedures. ome possible chnnels re: • Bosses, senior mngers, chief executive officers • Bords of mngement or trustees • • • • • • • • • • • • • Internl grievnce procedures hreholders’ meetings rofessionl ssocition procedures mbudsmen Regultory gencies Antidiscrimintion bodies Anticorruption bodies Auditors-generl or inspectors generl Government deprtments oliticins rlimentry herings Commissions of inquiry Courts Within ech of these ctegories, there my be mny vritions. When operting s n employee within n orgnistion,  typicl rst step is  verbl or written report to one’s boss or someone higher up. en, if the response is unstisfctory,  complint might be mde to higher people in the orgnistion. ometimes there is  bord of mngement with representtives from outside the orgnistion. ere oen re forml internl mechnisms to del with problems, with vrious nmes: grievnce, concilition, medition nd ppels procedures, sometimes involving trde union representtives. A professionl ssocition my hve procedures to del with breches of professionl ethics. en there re vrious government bodies. Depending on the issue, one cn contct the police, the deprtment of consumer ffirs, nnce deprtment, eduction deprtment, nd mny others. ometimes there is n ombudsmn’s office or nticorruption body tht dels with problems from mny res. If there re lyers of government, this expnds the number of ofcil chnnels. ere might be locl government, stte or provincil government nd ntionl government, with opportunities to mke complints or forml submissions. As well s going to government bodies, it’s possible to go directly to individul politicins  t ny level of government  though they oen refer mtters to government deprtments. oliticins cn set up further chnnels, such s grnd juries nd royl commissions. Finlly, there re courts, which cn come in vrious types, such s smll clims courts, fmily courts nd industril courts. Courts re lso found t vrious levels, from locl courts to  country’s highest court nd going beyond, for exmple to the Interntionl Court of Justice. ome other officil chnnels hve interntionl nlogues, notbly through the nited tions. The failure of official channels n the fce of it, there re mple opportunities to obtin justice. For those unfmilir with the system, it seems resonble to presume tht officil chnnels usully do their job. If there is corruption or some other injustice tht cn’t be delt with t  locl level, then nyone with good enough documenttion should be ble to nd officils t  higher level to x the problem. Aer ll, surely, tht’s wht ll these bodies nd procedures were set up to do. nfortuntely, the usul experience is just the opposite. If the problem cn’t be xed up loclly nd informlly, the officil chnnels very seldom provide  solution. Even worse, they cn chew up unbelievble mounts of money nd time nd provide n excuse for not deling with the problem. e im of this hndbook is to suggest wys to help people develop more effective strtegies to chieve their gols. It is not to tell nyone wht to do. It my be tht using officil chnnels is the best option in your cse. But before deciding, it’s worth looking t some of the evidence nd rguments. Lots of whistleblowers strt out believing the system works. t’s why they reported problems through officil chnnels in the rst plce: they expected officils to investigte nd ddress the problem. When, insted, they re ttcked, whistleblowers oen try other officil chnnels. ey still believe tht the system will work  eventully. ey believe tht somewhere there is someone with power who will recognise the problem nd implement  just solution. When one officil chnnel fils, they try nother. e process cn tke mny yers. Is it worth it? Lter on in this chpter, I tell bout how to proceed through officil chnnels if tht’s wht you decide to do. But rst I’ll explin why these chnnels fil so oen. I’m emphsising this point becuse it is contrry to the instinctive response of so mny people. ere is  deep need to believe tht the world is just. is is most obvious in Hollywood movies where the good guys lwys win, even ginst impossible odds. Filmmkers portry good triumphing over evil lrgely becuse tht’s wht udiences wnt to see. Relistic stories, in which corrupt people rise to power nd re never brought to justice, while the lives of honest citizens re blighted, re not welcome. Even rrer re relistic plots tht show how to be n effective gent of chnge. In thirty yers of studying cses of suppression of dissent, nd hering hundreds of ccounts of struggles through the system, I cnnot remember  single exmple in which officil chnnels provided  prompt nd strightforwrd solution to  serious problem. e only cses with some degree of success through forml chnnels re those where there ws lso  process of building support, oen involving publicity. n the other hnd, I hve herd untold numbers of hrrowing stories of reprisl, victimistion nd scpegoting  nd the filure of officil chnnels. Indeed, the filures of the officil chnnels oen crete  sense of grievnce worse thn the originl problem nd reprisls. Although people’s stories vry enormously in terms of the issue nd orgnistion, the response of officil bodies is lmost lwys the sme. Indeed, oen I cn predict the next development in the story. ome people use officil chnnels with the expecttion tht they will provide justice. Lter, they my sy “I guess I ws nive.” ome persist even in the fce of repeted filures, or even er hering bout the evidence of other people’s lck of stisfction. ey often think their cse is different. Aer ll, they know they re right. But tht’s not the issue. Lots of people hve truth on their side, with fully documented cses, nd still lose. It is the mzing similrities of so mny people’s experiences tht helped me rech my views bout the filures of officil chnnels. en I tlked to others with  lot of experience in this re nd found they hd reched identicl conclusions. ne of them is Jen Lennne,  key gure in Whistleblowers Austrli. A whistleblower herself, she hs tlked to hundreds of whistleblowers nd lso crried out  smll survey of the responses they received from vrious officil chnnels. Her conclusion is brutl. It is tht you cn’t rely on ny of the officil chnnels. Indeed, the only thing you cn rely on is tht the officil chnnels won’t work. ese conclusions re bsed on  welth of personl experience, but tht could be  limittion. ybe personl bises re involved. For those who prefer  more quntittive pproch, Bill De ri’s reserch is  useful tonic. He developed  creful de nition of whistleblowing nd crried out  lrge survey of whistleblowers, sking mny questions. Among them were questions bout the effectiveness of vrious officil bodies. e result: whistleblowers obtined some degree of help in less thn one out of ten pproches to n ofcil body. Even worse, in quite  few cses whistleblowers felt they were worse off er pproching officil bodies. In these cses, the officil chnnels were not just useless  they were hrmful. ese results pply to whistleblowers  people who hve spoken out in the public interest. Bill De ri’s results re for employees who mde disclosures to  person in uthority. Wht bout the worker just doing their job who reports  sfety problem or rises concerns bout bis in n ppointment? In mny such cses, the report or concern is listened to nd ddressed, with no reprisls. is is business s usul, with no gint stkes or bttles. ometimes,  person mking  routine report or comment indvertently ggrvtes the wrong person or puts  nger on deep corruption. r mybe the person mking the report is not stis ed with the response nd persists in rising the mtter. Whtever the reson, the sitution goes beyond routine processes. It is t this point tht n employee my decide to use  grievnce procedure or mke  report to  regultory body. It is lso t this point tht the conclusion “the officil chnnels seldom work” kicks in. Lesley Pinson comments is my seem extremely negtive to the prospective whistleblower but most whistleblowers would sy tht hd they known this t the outset, it might not hve chnged wht they did but it would hve chnged their expecttions nd lessened the psychologicl impct of their experience of systems filure. It is extremely importnt to be wre of the severe limittions of officil chnnels before you try to use them. Why official channels don’t work It helps to understnd why whistleblowers so seldom nd ny stisfction through officil chnnels. If the explntion hs to do with the fetures of prticulr gencies, then hope remins tht other gencies might be different. But if the explntion is bout ll sorts of officil chnnels, it’s  different story. fficil chnnels lwys involve  nrrowing of the issues. A cse might involve hrssment by  rnge of methods, for exmple snide nd hostile comments, excessive monitoring of one’s work nd unrelistic expecttions, followed by  disciplinry period on specil conditions (set up to mke the employee fil) nd dismissl. When this cse is tken to  grievnce committee or  court, every prt of the complint or cse hs to be documented. nide comments re hrd to prove, nd by themselves re not likely to be considered serious. roving tht one’s work hs been excessively monitored is difcult, becuse it oen depends on n intimte knowledge of the job. e specil conditions imposed my seem resonble enough to n outsider who doesn’t understnd the relities of work. Co-workers who know wht’s involved my be frid to testify. Finlly, the dismissl my be completely unfir, but nevertheless proper nd legl ccording to the letter of the employment contrct. Lesley Pinson comments It hs lso been difficult, in the experience of most whistleblowers, to prove tht hrssment, victimistion, dismissl, etc., hve occurred s  direct result of the fct tht they hve exposed wrongdoing. Employers use ll sorts of tctics nd legl mchintions to directly ttck the whistleblower nd the whistleblower’s snity, competence, work record, etc., to divert ttention from the issue exposed. e personl experience of the victim is tht there hs been n injustice. en the person trgeted for such tretment is conscientious nd especilly committed to the officil gol of the orgnistion. et the outcome of  hering my turn on whether  person rrived slightly lte to work, whether someone relly rised their voice, whether the employment ct permitted communicting directly to higher mngement, or ny number of eqully trivil mtters. By deling with speci c ctions nd by rguing over the mening of regultions nd lws, the victim’s experience is trnsformed into n dministrtive nd technicl issue. is cn ctully compound the feeling of injustice. Even when there is  victory, the process my not be stisfying becuse it hs not ddressed the person’s whole experience. o spend weeks or months prepring  cse nd sit through dys of herings on technicl points cn be quite disempowering. A victory my be sweet prtly becuse it’s such  contrst to the bitter process. Victories, though, re not common. A lrge proportion of complinnts suffer the bitter process nd end up losing  nd re worse off thn before they strted. thers win comprehensively in one jurisdiction only to nd tht the other side ppels, requiring months or yers more effort with no gurntee of ultimte success. et others win nd return to work only to encounter new ptterns of hrssment nd victimistion. e next question is, why re forml chnnels so nrrow nd unsupportive of complinnts? ne reson is tht mny of these chnnels re set up by the orgnistions ginst which complints re being mde. Consider  grievnce procedure set up by the police, n eduction system, or  corportion. Almost lwys, those who run the procedure re senior officils. en the complint pits  junior person ginst  more senior person, or involves  chllenge by  junior person ginst  policy pproved by mngement. Who will the officils side with? In just bout ny orgnistion, officils bck the person with more uthority. Exceptions re extremely rre. If the complint comes from someone outside the orgnistion   customer or client  the orgnistion is lwys bcked ginst the outsider (except when the complint is orchestrted by officils to trget someone inside). A mnger my be  ruthless hrsser, my be incompetent, my be corrupt, or my introduce dubious nd dngerous policies. evertheless, higher mngement will lmost lwys support such  mnger ginst chllenges from below or outside. ometimes this is becuse of personl links. e mnger my hve friends in high plces, mybe even n entire network of mutul bck-scrtchers. A deeper reson is tht the system of hierrchy depends on mintining lines of uthority. If junior workers re ble to win in  chllenge to  mnger, then wht’s to stop them chllenging bosses higher up the ldder? intining the hierrchy is crucil to mngeril prerogtive. All the rhetoric bout efficiency nd fir ply goes out the window when it comes to protecting the forml system through which power is exercised. Imgine, then,  grievnce committee tht decides to be independent. If it rules ginst senior gures, those gures would become enemies of the committee members. e committee members would come under scrutiny by top mngement. ey might be replced or come under ttck themselves. And wht bout  grievnce committee tht rules ginst the chief executive officer? Who hs ever herd of such n mzing event? sully grievnce committees re estblished to formlly report to top mngement. In the end, they re not independent sources of power, but re subordinte to the top officils in the orgnistion. sully they never think of stepping out of line. But if they do, there re powerful snctions ginst n escltion of the process. It is possible to chieve smll victories through internl grievnce procedures, for exmple in the cse of bltnt violtions tht threten to be  public reltions disster if they re not delt with internlly. It’s difficult enough to chieve smll victories. But when the problem goes right to the top of the orgnistion or involves people with strong connections, it becomes extremely difficult to win. ince internl ppel mechnisms re so compromised, the obvious solution is independent ppel bodies. t’s the rtionle for ombudsmen, nticorruption bodies, uditors-generl, ntidiscrimintion gencies nd the courts. e principle of independence is vitl, but the relity is seldom so inspiring. ere re severl resons why. ometimes ppel bodies tht re nominlly independent become pwns of the orgnistions they re supposed to police. ey might be stffed with personnel who hve the sme vlues s those orgnistions. en they might be former employees. For exmple, top mngement in  government consumer ffirs bureu might be more sympthetic to corportions thn to consumers. In other cses, orgnistionl self-interest is the key to the wekness of ppel bodies. o mintin funding, the body cn’t fford to offend too mny powerful individuls. In trying to promote complince to regultions,  soly-soly pproch is tken, which to outsiders my seem like  do-nothing pproch. oon the ppel body is ftlly compromised. ther bodies retin some degree of commitment to their forml gols, but re drsticlly under-resourced. Complints nd requests pour in, but there simply ren’t enough workers to del with  frction of them. A single worker my hve to del with or more cses t  time. Complinnts who expect  full-scle investigtion into their cse re usully disppointed. Finlly, in those rre cses where n independent body tkes  relly crusding stnd, it becomes vulnerble to ttck. o del with buses of power in  mjor sector of society usully mens exposing  pervsive filure to ct by governments nd corportions. An independent body tht thretens powerful groups will be smered, hve personnel chnged, hve its mndte chnged nd hve its funding reduced or removed. In fct, it will be delt with in exctly the wy tht whistleblowers re commonly treted. ome scholrs who nlyse these things believe tht ppel bodies nd lws re estblished minly for symbolic purposes. An nticorruption gency or whistleblower legisltion gives the public the impression tht the government tkes corruption seriously. Actully, these mechnisms my be set up to fil, nd my fil miserbly. Whistleblowers my be worse off, becuse they incorrectly believe tht help is vilble, nd this my dely or deter them from tking other, more effective ctions. Case study: Writing to authorities: is it worthwhile? eople write mny thousnds of letters to politicins nd government deprtments bout corruption, dngers to the public or whtever the correspondent is concerned bout. Indeed, some individuls hve written hundreds of letters on their own. Is this  worthwhile method of getting results? peking to  politicin fce-to-fce or by phone oen cn produce better results thn  letter, though even in these cses  followup letter is useful. But it cn be quite difficult to ctully get to spek to  politicin. As well,  letter hs the dvntge of providing  permnent record. If you write  letter to the rime inister or some other minister, it is normlly referred to the relevnt deprtment. It is pssed down the bureucrtic hierrchy to some public servnt who is ssigned the responsibility of dring  reply. e dr is then pssed bck up the hierrchy, sometimes being modi ed on the wy. It is quite unusul for  minister to ctully red  reply, even when his or her nme ppers t the bottom of the letter, which is not very oen for “importnt” politicins. Wht you receive is  response from some public servnt. I tlked to three public servnts who gve me cndid comments on how the system opertes. I’ll strt with the most optimistic ccount. Chris is  reltively new public servnt who drs replies to letters written to  leding minister. he is told by others to be s blnd s possible. However, she prefers to be more conscientious. As well s nding out the other side of the story to tht of the letter-writer, she sometimes will follow up the issue by ringing other deprtments to ensure tht some ction is tken. For exmple, if the mtter flls within the jurisdiction of  stte government, she will write  note or ring relevnt people to mke sure they respond, insted of just writing bck to the letter-writer to sy tht the mtter is one for the stte government. he sys tht  smll percentge of public servnts go out of their wy to help letter-writers, but most give perfunctory responses. Chris recommends tht letter-writers sk one or two speci c questions. For exmple, “Is the minister wre of ? Wht re you going to do bout it? I’m looking forwrd to your nswer.” uch direct questions re more difficult to wriggle out of. he lso sys there is lots of shuffling of letters between deprtments to nd the right plce. erefore, you should nd out beforehnd exctly who you should write to. Also, send copies to other deprtments to mke sure you re not fobbed off. (ince providing these comments to me, Chris hs le the public service for  different creer. he ws not the right sort of person to thrive s  public servnt!) oms hs yers of experience in  mjor government deprtment. He sys tht n individul person’s complint is normlly ignored or dismissed. e deprtment cn stll by interpreting regultions differently, not responding, delying through referrl to committees, nd  host of other methods. ublic servnts re trined in how to respond to protect current policy, in other words how to lie. In oms’s view, writing letters will only hve n impct if the writer represents  powerful force, such s  lrge number of people or prestigious gures such s judges, in which cse writing my not be required nywy. e other time writing cn hve n impct is when potentilly dmging disclosures might be mde unless ction is tken. uch disclosures could be mde to the medi. According to oms, medi coverge is detested by bureucrts nd is the best wy to get ction. It is  wste of time for  whistleblower just to write  letter, since the power of the whistleblower comes from publicity. Chris notes tht when it comes to potentilly dmging disclosures, contcting opposition politicins is sometimes effective. ey wnt to embrrss the government, t lest on some issues, especilly through sking questions in prliment. Aln hs n even more cynicl view of writing letters. He believes tht mny letters from whistleblowers, even though sent to different deprtments, re referred to the sme deprtment where they re nswered by the sme person! is is quite possible since there re very detiled systems of numbering nd trcking of letters. us,  whistleblower my hve the illusion of contcting different uthorities when ctully being thwrted in the sme wy over nd over. Aln would go even further to suggest tht writing to the government provides  wy for  smll group of public servnts to keep tbs on whistleblowers. ere re  few public servnts nd politicins who will do wht they cn for you. However, the generl messge from Chris, oms nd Aln, plus others I’ve tlked to, is tht writing letters to government is lrgely  wste of time. Making a decision It’s hrd to give speci c dvice bout whether certin gencies or lws re likely to be helpful, whether it is the erit rotection Review Agency, the Flse Clims Act or the Anti-Corruption Commission. ere re too mny vribles to sy much relibly. • Ech country hs its own set of officil chnnels. ome countries hve ombudsmen, some don’t. ome hve regultory bodies for prticulr industries or professions, some don’t. • Different sttes, regions nd orgnistions hve speci c officil chnnels. • ings chnge. ew lws re introduced. Effective gencies become muzzled, gutted or just lose stem. Ineffective gencies re given  new lese on life. Good dvice on where to go one yer my be outdted the next. • e choice of wht chnnel to try depends sensitively on the cse: wht the issues re, how good the evidence is, how much you nd others re willing to support it, nd other fctors. Becuse of these vribles, you need to nd out for yourself bout the most pproprite chnnel or chnnels for your purposes. Luckily, the generl rules for doing this re strightforwrd. • List possible options. • Investigte promising options. • Weigh up the bene ts nd costs of the most promising options. e rst step is to list possible options. ere re severl stndrd types. • Grievnce or ppel procedures internl to n orgnistion • rocesses run by  trde union or professionl ssocition, such s  medicl complints pnel • Government gencies, such s ombudsmen, police, ntidiscrimintion bords nd regultory bodies • Courts, including specilist courts such s industril courts • Bodies with speci c short-term briefs such s prlimentry committees nd royl commissions Just listing ll the possibilities cn be quite  tsk nd my require some sking round. If you cn nd someone who hs tried severl options, tht’s very helpful. ometimes ringing  stff person in one of the gencies cn provide informtion bout other options. If you’re worried bout reveling your involvement in n re, do not give your nme or contct detils, or hve  friend ring to sk wht someone should do who wnts to hve  problem investigted. It my seem like  lot of fuss nd bother to list ll these possibilities when you lredy know bout one or two gencies tht seem quite pproprite. But sometimes it’s worth the trouble. Certin gencies my be very well known, but tht doesn’t men they re effective. uite possibly they re overloded becuse so mny people contct them. ometimes there is  conscientious gency tht only receives  few complints ech yer. It might turn out to be your best bet. Cynthia Kardell comments e rst step is lwys to educte yourself bout the investigtive body. ke yourself fmilir with its history, role, function nd processes. Know wht it cn nd cn’t do, nd develop  bck-up pln for when it fils. Ask yourself: is your complint one tht the investigtive body would be willing to spend  lot of money on? (Investigtions bite into the budget!) e next step is to investigate promising options. ou cn probbly eliminte some options quickly becuse they don’t pply to your sitution. If you re confronted by nncil frud by top mngement, then internl orgnistionl procedures won’t be of much use, nor will ntidiscrimintion bords  unless the frud hs some ethnic or other element covered by ntidiscrimintion legisltion. However, it’s best not to eliminte options too quickly. ometimes there re originl wys to proceed. Cynthia Kardell, whistleblower and long-time office bearer in Whistleblowers Australia (president since ). Aer eliminting some options, you need to begin the rel tsk of investigtion. Wht do you need to nd out? Here re some key things. • Wht sort of documenttion is required? Is it enough to mention  few incidents nd let the gency investigte from there? Do you need to supply copies of documents, signed sttements, nmes nd dtes, etc.? • How much documenttion is needed? Is  one-pge letter enough, or will eventully hundreds of pges of submissions be required? • How much work will be involved? Will the work required tke hours, dys, weeks, months or yers? • How long will it tke? Will the process be over quickly ( few weeks), or will it drg on for months or yers? • Wht re the chnces of success? f people with cses like yours, wht proportion win or get stisfction? ne out of two? ne out of ten? ne pproch is to look t the forml requirements. Agencies oen produce guidelines telling how to mke  submission. In some cses this is useful, but it seldom gives much insight into wht’s involved. By fr the best wy to get nswers is to tlk to people who hve been through the sme processes. ey cn tell you ll bout it nd give you  relistic picture. e hrd prt is trcking down these people. Commonly, the nmes of prior complinnts re con dentil. If there is n ction group, support group or whistleblowers group in your re, tht is your best bet. For exmple, if your complint is bout the medicl system, try to nd  medicl consumers group. If your complint is bout n environmentl issue, contct n environmentl orgnis- tion. If you re confronted by nncil corruption, there my be  shreholders ssocition. A wrning: mke sure the group is genuine. ome groups with helpful-sounding nmes re ctully industry front groups or defend professionls ginst clients. For exmple, mny polluting industries fund bogus “citizen” groups to cmpign on their behlf. How cn you tell the difference? ersonl contcts re  good wy. Also, you cn sk the groups for nmes of clients who re willing to tlk bout their experiences. (Even this cn be fked!) If there is no obvious group or individul to give you rst-hnd dvice, then your tsk is more difficult. ometimes there re officil sttistics bout the outcomes of cses. However, these cn be misleding. A lrge proportion of cses, whether in internl orgnistion procedures or in the courts, re settled before they go through ll the forml stges. ou might be ble to nd records of court decisions, but tht won’t give you informtion bout cses settled out of court. ry to nd  knowledgeble insider who will give you the lowdown on wht ctully hppens. In most orgnistions there is t lest one individul who knows  lot bout the orgnistion’s problems nd how they hve been delt with. If you cn nd one or two such individuls nd tp into their reservoirs of knowledge, the insights you gin will be invluble. ey my know bout people who tried to chnge the system, nd know wht hppened to them. Robina Cosser comments eople re not lwys wht they seem to be, so seeking  knowledgeble insider my put you t risk. ometimes it’s sfer to collect evidence nd not spek to nyone. ere re such people everywhere, but in most cses you hve to be n insider yourself to gin ccess to them. For exmple, in ny gency there will be people who cn give n honest pprisl of wht hs worked nd wht hsn’t. is informtion will gretly help you in deciding how best to proceed nd how to void trps tht snred others before you. e best wy to trck these people down is through friendship networks. Doing  thorough investigtion of options cn be very time-consuming nd frustrting. If you cn recruit some friends or supporters  especilly those with good connections  it cn be much esier. e bigger the issue, the more creful your investigtion should be. ink of it this wy. • If you nd out tht certin chnnels re not worth trying, tht my sve you thousnds of dollrs nd months of work. • If you lern  few tips bout how to mke your cse more effective, tht my mke the difference between success nd filure. Chpter emphsised the importnce of collecting plenty of documenttion, more thn most people ever imgined ws necessry. e sme pplies to investigting options: you should investigte more thn you ever imgined ws necessry. If you re involved in sports, you know tht preprtion is the key to success. is includes trining, mentl nd physicl. It includes studying the rules. It includes nding out bout opponents. king  forml submission is like plying  gme. ou need to hve prepred exceptionlly well, to know your opponent nd to know the best wy to ply. e other side probbly hs lots more money nd resources to use ginst you. o hve  chnce of winning, you need every dvntge possible. Being clever helps! Another source of informtion is books, journls nd the internet. Contct your librrin or  friendly resercher to help you nd out bout options. erhps someone hs written n rticle or  thesis bout the gency or bout the fte of certin types of complints. ews stories cn be helpful too. ou cn use computer dtbses to trck down rticles, court reports nd much else. If you cn nd  useful study or commentry bout the pth you’re plnning, tht’s useful in itself. If you hve more questions, perhps you cn contct the uthor. ere re some other sources of informtion bout which you need to be wry: • enior people in the orgnistion. ou re unlikely to obtin  relistic picture from them. • Agency workers. ey my tell you the officil line, which is invribly optimistic nd sometimes dmging. ometimes you my get quite helpful dvice. e chllenge is to know which is which. • Lwyers. ey re unlikely to give you n honest ccount of the disdvntges of legl ction, including gret expense nd long time delys. A few re corrupt. Who should you trust? ou should be wry of those who hve some stke in  prticulr process or outcome, such s officils nd lwyers. ou cn hve more trust in those who hve nothing to gin by your choice, such s librrins or reserchers. ou cn put most trust in those who hve confronted the sme sort of problems tht you hve nd who hve mde scri ces in their pursuit of justice. Cynthia Kardell comments It’s best to strt by trusting, but if you trust nyone or ny process, be lert for the rst indiction tht ll might not be well. rust your instincts. If needed, protect yourself nd tke  different tck. (ere cn lwys be exceptions. ome lwyers nd gency ofcils re pushing for chnge nd cn be your best llies. ome reserchers re fr from independent, being nncilly or ideologiclly in the bck pocket of your opponents.) Finlly, if your informtion is limited, here re some rules of thumb, bsed on the experience of whistleblowers. • Estimte how much of your money nd effort the process should tke if it ws hndled sensibly by ll prties. en multiply by or to get n estimte of the ctul mounts. If you estimte  week’s work ( hours), then the ctul gure could esily be severl months or even yers. • Estimte how long the process should tke if it ws run efficiently. en multiply by to get n estimte how long it will tke. If it should be over in six months, the ctul time could be ve yers. • Estimte the chnce of success if everything ws fir. en divide by to get n estimte of your ctul chnce of success. If you think your chnce should be  ( out of ), then your ctul chnce is probbly closer to  ( out of ). is my seem terribly pessimistic. Although the numericl procedures re rbitrry, the generl pproch is right. ost people chllenging the system gretly underestimte how much money, effort nd time will be required nd gretly overestimte their chnces of success. ese rules of thumb re designed to bring some relism into the process. ow it’s time to weigh up the bene ts and costs of the most promising options. is is  process tht involves wht you’ve found out bout the options, plus your own vlues nd gols. ne useful technique is to write down two lists: bene ts nd costs. is helps to clrify wht’s involved. e decision my not be ny esier, but you re less likely to miss some importnt point. Here re two generl lists tht cover mny typicl bene ts nd costs. Bene ts Expose problem revent continution of problem et n exmple/precedent Compenstion Improved work sitution elf-respect Vindiction Costs Diversion from problem ime Expense rum Worse work sitution Discrediting Diversion from other options e rst three bene ts re mostly for the orgnistion or society rther thn you personlly. By tking n issue to n officil chnnel, you my help expose the problem. is is especilly true if you link your ppel with  publicity cmpign, s described in the next chpter. Also, your ction my help prevent the problem continuing, by lerting uthorities or by putting the orgnistion on notice. our cse my even set n exmple tht others cn follow or set  precedent for employees or citizens to tke similr ction. en there re bene ts to you personlly. Compenstion might be  monetry py-out or retirement pckge. An improved work sitution might be  return to the sttus quo before you spoke out,  reduction in ttcks, or  chnge in loction or boss. If you lost your job,  return to work cn be  mjor bene t. Finlly, there re bene ts tht re primrily psychologicl. ursuing  cse cn give self-respect, regrdless of wht hppens long the wy, becuse it mens you hve tken  stnd ginst injustice nd persevered ginst gret odds. If the cse is successful, this cn vindicte your stnd. Even if you lose, you my feel better thn doing nothing nd lter feeling guilty when the problem continues nd clims further victims. Lesley Pinson comments I felt overwhelmingly tht if I didn’t do s much s I could nd there ws  serious ccident, I would forever feel dredful tht I hdn’t done nything. Also, I fered tht if I didn’t report corruption nd it ws subsequently exposed, then I would look foolish or be found professionlly negligent if I ws ever sked “But you knew bout this, why didn’t you report it?” Wht bout motivtions tht we usully don’t dmit  such s revenge? Well, tht’s up to you. is book is bout being effective, not getting even. ow for the costs of using officil chnnels. Although in the best scenrio, deling with your cse through officil chnnels my bring ttention to the problem, in the worst scenrio it my do the opposite: divert ttention from the problem by deling with ll sorts of minor irrelevnt issues. jor costs re time nd expense, s discussed erlier. onths of work nd lrge costs re common. erhps you will put your life svings t risk. Another mjor cost is trum. is includes reopen- ing discussion of topics tht previously disturbed you s well s the mounting of new ttcks. If you still hve your job, the cse my mke your sitution worse by opening you to hrssment. It’s importnt to remember tht you my end up with officil decisions mde ginst you. is could serve to discredit you nd the cuses you support. Finlly, pursuing officil chnnels my divert you from other options. All the time nd money you spend on the cse might hve been devoted to some other course of ction. is is the “opportunity cost” of this pth. o  you’ve written down the bene ts nd costs. How do you mke  decision? is isn’t esy. ne of the most difficult prts is tht you don’t know wht will hppen. is isn’t like buying  house where you know, pretty much, wht you will get. It’s more like tking  huge gmble. o strt, it cn help to seprte out the certin consequences from the ones tht depend on the outcome. ou cn list things you think re sure to hppen s de nite, those more likely to hppen thn not s probble nd those less likely thn this s possible. e lists might look like this. De nite bene t elf-respect De nite costs ime Expense Diversion from other options Probable bene t Expose problem Probable costs rum Diversion from problem Possible bene ts revent continution of problem et n exmple/precedent Compenstion Improved work sitution Vindiction Possible costs Worse work sitution Discrediting Wheres the originl list just gve ll outcomes without ny ssessment, this listing is  move towrds wht is likely. o re ne this  bit, it cn be useful to eliminte items tht ren’t so importnt to you, leving just the ones tht re crucil. For exmple, let’s sy tht the nncil side is vitl, becuse you hve  fmily to support. ou hve plenty of time  er you lost your job! n the psychologicl side, self-respect is very importnt, but you re worried bout reopening the wounds. e list of essentils boils down to this. De nite bene t elf-respect De nite cost Expense Possible bene t Compenstion Probable cost rum Even with this shorter list, the comprisons cn be difficult. Let’s sy you expect the expense to be  , , including legl costs nd income forgone, nd the likely compenstion if you win to be  , . en, this is  fir wger if your chnce of success is one in ve. Are you  gmbler? Would you bet  , on  horse t - odds? Compring the nncil bene ts nd costs is the esy prt! How cn you compre mintining self-respect with  likelihood of continued trum? Wht if other people  your fmily  re ffected too? ere re no esy nswers. ere’s one sure thing, though. ou re more likely to mke  sensible decision by lying out the options nd consequences nd thinking them through thn by cting in the het of the moment. Emotions re lwys involved, to be sure. But when it comes to mking  decision, it helps to hve thought through the options. ere re severl importnt points to keep in mind when mking  decision. Success is rare. ost people tend to overestimte their chnce of success using officil chnnels. Let’s sy tht you’ve worked out tht the chnce of winning through this prticulr ppel procedure is less thn one out of ten, becuse you’ve herd of only one de nite victory nd know t lest ten complinnts who lost or gve up long the wy. evertheless, mny people tend to discount the gures becuse they know, deep in their herts, tht their own cse is relly good. How could it lose, with rock-solid documenttion? is is the time to remember tht success through officil chnnels is not bout being right but bout winning ginst the other side’s tctics. Another fctor is tht most people re not good t integrting probbilities in decision mking. e chnce of winning my be one in ten, but in compring bene ts nd costs it is tempting to think of them on equl terms. e key is to compare options. ou’ve summed up the bene ts nd costs of this option. ow you need to do the sme with other options. is is  wy of nding the option tht hs the best blnce of bene ts nd costs. ou might decide tht you would go hed on option A, becuse by your ssessment the bene ts outweigh the costs. But it’s worth checking options B nd C too, becuse they might be even better. Furthermore, you my nd tht you cn proceed with options A and B t the sme time, improving your odds. Check with others. Be sure to consult with others, especilly those closest to you nd those who know most bout the options. ey my be ble to wrn you if you re mking unrelistic ssumptions or if you’ve forgotten some importnt fctors. ltimtely, though, the decision is yours. An extra reminder on overestimating success ere re severl common psychologicl fctors tht mke people overestimte their chnce of success  nd to gmble when the odds re very bd. First, most people re overcon dent bout their own bilities. For exmple: •  of workers sid they re more productive thn the medin worker; •  of nl-yer high school students sid they hd more ledership bility thn verge; •  of these students sid they were in the top  in their bility to get long with others; •  of cdemics sid they were better t their jobs thn n verge collegue. econd, success is highly slient compred to filure. ose who lose or give up long the wy re usully less prominent. We her  lot bout lottery winners but seldom bout the mny losers. We her  lot bout  few fmous bsketbll or soccer plyers but never bout the mny kids who wste yers unsuccessfully trying to mke the big time. imilrly, if someone wins  mjor court cse ginst  corrupt boss, it is likely to be reported in the medi nd become n exmple. Losers seldom mke the news. ird, people tend to throw good money er bd. sychologiclly, there’s  tendency to try to recoup money lost in n investment by putting in more money. imilrly, someone who hs spent weeks of work nd wited  yer to hve  complint herd is strongly tempted to keep trying even though the return my not be worth the trouble. Fourth, mny people believe tht, er  string of heds when ipping  coin, tils is more likely. Actully, the odds re the sme. Aer trying  series of ppel chnnels nd being repetedly unsuccessful, some my think they’ve hd  string of bd luck nd tht the next ttempt is bound to be more successful. Wrong. If nything, it’s less likely to succeed since the more promising venues were tried t the beginning. Robert H. Frnk nd hilip J. Cook, e Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More an the Rest of Us (ew ork: enguin, ), p. . o  your cse is rock-solid nd you know tht you re in the right. ther people my lose cses but yours is different. ink gin! ther people lso hd rock-solid cses nd were in the right  but they lost. e other side used legl loopholes, nsty tricks, obfusction nd delys, keeping the cses going for yers. Victory cn be both rre nd expensive even when officil chnnels re fir. When officils re corrupt, your tsk is even more difficult. ome degree of overcon dence cn be useful, otherwise we would never try or risk nything. But it’s vitl to be s relistic s possible when compring options. All options need to be exmined in terms of bene ts nd costs, not just the size of the glittering prize t the end. All options re risky. All the more reson to pick the one with the best prospects. Staying the distance ou’ve mde your decision: you’re going hed with it. ou’ve begun the process:  grievnce mechnism,  complint to n gency,  court cse. oon you’ll know more bout procedures thn you ever thought necessry. If you’re going to use this chnnel, it mkes sense to use it well. Learn everything you cn bout the process. It mkes sense to follow the required speci ctions s closely s possible, unless you hve some principled objection. If you hve to mke  submission, write it well nd follow the stndrd formt. Contct, if you cn, people who hve been through the process lredy, especilly those who found it stisfctory. Listen to their dvice crefully. Look t their documents. Is your own cse missing something? Ask them wht they found to be the wekest point in their cse, nd then work on mking your own cse s strong s possible in tht re. ke sure you know how mny procedures nd ppernces you could hve to go through, ssuming the other side ppels to higher jurisdictions. therwise, it my be hlfwy through your rst cse when you nd out wht you’re in for. Dress for success. If you need to pper in person, try to gure out wht sorts of clothes nd grooming will mke the best impression. Apper respectble nd serious, without overdoing it. ome gencies re more forml thn others. Practise to improve your performnce. If you hve to mke  written submission, write dr er dr, getting comments on how to improve it from nyone with knowledge nd experience. If you hve to spek or nswer questions, do some prctice sessions. repre your tlk crefully nd then prctise it by yourself in front of  mirror. ou cn refer to brief notes or cue crds, but never red  tlk. rctise it over nd over until your nerves re reduced to  tolerble level. Better yet, get  tpe recorder nd listen to your tlk. en revise the tlk, nd your style, step by step. Focus on improving just one spect t  time. ext, get  friend to be n udience, nd give your tlk. If you’re still very nervous, try it gin  nd gin. Get feedbck from your friend on how to improve, both content nd delivery. o one becomes  brillint speker overnight, but it is possible to improve considerbly by preprtion nd prctice. ou my never eliminte nervousness, but it is possible to keep it under control. If you hve to nswer questions, prctice is gin crucil. Write down the questions you think re the most difficult. Work out your best possible nswers nd then prctise them. Give the questions to  friend nd hve the friend sk you the questions nd listen to your nswers. en get your friend to mke up new questions nd sk you to nswer without preprtion. Ask people who’ve been through the process before wht sort of questions come up. Get dvice bout wht sorts of nswers re most effective. Answering questions is  skill tht cn be improved by preprtion nd prctice. Cynthia Kardell comments If there re things you re uncertin or embrrssed bout or things you know others will try to blme you for, tlk it through with  trusted con dnt beforehnd nd get used to nswering difficult questions in  thoughtful, quietly con dent wy. If you lern how to respond to delicte questions nd be sfe, the other side won’t be ble to undermine you. e sme pplies to your emotions. If you sometimes lose your temper or become visibly upset, your opponents my be tempted to tke dvntge of your emotionl vulnerbility, either by plnning in dvnce or operting instinctively on the spur of the moment. ink of the sorts of comments or situtions tht trigger n emotionl response tht my weken your cse. ln  method of response tht keeps you in control, for exmple  behviour (“puse nd tke three deep breths before responding”) or  set of ides or imges (“ clm, crisp reply”). rctise your pln by yourself nd then with  friend. Advocates Choose your dvoctes crefully. If you re represented by n dvocte, for exmple by  lwyer in  court cse, choose crefully  ssuming you hve  choice. Consult with others to nd out bout their experiences. If someone who hs been through the sme process recommends n dvocte, tht is  good endorsement. ometimes you cn nd out bout the dvocte by looking up court records or other les. Don’t hesitte to do so. If you’re spending lots of money nd time on the cse, it mkes sense to investigte thoroughly to ensure tht you hve the best possible dvocte. ry to nd someone who is oriented to results rther thn process. e results-oriented dvocte is willing to push things forwrd in order to get wht you wnt most out of the process, whether it’s n pology,  py-out or  precedent-setting judgement. e processoriented dvocte, on the other hnd, tends to respond to the requirements of the system, going through  stndrd procedure, llowing the mximum time or witing for the other side to tke n inititive. is oen increses your costs while delying things. our dvocte should be willing to follow your instructions. e dvocte my know  lot more bout the system thn you do, so you should consider the dvocte’s dvice crefully. But you know more bout your cse thn nyone. If you’ve lso lerned  lot bout the process, you my wish to overrule your dvocte’s recommendtion. Go hed. It’s your choice. Lesley Pinson comments ou should lso listen to nd ct on your instincts. sychologiclly, when you ct ginst your better judgement nd instincts becuse of the dvice of others, then if this dvice proves to be wrong it leds to  lot of bitterness nd nger ginst your dvocte which is  diversion from the min gme. (uite  few whistleblowers end up tking ction ginst their own lwyers.) ou end up bitterly regretting tht you didn’t do wht you believed ws right in the rst plce. uch better is to listen to your instincts nd do wht you believe is right. If tht proves to be wrong, it is  hell of  lot esier to move on nd live with your own mistkes. Whistleblowers tend to put fr too much fith in their legl dvoctes. is is doomed. It is importnt to keep your dvoctes on their toes. It is dngerous to sit bck nd rest comfortbly with the expecttion tht someone else is now going to solve things for you. is is when things cn go very bdly wrong. ou must lwys retin control over your cse nd be responsible for it. Jean Lennane comments It’s possible to use the legl system effectively, but quite  lot of insight nd skill is required. For exmple, it’s worthwhile iming to chieve  series of smll legl wins in order to end up where you wnt to go. nfortuntely,  of lwyers re  wste of time or worse for whistleblowers. e cses simply ren’t rewrding enough for lwyers to do  good job. Whistleblowers sometimes qulify s lwyers in order to hndle their own cses. If your cse is likely to lst ve yers or more  nd mny do  then qulifying is worth it. ore specilist lwyers re needed to help whistleblowers. Change your dvocte if necessry. If you’re unhppy with the support or dvice you’ve been receiving, go hed nd chnge. It could be tht your dvocte is overloded, hs personl problems, isn’t interested, isn’t competent or is corrupt. An incompetent dvocte my lose the cse by mking mistkes in procedure, using the wrong rguments or just presenting the rguments poorly. A corrupt dvocte could be pid off by the other side, hope for some bene t by not rocking the bot, or hve friends in high plces. It’s better to chnge thn to persist with someone you don’t trust or who isn’t giving stisfctory service. However, just becuse you lost the cse doesn’t men your dvocte ws incompetent or corrupt. e other side might hve hd more tlented dvoctes hired t huge expense. Cynthia Kardell comments If you decide to chnge your dvocte, do it erly, before things get nsty, becuse you don’t need nother ght on your hnds. Get nother dvocte lined up. Don’t openly criticise your former dvocte. Let the new dvocte tell the former one bout the chnge. If you need to sue the former dvocte down the trck, you cn. Obtain independent dvice. lk to people who hve nothing to gin or lose from the outcome of your cse. ee wht they think. Wht is the best next step? Are you being too demnding of your dvocte? Is it pproprite to compromise? Independent dvice is vitl becuse you cn trust it more. A pid dvocte my well hve developed  stndrd procedure tht tends to increse the length of the cse  nd the dvocte’s py. A union officil is likely to put union interests  or personl creer interests  higher thn your cse. is is nturl enough nd need not involve conscious scheming or corruption. Reassess your strtegy regulrly. As the cse progresses, the sitution chnges. our nnces or your personl reltionships my be different. our gols my chnge. ere my be fcts reveled tht chnge your perspective bout the sitution. o go bck to the drwing bord nd look t your strtegy (see chpter ). Is it time to cll it quits? Is it time for  drmtic new inititive? Is the present course bout right? Beware the silencing clause ings re looking good. our cse looks like winning, or perhps you’ve just won. e other side comes to you offering  settlement  usully  lrge mount of money. It is bound to be tempting. e money cn help py off mounting bills. Also, it mens no more court ppernces. Aer ll, the other side could ppel your victory, even if they hve little prospect of success, in n ttempt to wer you down through yers of dditionl litigtion. ere re two ctches. First, you don’t obtin  forml victory. econd, nd more dedly, is the silencing cluse. ou re expected, s prt of the settlement, to sign  sttement sying tht you won’t revel nything bout the cse or even the mount of the settlement itself. ere re lots of vritions on the silencing cluse. e bsic im is to shut you up nd prevent your cse becoming  precedent for others. e other side voids dmitting libility. e settlement is ttrctive, but the silencing cluse is not. But oen the other side will insist: no cluse, no settlement. ou hve to mke your own decision, nd your personl circumstnces my virtully dictte cquiescence. Here re  few implictions. • At the beginning of litigtion, be wre of the possibility of silencing greements. • Be prepred for options just prior to going to court. • Be exible, becuse you might chnge your mind if the silencing cluse suppresses bsic issues t stke. Aer ll, speking out in the public interest is  mtter of mking informtion generlly vilble, not covering it up. • If you re ble, resist s much of ny silencing cluse s possible. peking out bout the issues is more importnt thn nming the pyment you received. • Join cmpigns to bn silencing greements. Cynthia Kardell comments Do not sign if everything inside you is screming tht you’re being treted bdly, becuse you’ll hte yourself if you sign. Just ccept tht the lwyer’s interest my not be yours nd get out of there until you’ve hd time to tlk it over with  trusted con dnt. Appendix: Formal mediation, a semi-official channel If you re hving  con ict with someone tht you cn’t esily sort out just between the two of you, then forml medition my be helpful. (e term “medition” my be used to describe different processes. is description is one exmple.) A neutrl meditor is chosen, greeble to both prties. e meditor meets with the two people in conict nd llows them to present nd discuss their perspectives. Vrious outcomes re possible. Idelly, differences re resolved. ore commonly, the prties recognise tht their differences persist but gree to behve civilly in future. When the process is unsuccessful, one or both prties my decide to pursue their grievnce in some other wy. e gret dvntge of medition is tht it llows people in dispute to ly their perspectives on the tble in front of  neutrl prty. en, this process cools tempers nd improves reltionships. It cn open up communiction chnnels nd prevent  sitution from esclting to fr more dmging nd irretrievble steps. e role of the meditor is crucil. editors hve considerble ltitude. ey might decide to meet ech person seprtely before holding  joint meeting, to hve  series of meetings or to run “shuttle diplomcy.” ey decide how to conduct meetings nd need to monitor the converstion sensitively. If the meditor is not seen s neutrl, this undermines the process. e meditor should not be in  position of power over ny prticipnt. edition, s described here, requires  fir bit of trust. rties prticipte voluntrily on their own, without dvoctes. sully no forml notes re tken nd there is no forml report to ny orgnistion such s n employer. Agreements re not formlly binding. edition does not seek “the truth” s in  forml investigtion or to rech  de nitive ruling s in n rbitrtion or court proceeding, but rther to help people to get long better. edition is frequently crried out in n informl fshion in dyto-dy interctions, such s when someone tries to help friends or fmily members to get long better, or when  co-worker swily intervenes to hose down  heted exchnge. ome people in groups hbitully tke on the role of informl meditor, cting sensitively nd unobtrusively to prevent things getting out of hnd. Forml medition is n ttempt to build on the best spects of this importnt everydy process. For ll its dvntges, medition is not lwys  good ide. If you re being trgeted, medition cn serve s  mens of ttck. e biggest risk is tht the meditor is not neutrl, in which cse meetings my be used to blme or humilite you. Another dnger is tht informtion provided in  meeting my not be kept con dentil. In the worst scenrio, everything you sy is fed by the meditor bck to your boss or ntgonist. Finlly, er mking  verbl greement during medition, there is no gurntee tht the other prty will hold to it. Workplce medition works best between co-workers who re in roughly comprble sorts of positions nd who hve  long-term interest in getting long. It is not so well suited for hrmonising reltions between boss nd employee. If you hve reson to believe tht  prticulr meditor is bised or untrustworthy, request  different meditor. If you don’t fully trust the other prty, don’t sy nything tht could open you to ttck. If pproprite, sk for n greement  such s not to discuss  prticulr incident ny more  to be put in writing nd signed by both of you. Finlly, if you cn’t see ny bene ts from medition, don’t prticipte. ometimes, during  legl bttle, the court will offer medition s  possible mens of resolution. ke sure tht you hve s mny people on your side s there re on the other side. It’s lso dvisble to specify how long the process will lst. If you’re stuck in  room for mny hours under enormous pressure to rech n greement, the risk of mking unwise concessions increses s time goes on nd your energy gs. When tempers re, threts re mde nd  reltionship becomes seriously soured, medition cn relly help. But it’s not  cure-ll, nd it cn be bused. If you’re not sure whether medition is  good ide, discuss the possibility with friends nd see whether you cn tlk to others who hve hd the sme meditor. If your problem is minly  personl con ict, medition cn be quite helpful. But if the problem involves much more thn interpersonl reltions, such s serious corruption, medition will be indequte or even hrmful. 8 Leaking • Reveling problems while remining nonymous hs importnt dvntges: it reduces the risk of reprisls nd llows you to remin in the job nd continue to collect nd revel informtion. • In mny situtions, leking is not suitble. • Leking effectively requires knowledge nd skills, including how to remin nonymous, how to choose recipients for disclosures, how to communicte informtion nd who to tell wht you’re doing. ost whistleblowers re open bout who they re nd wht they re sying. ey report  problem to the boss or mke  complint to n gency or contct the medi. Becuse they re open, they oen become trgets for reprisls. Another option is to revel problems without reveling your identity. is mens you re nonymous. our boss nd your co-workers my know or believe tht someone hs reveled informtion to outsiders  but they don’t know it’s you. Alana worked for an insurance company and discovered documents showing that top managers were changing the policies for customers living in risky areas without clearly informing them. She saved copies of these documents, electronically cleaned them of identifying information and, from a cybercafe across town, sent them to a citizens’ group concerned about insurance company abuses. Leking is the unuthorised disclosure of informtion without reveling one’s identity to uthorities or wider udiences. It is one method for trying to expose problems: it is  wy to blow the whistle nonymously. Leking cn lso be used for other purposes. oliticins nd senior government officils regulrly lek informtion to journlists for politicl or personl gin. ome leks re intended to hrm others. is isn’t whistleblowing. e focus in this hndbook is on whistleblowing, which includes leking to ddress wrongdoing nd similr problems. is might be clled public interest leking. WikiLeks clls it “principled leking.” ublic interest leking is just like public whistleblowing, except the whistleblower seeks to do it covertly or nonymously. Advantages of leaking e risk of reprisls to whistleblowers is signi cnt: their identity is known, hence they cn be esily trgeted. Leking reduces these risks, sometimes gretly reduces them. e min risk is tht you will be trcked down s the leker. e better you re ble to void detection, the greter the dvntge of leking. Daniel Ellsberg, who in leaked the Pentagon Papers, a study of US government decision-making during the Vietnam War. Another mjor dvntge of leking is tht you remin in the job nd cn collect more informtion nd, if pproprite, lek gin to revel problems. If you spek out nd bosses know who you re, they will mke sure your ccess to dmging informtion is cut off. If bosses don’t know it’s you, you my continue to hve ccess nd be ble to lek on future occsions. ou might even be put in chrge of nding the leker! An open whistleblower oen hs just one chnce to expose  problem. Aer tht it is downhill, with reprisls nd exclusion from sensitive informtion. An nonymous whistleblower cn hve mny opportunities to expose  problem. is mens the chnce of mking  difference is much greter. Furthermore, with leks the ttention is more on the issue nd less on the person who disclosed informtion. ese re very big dvntges. If you’re thinking of speking out bout  problem, you should crefully consider whether it’s possible to do so without reveling your identity. Cynthia Kardell comments Leking is oen seen s being  bit sneky, not being upfront nd honest. Ignore ll tht, s it is usully the sort of thing your detrctors sy to undermine nd pull you down. Why mke yourself  trget when you don’t need to? Anonymous leking is better thn mking  con dentil disclosure to n investigtive body, becuse it removes the tempttion for the investigtive body to cst you s the villin. Leking is entirely sensible nd resonble, prticulrly on politiclly sensitive issues, becuse ll the protections promised by legisltion nd investigtive bodies re only ever useful er you’ve suffered reprisls. When leaking is not suitable If you’ve already spoken out, it’s too late to be anonymous. (However, your co-workers could lek  nd blme it on you. If tht’s oky with you, encourge them. If not, then mke sure you hve convincing evidence tht you’re not the leker.) If you’re easily identi able, then trying to be anonymous may be futile. ybe you’re the only person, side from the boss, with ccess to prticulr documents or informtion. ybe the key documents re things you personlly compiled or wrote. (However, you could “ccidentlly” leve them round for someone else to obtin nd then lek.) ybe the workplce is so smll tht you cn’t hide. ybe you hve the reputtion s the person to be blmed for ny exposure. If you re esily identi ble, it my be better to be open in speking out, thereby giving your sttements more credibility, for exmple if you obtin medi coverge. Sometimes you don’t need to be anonymous. If you’ve resigned, found nother job, written rticles nd  book, nd re speking with politicins nd regultors, then nonymity is unnecessry, mybe even pointless. Sometimes you need to interact with the recipient of your leaks. ou might lek some documents, but those who receive them oen wnt to know more, for exmple dditionl evidence, how credible you re, nd where the evidence comes from. ey my need more informtion before tking ction, or use your nonymity s  pretext to void doing nything. Good investigtive gencies, including some medi, cn set up secure nd nonymous communiction chnnels so you cn interct with them without reveling your identity. However, the more you interct, the more likely someone will gure out who you re. ou might strt off being nonymous but end up being known to some people. ink through wht might hppen to your disclosures nd be prepred. Sometimes leaking puts you or others in danger. In some highrisk situtions, for exmple relting to orgnised crime or some police nd militry cses, leking my increse dnger. If criminls re involved, they my tke reprisls ginst whoever they think might be the leker: you nd others might be trgeted. In such circumstnces, leking cn be risky. Curiously, reveling your identity cn give greter sfety, becuse if there re serious reprisls  you re ssulted, for exmple  then others will know who did it nd why. If you re nonymous, you cn be ssulted without s much public concern, which mkes it more likely. For this reson, witness protection schemes run by police sometimes re better voided. e ide is good: hide nd protect the witness  someone who hs seen  crime  so they cn’t be ssulted, thretened or otherwise prevented from giving testimony. e trouble is tht the police running the witness protection scheme my hve links with criminls, nd you could be t greter risk. If you re open bout your identity nd loction, ttckers will know tht nything they do will be widely publicised. In high-risk situtions, it’s vitl to crefully consider options, including not reveling nything. If you’re going to lek informtion, try to ssess the rmi ctions nd gure out the best time nd methods. is pplies to ny leking, but is even more importnt when lives re t stke. Who can receive leaks WikiLeks hs provided mssive medi ttention to leking, but leking hs occurred for  long time. ere re two trditionl recipients of leks nd two newer ones. Journalists Scenario . An employee collects  prcel of dmning documents, sticks them into n envelope nd posts them to  journlist. e journlist explores further, writes  story nd the issue is exposed. ese dys, sending documents by emil is more common. Scenario . An employee rings  journlist nd revels dmning informtion. e journlist explores further, writes  story nd the issue is exposed. e employee might meet the journlist fce-tofce, minly use  phone, or prefer texting nd emil. e min difference between these two scenrios is whether the journlist knows the leker’s identity. cenrio mintins the gretest nonymity for the leker. In scenrio , the journlist knows who the leker is, so the leker needs to trust the journlist. Cn  journlist be trusted with mintining your identity? is is  mtter of judgement. ost journlists re trustworthy, nd some hve gone to prison rther thn revel the identity of informnts. In most cses,  more importnt question is, will  journlist tke your mteril seriously nd do  good story? If your mteril is old, unexciting or incomprehensible, few journlists will be interested. If your mteril is current, dels with  hot topic, nd is nicely orgnised (perhps with  summry nd time line you’ve crefully written), then  good journlist should be ble to turn it into  story. ossible obstcles include reluctnt editors, con icts of interest, sheer overlod (journlists oen hve indequte time to do investigtive stories), inexperience nd incompetence. Look t  journlist’s previous work. If  journlist hs  trck record of breking importnt stories, this is  good sign. However, there re no gurntees. Activist groups Environmentl groups, residents’ groups, nti-corruption groups, politicl prties, unions  these re some of the groups tht might receive leks. If key ctivists re interested in your mteril, they might publicise it through their own networks or rrnge for vrious forms of medi coverge. Which group? It depends on wht you’re reveling. • Environmentl problems: n environmentl group, obviously enough • Corruption in locl government:  residents’ group • oliticl corruption: n honesty-in-politics group or perhps  politicl prty on the other side (be creful: both sides might be involved in the corruption) Why go to n ctivist group rther thn  journlist? sully the reson is tht the group  or  prticulr member  hs  specil interest in the topic nd will be willing to put time nd energy into mking best use of it. A story on television might be seen by lots of viewers, but few of them will do nything bout it, wheres  story in  group’s newsletter might stimulte  cmpign. If you nd  receptive group, n initil lek could be the beginning of n ongoing reltionship, which might be more productive thn deling with journlists, for whom producing  story is of prime importnce. Activists my not need documents or even specil in- formtion: insight into how your orgnistion opertes cn be vluble nd enble more effective cmpigning. How should you decide whether  group is  suitble recipient? If the group hs  trck record of reveling inside informtion in  responsible, effective wy, this is  good sign. en there re just one or two people in the group with experience nd inititive to mke good use of leks. king contct with experienced, responsible, strtegiclly sophisticted individuls is dvisble. ewcomers with energy nd enthusism might promise  lot but not deliver, or even indvertently compromise your sitution through crelessness or over-egerness. ome groups re overloded  indeed, most ctivist groups re overloded. e problems re bigger thn wht they hve the time nd energy to del with. o your mteril might get lost in  deluge of incoming issues. ome groups hve pid stff, who re likely to be highly knowledgeble but lso overloded. ometimes  volunteer is  better bet. Few ctivist groups hve much experience with lekers. ey might need time to lern. e combintion of concerned insiders (the lekers) with committed outsiders (the ctivists) cn be extremely powerful. e insiders cn lert the ctivists to buses, plns nd internl thinking, nd cn suggest the sorts of questions or ctions tht would be most effective, for exmple dring rticles, medi releses, freedom of informtion requests or questions to sk in prliment. e ctivists cn tell the insiders wht sorts of issues re most importnt nd wht sorts of informtion would be most useful. WikiLeaks and other online operations WikiLeks ws the rst online system for leking. sing it is very much like posting or emiling documents to  journlist or ctivist, except tht documents re uploded to  website. WikiLeks stff decide whether the mteril is worth publishing. If so, there re two min options. ne is tht the mteril is directly posted online. e other is tht the mteril is rst mde vilble to selected medi outlets before being posted online. WikiLeks thus is nlogous to  publishing opertion, combining the roles of journlist, editor nd publisher. It plys the role of journlist in telling  story bout the leked mteril, though this my involve only  brief introduction to the documents. It plys the role of editor in deciding wht should be published nd in wht form. It plys the role of publisher by posting the documents online. e success of WikiLeks in obtining nd relesing highly contentious mteril, nd coming under ttck, especilly by the  government, hs led to the development of other online leking opertions, nd it is likely tht more will emerge in the future. nline leking hs severl dvntges. e min one is tht publiction of documents occurs online. is gives ongoing visibility worldwide. WikiLeks hs shown courge in publishing mteril tht ntionl medi outlets would not, becuse of likely reprisls. Conventionl publishers nd ctivist groups hve estblished identities nd cn be held ccountble for their ctions. In contrst, most of the members of WikiLeks re unknown to the public. Julin Assnge hs become highly visible, giving the misleding impression tht he is solely responsible for the group’s ctivities. ere re mny others behind the scenes, ensuring tht the systems operte. Anonymity of the publisher dds n extr degree of independence to WikiLeks compred to conventionl publishers. is suggests tht WikiLeks is especilly worth considering for extremely high-impct disclosures, for exmple when reprisls might involve physicl threts. ublicity bout relese of  diplomtic cbles hs overshdowed other WikiLeks exposes, for exmple bout corruption in Africn countries. WikiLeks lso hs some disdvntges. It is seldom possible to personlly discuss documents s you would with  journlist or ctivist  there is no one to help you compose  persusive story. o be effective using WikiLeks, documents need to tell their own story, or be sufficiently interesting to regulr journlists so tht they will write stories bout them. Cynthia Kardell comments If WikiLeks decides to post your mteril, you could  if sufciently svvy  strt blogging or twittering nonymously or posting bits on ouube nd bringing it to the ttention of online ctivist groups. Direct to the public If you wnt, you cn lek direct to your desired udience, without relying on nyone else. In the years before the Internet, Stephen produced a newsletter for his colleagues at work. It was anonymous and unauthorised, and exposed problems in a humorous way. He collected information, wrote little stories and produced a newsletter every couple of months. He did the printing and photocopying at another location. Aer hours, he put copies in the mailboxes of workers — including his own, to reduce suspicion. His bosses never gured out who was doing it. With the Internet, leking directly is firly esy. e bsic ide is to mke copies of documents, or write your own nlysis of the sitution, nd mke this vilble to your udience. ne method is to emil copies to prticulr individuls, expecting tht they will forwrd the emil to others. Another prime method is to post the mteril on  website  nd then emil some people to lert them to the web ddress. o mintin nonymity, precutions re needed. ou cn set up  new emil ccount nd put documents on n nonymous site. ou my need to do ll this from  computer fr from your home, tht cnnot be linked to you. e dvntge of direct leking is tht you don’t need nyone else’s help to get the informtion out (unless you need technicl ssistnce). ou cn control the wy the mteril nd the messge re presented. e disdvntge is tht you my miss out on the dded visibility tht cn come from involving journlists, ctivists or online leking opertions. Remaining anonymous, being effective Bosses nd uthorities will go to mzing lengths to nd out who is leking informtion. intining nonymity cn be  mjor chllenge. o it’s vitl to pln hed, thinking bout wht others might to do trck you down nd expose you, nd mking sure they won’t succeed. e techniques for leking chnge with time, especilly s new technologies become vilble, both for leking nd for controlling informtion nd trcking down lekers. erefore, rther thn providing  detiled prescription for leking, it’s more useful to list the generl res to be wre of. Documents ou hve  document nd send it to n online site. fe enough? ybe not. For exmple, icroso Word documents, under “roperties,” list the uthor nd the computer where it is stored. Before pssing such documents to others, you need to clen the le of ny informtion tht might indicte your involvement. ome employers will chnge the text in documents, in minor, inconspicuous wys, for ech of the recipients. erefore, if the document is published online, the employer might be ble to determine tht it ws the copy given to you or someone else. Even more subtly, n electronic document my contin n invisible signture tht tells when it ws produced nd perhps which copy it is. How creful to be depends on how prnoid the bosses re. It is sfer to be extr creful. o get rid of electronic signtures, for exmple, you might photocopy the document nd then scn the photocopied imge. But be sure to use  photocopier wy from the workplce, becuse some photocopiers leve trces tht cn be used to help trck you down. Computers and messages If you write up n ccount of things tht hve been hppening, it’s very risky to do it on your work computer. our boss, or computer specilists hired by your boss, might go into your computer nd ccess the les. Don’t use your work computer for emils bout leked documents either: they cn be ccessed. o wht bout your home computer, or your phone, or some other device? ese re sfer, but if you relly wnt to be secure, then think hed to the worst scenrio. uppose someone breks into your home nd stels your computer or your phone. ey cn get ccess to ll your les nd emils. If you communicted by computer or phone with n ctivist orgnistion,  burglry or cyber ttck might get ccess to their computers too. ne wy to reduce the risk is to use  phone or computer on  once-only bsis. ou buy  device t  shop where no one knows you nd you py in csh, so there’s no electronic record tying the purchse to you. ou use the device for clls or emils or whtever  nd then throw it out, fr from home, with no ngerprints. is is n occsion when it cn be helpful to be extr cutious. e min thing is to think crefully bout wht the other side might do to trck you down, nd then tke steps to remin invisible, or t lest to crete the possibility of plusible denil. urveillnce techniques re ever more sophisticted, but so re methods of evsion, for exmple using encryption, stenogrphy, proxy servers nd nonymous remilers. nless you’re n informtion technology specilist, you cn’t be expected to lern everything tht’s possible. o use common sense to void obvious trps. If you put your psswords on  slip of pper next to your computer, you’re vulnerble. If you spek loudly on the phone bout reveling secrets, in public when others cn her, you’re t risk. Avoid the big risks rst before worrying bout dvnced methods of cybersurveillnce. Style If you write your own ccount of events, be wre tht your writing style might be used to revel your identity. o you my wish to disguise your writing, which is not s esy s it sounds. our writing might hve some distinctive fetures, for exmple using certin words (or misspelling certin words), dding comms in  certin wy, or cpitlising certin words. ry to understnd your own style, nd gure out  wy to disguise it. For exmple, you might run your text through  trnsltor into nother lnguge nd then bck gin. r you might use voice recognition sowre insted of writing the text yourself, or vice vers. If you hve  trusted friend, get them to edit your writing so it’s no longer your chrcteristic style. If you re leking your ccount to n ctivist group, sk them to edit the text to disguise your writing style. Behaviour Imgine tht you’ve leked documents, nd the story hs just hit the Internet, with lots of comment  including mong your co-workers. ey re ll wondering who mde the disclosure. op mngement is bout to set up n investigtion. How should you behve t this time? e nswer is esy: behve just like you normlly would. If you do nything differently  spek with  louder or soer voice, greet people differently, tlk to different people thn usul  others might suspect you re the leker. ere’s one thing you should do differently: you need to rect to the lek s if you re not the leker. o think how you might rect if it hd been someone else. (And, come to think bout it, mybe one of your co-workers leked the sme documents.) Behve s surprised or perplexed or excited s you might otherwise be. If you’re  lowkey sort of person, then you shouldn’t show much emotion; if you’re tlktive, then you should be tlktive bout this. nder stress, it is chllenging to behve “normlly.” When you don’t py ttention to your own behviour, it is esy enough. However, when you strt pying ttention to how you ct, this cn disrupt your usul ptterns: you become self-conscious. e chllenge is to relx even though you my experience gret tension. ou hve one big dvntge: you cn fke being norml better thn you imgine. Inside, you my feel different, but most others will not notice nything. It’s like when you get up to give  tlk to  lrge crowd. ou think everyone cn tell you’re nervous, but ctully few will notice nything. o just crry on like usul nd you cn pull it off. If there’s n investigtion nd you re  prime suspect, then  different sort of cting is needed. ou need to behve just like you would if you hd been flsely ccused. Imgine tht someone else ws the rel leker. If you’re questioned, respond s if the leker ws this other person. intin your nerve. Remind yourself tht most lekers re never identi ed. Aim to be one of them. Who to tell? ny people, when they hve  secret, hve  gret urge to tell someone else. When  co-worker psses on  juicy piece of gossip, do you immeditely rce to nd someone else to tell? ink bout the times when someone told you  highly personl nd con dentil story. Did you tell nyone else t ll? If you don’t keep secrets esily, you my nd it difficult to lek successfully. ometimes, when leking, it’s best to tell no one. is is possible when you lek documents only. If you tell someone, you need to rely on them to keep the secret. If you mke personl contct nd revel your identity to  journlist or ctivist, you need to rely on them to mintin your nonymity. e more experienced the journlist or ctivist, nd the better their trck record in exposing problems, the more you cn trust them. hould you tell your fmily members? ou need to decide how well they cn keep  secret. It cn be vluble to be ble to discuss mtters with those closest to you. However, if they strt telling others wht you’ve done, your identity might eventully be reveled to your bosses. hould you tell your closest friends? Agin, you need to weigh up the bene ts nd risks. hould you tell your lwyer? is should be sfe  but sometimes isn’t. our lwyer, or  friend of your lwyer, might work for the other side, nmely your employer, nd your employer hs  lot more money thn you do. Choosing methods uppose you’ve decided tht leking is the wy to go. How should you do it? hould you meet with  journlist, use emil, set up  website … there re severl options. How should you choose? Here re some fctors to consider. Security. Who is going to nd out? How esy will it be for you to deny it ws you? Convenience. It might be much esier to lek in some wys thn others. ybe phoning is esy, nd secure too becuse you hve  phone not linked to you. ybe using  sfe computer is wkwrd, becuse you need to go to nother loction, nd doing so rises suspicions in your fmily. Familiarity. If you’re comfortble using  prticulr method, you’re more likely to use it effectively. If encryption or secret meetings cuse you to freeze up, try something you’re used to. Practice. If you’re ble to prctise beforehnd, you cn improve t using the method nd then, when you need it the most, you’ll be much better t it. If you hve  reson to contct ctivists, you’ll know wht’s involved nd hve  better sense of who to trust. If your job llows you to prctise methods for computer security, use the opportunity to improve your skills. Sustainability. ou’ve chosen  method to lek  cn you keep using it, next week, next month or even yers from now? If there’s  need to keep leking, you need  method you cn mintin. General availability. If you’re prt of  tem of lekers, then your methods should be ones tht two or more people cn use. If one leker is cught or leves or needs to keep  low pro le, then others cn tke their plce. If you’re  lone leker, think bout the exmple you set for your co-workers: some of them might feel inspired by your exmple. If the method you’ve used seems ttrctive to them  or even just possible  they re more likely to tke it up. e question “How should I go bout leking?” doesn’t hve  single best nswer. ere re ll sorts of considertions to tke into ccount, ech one involving dvntges nd disdvntges. It’s worthwhile to spend time nd effort guring out the wy to proceed. ou my decide not to lek t ll, but if you do wnt to do it, choose  resonble method nd go hed when the time is right. Leking cn be very effective. Employers demonstrte this when they lunch efforts to trck down lekers. ese efforts oen end in filure: mny lekers re successful, in tht they get the informtion out nd don’t suffer reprisls. However, the efforts to trck down lekers hve  second gol: to scre workers so they won’t lek. o think of this: how cn you lek in  wy tht gets the messge out nd so the subsequent hunt for the leker  for you  ctully helps show the problem you’re trying to expose? ybe there’s no wy to do this, but if there is, it puts the employer in  bind: either just ccept tht leking will occur, or serch for the leker nd mke things worse. Conclusion Leking hs two min dvntges: you cn get the messge out without reprisls, nd remin in the job to do more lter, if needed. However, it’s not n esy option. en there re serious hunts to nd the leker, which mens you need to tke precutions nd put up  flse front. Leking involves  degree of deception  you don’t revel wht you’ve done  which needs to be weighed ginst potentil gins. e most importnt considertion for potentil lekers is to pln hed. is mens thinking crefully bout wht informtion or documents to lek nd who to send them to. It mens nticipting the likely things the employer will do to trck you down, nd guring out wys to foil them. It mens being prepred to continue with your work s if you hdn’t been involved. It mens understnding your co-workers, your fmily, your friends nd nyone else you think you might wnt to tell, nd deciding whether telling them will help or hurt. ometimes they re better off not knowing, nd tht cn mke it lonely for you the leker. ou need to decide whether this will feel cceptble for you emotionlly. If you pln fr hed, you cn strt lerning bout skills for leking even though you think you’ll never need them. ou cn lern bout successful leks, cquire computer skills, prctise seeing whether people cn keep  secret, nd lern wht sorts of mteril re best suited for documenting nd exposing  problem. If you help others to lern the sme skills, then mybe one of them will become the leker insted of you  nd it will be hrder to pin suspicion on ny individul. e more people who know how to lek, the esier it will be for whoever decides to be  leker. e more people who know how to lek, the hrder it is for corrupt opertors to hide wht they re doing. ink of it this wy: the more you nd others spred the messge nd skills for leking, the less likely ny of you will ever need to do it. Appendix: hotline services ome compnies provide  service to client businesses: they receive disclosures from employees nd inform mngement bout the problems. uppose your employer subscribes to  hotline service clled C (top Corruption). ou cn emil or phone C with informtion bout n buse you’ve observed nd C will tell mngement  without identifying you. ou my choose to identify yourself to C, or remin nonymous. ese sorts of services re  combintion of officil chnnels nd leking. ey re like officil chnnels becuse your disclosure remins with mngement: there is no wider udience to provide ccountbility. ey re like leking becuse you cn remin nonymous. If the hotline service is mnged by your employer, rther thn n outside compny, it is less likely to be effective, nd your identity could be compromised. Bewre! o decide whether to use n independent hotline service, use ll the precutions for both officil chnnels nd leking. For exmple, try to nd out the success rte of hotline disclosures. Are they cted on? How quickly? With wht effect? ry to determine how well your identity is protected. If in doubt, tke extr steps, such s ringing from  phone tht cn’t be linked to you. Hotlines re most likely to be helpful for problems tht re not thretening to mngement, such s steling by employees. When top mngers re prt of the problem, consider other options. 9 Building support Building support mens getting others on your side. ere re severl importnt techniques, including: • • • • • • • prepring  written ccount person-to-person pproches support groups ction groups letters websites using medi. e bsic ide in building support is to win people to your point of view  nmely tht there is  problem nd something needs to be done bout it. f course, when you use officil chnnels you re trying to win certin people to your point of view, nmely those people in uthority, such s mngers, judges or politicins. e ide in building support, in contrst, is to tke your messge to lots of other people, such s co-workers, clients, neighbours nd the generl public. o compre different pproches, it’s useful to use digrms. Let’s strt with the people nd groups who hve the most swy in society, including top politicins, heds of big corportions nd in uentil gures in government deprtments, medi, professions, unions nd churches. I will cll them powerholders. powerholders ext, note tht there re different groups of powerholders. ometimes they support ech other nd sometimes they clsh. powerholders powerholders powerholders Linked to one of the groups of powerholders is  policy or prctice tht is the problem you re concerned bout. It might be due to: •  decision the powerholders mde nd support, but you think hs bd consequences for others ere’s no perfect term for these people. ou might prefer  different lbel. • “Elites.” is my suggest, incorrectly, tht these people re more tlented thn others, or better in some other wy. Actully, the key distinction is tht they exercise more power. o they might be clled “power elites.” • “Decision mkers.” However, everyone mkes decisions. Elites mke decisions tht hve more impct. • “owerholders.” ome critics sy tht people don’t hold power; insted, they exercise power by getting others, by fer, hbit or conviction, to do wht they wnt. • “e estblishment.” is suggests tht powerholders re  solid, cohesive group, which my not be the cse. • • • • • •  decision bd for everyone, powerholders included no decision where one is needed ignornce of the problem corrupt prctice incompetent or bullying mngement other fctors. Whtever the cse, you think this policy or prctice needs ttention, whether investigtion, reform, bolition or replcement. How cn you bring bout chnge? ne pproch cn be clled “ppel to elites.” Bsiclly, this mens tht you sk powerholders to tke ction. powerholders powerholders powerholders Direct appeal to powerholders person policy, practice e clssic exmple is writing  letter to the president or prime minister, or to heds of compnies, government deprtments or television sttions. e sme pproch is involved, in  lesser scle, in contcting the boss, the mnger of  locl shop or hed of  sporting club. is pproch hs  chnce when you know the powerholder personlly or when the problem is smll or nonthretening. If you re on good terms with the boss,  politicin or the hed of the locl police sttion, you might be ble to mke  suggestion nd hve it tken up. Lesley Pinson comments In trying to gin the support of others nd to get them to ct, it is importnt to consider wht might motivte them to ct. Wht could they gin by cting? is might chnge the wy you pproch them. thers will hve different interests thn yours. For exmple,  politicin might be more motivted to push for n investigtion into your llegtions if this would prove dmging to other politicl prties. ou’ll get further by providing  motivtion for others to ct thn by simply demnding n investigtion nd expecting people to ct ccordingly. When the stkes re higher nd when you hve no personl connections, your chnce of success is tiny  even if wht you suggest is eminently sensible. e trouble is tht the powerholders re most strongly ffected by ech other nd by the need to mintin their power. Furthermore, from their point of view they hve only  limited scope for ction becuse of ll the obstcles they fce. A politicin cn receive more correspondence nd reports in  dy thn they cn red in  week with nothing else to do, nd not hve  hope of chieving more thn  few of the mny things they’d like to do. ey might ctully feel powerless themselves. ey re high-level cogs in  system of power. o your ppel is not herd. Another option is officil chnnels. is includes grievnce procedures, ombudsmen nd courts, s described in chpter . When you think bout it, it turns out tht ll these chnnels were set up by the powerholders. ey re ment to be independent, of powerholders powerholders official channel powerholders policy, practice Using official channels person course, but in prctice they hve strong links with the powerholders. our pproch now is to be herd successfully through the officil chnnels which, in turn, will in uence the powerholders. ome ofcil chnnels hve quite  lot of independence, notbly the courts. thers, like grievnce procedures, my be independent in nme but little else. If evidence nd logic ren’t enough to get powerholders to ct, n lterntive is to pply pressure. ou win the support of friends nd co-workers. ou get neighbours to sign  petition. ou go on rdio. ou get n endorsement from locl businesses nd professionls. All of these individuls nd groups demnd chnge. is is essentilly wht is clled pressure group politics. Insted of using logic nd evidence to persude powerholders to ct, other methods re used: letters, petitions, meetings, medi coverge, voting, rllies. In pressure group politics, the im is to use numbers nd in uence to get ction from powerholders. oliticins oen respond if they think populr support is t stke. Corporte executives oen respond if they think sles re t risk. But there re no gur- powerholders powerholders Pressure group politics powerholders others person policy, practice others ntees. Remember tht powerholders re powerfully in uenced by other powerholders. ou might hve mssive populr support but some other group my hve more money or inside in uence. Another option is direct ction. Insted of getting someone else to ct, you do it yourself, usully er gining some populr support. others Direct action person policy, practice others Junit ws concerned bout  nerby vcnt block of lnd. It ws overgrown nd sometimes used s  dump. Recently there hd been ghts there between groups of youths. ince it ws city-owned lnd, Junit wrote to the myor suggesting tht the block be mde into  prk, gretly needed in this prt of town. Aer six months she received  reply sying tht her suggestion would be exmined. he next tried the lnd commission, supposedly set up to del with con- icting clims over lnd use. is lso led nowhere. o she strted tlking to neighbours, orgnised  public meeting, wrote letters to the newspper nd even held  protest t the lnd commission ofces. As  result of this gittion, Junit found mny supporters. he herd bout similr problems elsewhere in the city. he lso herd, from disgruntled city officils, tht vcnt blocks like this were purposely being llowed to run down so they could be sold off to developers t  low price, in exchnge for py-offs to politicins. Junit continued to mobilise support. Aer lots of preprtion, one dy she nd  lrge group of neighbours clered rubbish from the site, clened it up, plnted owers nd shrubs, instlled recretionl equipment, nd strted using the block s  prk. However, erly in the morning  week lter, government workers clered the site nd put up  brricde to keep people out. e struggle ws just beginning. In this exmple, Junit used four pproches: ppel to elites, officil chnnels, pressure group politics nd direct ction. However, there’s no requirement to use them in this sequence, or to use ll of them. Ech cse is different. In ech pproch, there is  need to win over some people. • Appel to elites. ou need to convince the powerholders. • fficil chnnels. ou need to convince relevnt officils, such s judges. • ressure group politics. ou need to convince vrious people, including individuls nd leders of orgnistions in the community, nd win over some of them strongly enough so they will help. ou don’t hve to convince powerholders, just put enough pressure on them to ct. • Direct ction. ou need to convince t lest some people to be powerfully committed, enough to tke direct ction themselves. If you hve truth on your side but wht you hve to sy is thretening to powerful interests, then ppeling to elites or using officil chnnels is very unlikely to work. ou do hve  chnce of convincing other people though  those who re not compromised by the powerful interests. is is the process of building support. It’s the min subject of this chpter. Building support is obviously importnt for pressure group politics nd direct ction, but it is lso importnt when ppeling to elites nd using officil chnnels. If officils know there is  groundswell of public opinion on  subject, they re much more likely to respond to letters nd forml complints. Anyone plnning to use officil chnnels should be wre of the vlue of building support. ere re vrious spects to building support, including pproching people, writing letters, nd using the medi. ere’s no xed order for using these techniques, nor ny necessity to use ny of them. o the order I tret them here is just for convenience. Preparing a written account It’s extremely useful to hve  written ccount of your cse or the problem tht concerns you. It’s not essentil, since you cn mke do with telling people bout the sitution, giving them relevnt officil documents or news rticles, nd referring them to others. A written ccount, though, mkes things  lot esier. • Insted of hving to tell ech new person the entire story, you cn give them the write-up. • e write-up cn be n orgnising tool, for exmple circulted long with  petition or sent to potentil supporters. • Journlists will present the fcts more ccurtely if they cn refer to  short tretment. • e process of writing n ccount my help you gin  better overll grsp of the key fetures in the cse. Wht you need is  short tretment. ne pge is idel. wo pges ( tting on one sheet of pper) re oky. If you hve  longer tretment, it’s helpful to hve  short summry. Jean Lennane comments It is just plin rude to expect someone to red through  thick pile of documents  some les re ve centimetres thick!  especilly with no summry. Don’t ssume your cse is so importnt tht others must red it no mtter how you present it. It is simply courtesy to mke it esy for others to understnd your cse  nd this cn help win them over s well. e rst thing to decide is wht the write-up is bout. ny cses re incredibly complex, with mny dimensions. ou need to decide wht you think is the most importnt issue nd focus on tht. Gle becme  friend nd supporter to  young girl, Alet, who hd physicl nd mentl disbilities. ome of the tretment tht Alet received from certin fmily members ws terrible. Furthermore, government disbility service orgnistions hd n pplling record in ddressing Alet’s needs. Gle, in stnding up for Alet, ws criticised by vrious people nd soon discovered tht government bodies hd  poor record in lots of cses. Gle decided to write n ccount to tell people bout the problems. Wht should she focus on? ome possibilities re: a) e story of Alet’s life: who she is nd wht she hs experienced b) c) d) e) f) Alet’s most impertive needs Wht needs to hppen to improve Alet’s sitution e filure of fmily nd government to fully support Alet Gle’s own problems in trying to support Alet Generl problems with government disbility services e nswer depends on Gle’s gols. If her primry gol is to help Alet, the focus probbly should be A, B or C with some points from D nd mybe E. If her primry gol is to chnge government disbility services, the focus should be F, possibly using Alet’s story s n illustrtion. ou lso need to decide wht to include. sully there is so much mteril tht it seems impossible to imgine  short tretment. How cn yers of struggle be summrised in  few prgrphs? ere’s no wy every detil or exmple cn be included. o you hve to mke some tough decisions. Here re some criteri. • Every sttement should be true. If nyone might dispute it (including by lying), you should hve documenttion to bck it up. • Items should be understndble to n ordinry reder  strightforwrd nd not requiring specil knowledge. • Items should be clerly relted to the min focus of the write-up. • If possible, the mteril chosen should be ble to be put together so tht it tells  story. Alterntively, it should use evidence nd logicl rgument to build towrds  conclusion. Gle decided to write n rticle bout Alet. he wrote down  long list of things tht could be included, nd then struck out the weker ones. • Gle hd lots of informtion bout Alet’s disbilities nd helth problems, including how they were dignosed nd treted, emer- gency visits to hospitls nd so forth. For exmple, Alet hd specil problems with llergies due to her other disbilities. Gle decided to include only  bsic sttement bout Alet’s disbilities. ost of the medicl history wsn’t relevnt to the min story. • Alet hd been ssulted on severl occsions, lmost certinly by one prticulr fmily member. But Gle hd no hrd proof of ssult. o she included the fct tht  doctor hd documented severe bruising on Alet tht ws very unlikely to be ccidentl or self-in icted. • Gle hd  lot of informtion bout how obtining services for Alet hd been obstructed s  result of  ruling by  court tht hd been interpreted by n gency in  peculir wy, nd only chnged s  result of severl ppels nd n involved process involving severl gencies. Gle decided tht the complictions of the legisltion nd dministrtion of services would be too hrd to explin in  short ccount, nd so replced them by  short sttement summrising the net effect. Hving decided the focus of the write-up nd wht sort of items re to be included, it’s time to write. If you re n experienced writer or hve no worries bout doing it, go hed. n the other hnd, if, like mny people, you re not used to writing nd re worried it will be horrible, here re  few suggestions. • Imgine you re writing  letter bout the cse to  reltive or friend  someone you feel sfe sying nything to. • Go hed nd write down everything. Don’t worry bout length or qulity. Just keep writing. ou cn x up problems lter. • If you hve difficulty writing the rst sentence, just strt writing nything. “I’m hving trouble getting strted. t’s becuse I don’t know wht to sy rst, nd I’m worried bout wht it will look like. hould I strt with …” • Write for just or minutes nd wit until tomorrow to continue. In  few dys or weeks you’ll hve written plenty. Getting  rst dr is just the beginning of the process. Here’s  typicl sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Write  rst dr. Revise. Revise. Revise. Give the dr to  few friends nd supporters, requesting their comments. Revise in the light of comments. Revise. Give the revised dr to severl other people for comments. Revise. Give the polished dr to specilists in the eld to check fcts. Hve someone check for defmtion. Revise. roofred (check spelling, grmmr, etc.). rint. roofred once more before distribution. ou my not need to go through such  lengthy process. ome experienced people cn throw together n eloquent rticle in n hour or two. Journlists do it ll the time. But if this is the rst time you hve written bout this issue, then tking lots of cre is wise nd worthwhile. It ll my seem  lot of trouble just for  little rticle. However, it’s not much compred to the money nd effort you’d put in going through n officil chnnel. A well-constructed rticle cn be n incredibly potent tool. Let’s go bck to the sequence. Aer step , the rst dr, there re three types of steps: revision, getting comments, nd proofreding. Revision mens going through wht you’ve written nd improving it: checking fcts nd xing the wy you’ve expressed them; rewriting sentences to mke them clerer; dding or deleting mteril; nd checking spelling nd grmmr. Be sure to include  title, if possible one tht is short, descriptive nd ppeling. At the beginning of the write-up, it’s oen effective to hve  summry, one or two sentences long. At the end there should be  concluding prgrph tht contins the min points. ou my lso wnt to include some extrs: references, further reding, photos or crtoons, nd documents in support of your clims. When you’ve done s much revising s you cn, so you’re not sure how to improve it further, it’s time to obtin some feedbck. Inviting other people to give you comments is vitl for severl resons. ou my be so close to the issue tht you hven’t explined bsic things. is is quite common. ther people re fresher to the issue. ost of ll, they re your potentil udience, nd they my be ble to tell you how to communicte to them more effectively. If they re specilists in some re, they my be ble to help with technicl points. ot everyone is good t giving comments. Idelly, you need someone who is sympthetic but skilled t giving you speci c suggestions for improvement  such s which prgrphs to omit, wht points to emphsise more, whether to reorgnise the mteril, chnge the tone, etc. our friends my be frid to hurt your feelings nd just sy it’s good. When this hppens, sk them which prts they liked the most, nd then sk which prts could be improved  nd how. en there re people who re criticl but not helpful. If they sy it’s too negtive or too complicted, sk which prts re cusing the problem nd how they might be chnged. Comments re just tht: comments. ou don’t hve to gree with them. ou might think tht some comments re bsed on ignornce or prejudice. Remember, though, tht even ill-informed comments give you useful feedbck. ey show you re not communicting s well s you could to tht person. Even if wht you’ve written is ccurte, you might decide to rewrite it so it communictes better. As you get towrds the nl version, it’s time to py more ttention to proofreding. is my seem  trivil mtter, but even one misspelled word sends  signl to some reders tht this text is not completely ccurte. Check every detil yourself nd get one or two others to do it too. With word processors, it’s strightforwrd to produce professionl-looking printing. o mke it look nice. Get someone experienced to help if necessry. And becuse every time you do nything with  text, it’s possible to introduce errors, it’s worth proofreding the nl version before mking copies to distribute. Wht bout getting someone else to write your story? If they re keen, good t writing nd sympthetic, it’s n excellent option. ou will hve  little less control over the nl product. n the other hnd, someone not so close to the events my be ble to prepre  more blnced nd effective tretment. Writing is one method of communiction. It is lso possible to produce udio or video records of your story. ese could be for rdio or television but lso could be to post on ouube. roducing effective recordings is  skill like ny other, but unless you hve experience in this lredy it’s probbly esier to produce  written ccount. Written text is fr more efficient for conveying fctul informtion: people cn scn  pge of writing to get  quick impression more esily thn they cn listen to  recording. n the other hnd, recordings  especilly video  cn hve  much more powerful emotionl impct. If you become involved in producing udio or video, the sme procedure s writing pplies. e script needs to be written, revised, commented on nd checked. It needs to be in  style pproprite for the medium   good rdio script is quite different from  text for reding. en there re the stges of producing the recording, followed by editing, gin  process requiring continued revision nd polishing. If you follow this pth, be sure to hve full support from someone with plenty of skill nd experience. Person-to-person approaches ne of the foundtion stones of building support is contcting people on  one-to-one bsis. is is nerly lwys involved t some level or other. e key questions re who to contct nd who should do the contcting. It’s esy to think tht tlking to someone bout the issues is  strightforwrd mtter tht doesn’t require ny preprtion. lnning your pproch beforehnd sounds like mnipultion, right? Wrong! nipultion mens trying to get people to do something ginst their better judgement. ou don’t need tht with truth on your side. ou just need to be n effective dvocte for your cuse. lnning helps. If you hve come under ttck, you re likely to be stressed nd possibly trumtised. is mens it’s very hrd to pper “norml” nd to be n effective communictor. ou my become nervous or depressed tlking bout the issue. e sme pplies if you re pssionte bout n issue nd likely to become excited or ngry. In this cse, it my help to tlk things over  your own emotionl stte s well s the issues  with  close friend, reltive or trusted counsellor before you venture to pproch others. When it comes to tlking to people bout the issues, it cn be useful to clssify people into different groups. ne useful brekdown is likely sympthisers, likely neutrls nd likely opponents. Likely sympathisers re people who probbly gree with your views on the mtter, t lest in crucil res. is my include friends, some co-workers nd some outsiders. For exmple, if you re exposing illegl py-offs in n orgnistion, likely sympthisers might include friends (except those with ties to the guilty prties), co-workers who re not implicted, nd those losing money from the py-offs. Likely neutrals re people who wouldn’t utomticlly tke  stnd one wy or nother, oen becuse they don’t know nything bout it or don’t know the people involved. In the cse of the illegl py-offs, this might include workers in  different division nd most people outside the orgnistion. Likely opponents re people who probbly will oppose you. ey my include those who, for whtever reson, dislike you, plus those who re thretened by your ction on this issue. ose involved in the py-off opertion plus those who hve covered it up, plus nyone you’ve liented in the pst, re likely opponents. Before you pproch nybody, it’s worth deciding wht you wnt to chieve nd how you’re going to go bout it. It cn be disstrous to rrnge  meeting with someone nd then dump on them t gret length with  confusing story punctuted with nger, outrge nd self-pity. ve the rves for those willing to support you emotionlly. With likely sympthisers, it cn be pproprite to give  modertely lengthy ccount. But check rst. If they re busy, be brief. But s well s telling the story, explin why you re telling it. erhps you re seeking their dvice. erhps you’d like some support, such s signing  petition, writing  letter, commenting on  dr rticle, ttending  meeting, speking to others or to the medi. If you re seeking dvice, sy so t the beginning. If you re seeking support, it’s oen better to sve requests until lter, judging how responsive the person is s you go long. If they re very sympthetic, you cn sk outright for support: “Would you be willing to write  letter?” If you’re not sure, one technique is to describe wht you’re trying to chieve nd how people cn help. For exmple, “ere’s going to be  meeting next week to discuss tking ction on the pyoff issue. If you know nyone who’d like to ttend, here’s the phone number of the orgniser.” ne of the most useful things you cn get from sympthisers is dvice. ose who hve been through  similr sitution or cmpign before cn be especilly useful. Any time you’re telling your story to someone, it is vluble to observe how they respond. ympthisers, though, re more likely to give you hints on how to improve, especilly if you sk. “Do you think we should focus on the tringer py-off or on the whole py-off culture?” “Will  petition to the bord be ny use?” In pproching neutrls,  suitble gol is to mke them wre of the issues nd more sympthetic to your point of view. erhps  few my be willing to tke ction on your behlf, but tht shouldn’t be the min gol. Rther, it is to chnge the generl climte of opinion. e vst bulk of neutrls re people out in the community who know little or nothing bout the issues. If you cn convince them tht illegl py-offs re occurring, most will become more sympthetic to those doing something bout it. e generl climte of opinion, in the long run, cn be quite potent. It mens tht opponents hve fewer sympthisers. It mens tht when the issue comes before  mnger,  rivl rm’s owner,  judge or  politicin, tht person my hve been in uenced, either directly or by comments from  fmily member,  co-worker,  friend or cli- ent. When  person in  crucil position hers comments  “Did you know bout the py-off opertion? It’s  rel scndl.”  from  dughter or dentist, it my not mke  difference. But sometimes it does. Approching opponents is lso worthwhile. A resonble gol is to mke them less hostile, perhps to become  neutrl. It cn be quite  chllenge to pproch those you think re responsible for problems nd to present your viewpoint in  resonble mnner. et there is much to be gined if you cn hndle the sitution. ou don’t need to be hostile or to expect  conversion. ou cn simply sy you’d like to present your point of view nd tht even if they don’t gree with it perhps they cn understnd where you’re coming from. is cn be helpful since it is hrder to demonise someone who is mking  sincere effort to mintin dilogue. f course, n extremely hostile opponent my interpret nything you sy in the wrong mnner nd use ny wekness in your cse s  point of ttck. If you think it’s too risky, then don’t mke the pproch, or get  sympthiser to do it. If your cse is long nd complex  like most cses!  then  written summry is  vluble tool even with sympthisers. Aer reding the ccount, they cn sk questions nd you cn mplify points tht re especilly relevnt to them. For neutrls,  written ccount is even more vluble: it puts them in the picture quickly nd efficiently. With opponents,  written ccount gives them your point of view in  precise wy tht might be hrd to chieve verblly, especilly if the meeting mkes you very tense. Creating a support group A support group is  group of people who give emotionl support to ech other. embers of the group oen hve common experi- ences or gols. For exmple, there re support groups for women who hve been sexully bused, for people with dibetes, nd for whistleblowers. Alcoholics Anonymous is  type of support group. e power of  support group comes from shring common experiences. ny people who suffer from discrimintion, disese or ssult feel terribly lone  others just do not understnd wht they re experiencing. eeting others in the sme sitution, nd listening nd tlking bout wht they’ve gone through, is informtive nd helps with the heling process. If  support group lredy exists tht suits your sitution, then ttend nd judge for yourself. If not, you cn set one up. All you need is two or three other people in  similr sitution. et  time, invite people, meet nd tlk. e best wy to lern bout how to mke support groups work is to ttend some nd to tlk to people experienced in running them. ere re some stndrd ptterns. eople ttending re llowed  fir opportunity to spek. thers listen without pssing judgement. Con dentility is expected (though there cn never be bsolute gurntees). en there re rules (stted or ssumed) bout how long people spek, who cn ttend, wht issues re ddressed, etc. ere is no need for office berers, minutes, motions or voting. eetings re for shring experiences, not for conducting business. ometimes the biggest chllenge is getting  group going. eople my sy they re coming but not show up. ize isn’t ll tht vitl. Even meeting with just one other person  or tlking on the phone  cn be very helpful. Another problem is when  group gets lrge, perhps over  dozen people. is mens time for ech person to spek is limited. A simple solution is to brek into two smller groups t the time. o ensure  smooth opertion, it is very helpful if someone involved hs experience in fcilittion of meetings. ometimes there is  committed person who is willing to do this  who my or my not be someone with the sme experiences s the others. Becuse people in support groups re oen under  lot of stress, there cn be conicts. An experienced fcilittor will be ble to del with difficulties. ou cn lso consult books deling with fcilittion. Here re  few suggestions. • ke sure everyone is introduced. A key prt of ny meeting is meeting people. • ke sure ground rules re cler. Is smoking permitted? Wht time will the meeting nish? Who is fcilitting? For sensitive nd personl issues, it’s oen wise to request tht people tret mtters s con dentil, but wrn everyone tht there cn be no gurntees, so they should tke tht into ccount. • Give everyone  chnce to spek who wnts to. is might be t ech meeting or over  series of meetings. is my men setting  time limit for ech person’s story. Even for the best fcilittor, it cn be  chllenge getting  speker who is pssionte or distressed when telling their own story to operte within  strict time limit. • If the im is support, then hostile comments by others should be discourged nd openly countered. It cn help to sy tht no one hs to gree with nyone else, or believe someone else’s story, nd tht the im is to help ech person to help themselves. • Before nishing, mke rrngements for ny future meetings nd be cler bout who hs responsibility for them. A support group helps, in severl wys, in the process of building support. It puts people with similr concerns in touch with ech other, gives them insights into the problem they confront, gives them the energy to keep going, nd so cn provide  lunching point for ction. Creating an action group As the nme implies, the primry purpose of n ction group is ction  doing something to chnge things. “Action” cn be de ned in vrious wys. It cn include: • • • • • • • • • • writing letters mking phone clls fce-to-fce lobbying circulting petitions soliciting support door-to-door setting up websites holding meetings joining rllies speking on street corners joining  strike, boycott or sit-in. ere re ll sorts of ction groups, such s environmentl nd humn rights groups, of which the best known re Greenpece nd Amnesty Interntionl. e primry im of  support group is to help individuls by shring experiences. An ction group, in contrst, is oriented to doing things involving, or communicting to, people outside the group. e word “support” is used here in two relted but slightly different wys. A support group provides mutul help, wheres “building support” mens  process of winning llies. In prctice, the two re oen mixed. Action groups provide support nd some support groups decide to tke ction. ere cn be  tension between the two functions, nd it’s best to be cler just wht is intended. If you re interested in chnging the system, rst nd out whether n ction group lredy exists, even in  relted re. For exmple, if you hve discovered tht  certin bnk is misleding frmers nd smll businesses nd stripping them of their ssets, you should investigte ny ction groups tht del with the bnking sector or, more generlly, with economic issues or corruption. ne of the best wys to nd out wht groups exist is to contct other groups. Activists often know wht’s hppening outside their own re of specil interest. Librries hve lists of community orgnistions. If there’s no group, you cn strt one. ou just need to nd other people who hve similr concerns nd cll  meeting. If your concerns re speci c, you my need to broden the issue. our personl interest my be in exploittive prctices by  prticulr bnk; you cn broden this to include ll bnks, ll nncil institutions, or even corporte exploittion of customers generlly. ere is vlue in cmpigns tht trget prticulr orgnistions but there is lso vlue in developing  brod picture of the problem. Wht should n ction group do? is is n enormous topic. ere re lots of skills involved, such s writing medi releses, motivting members, plnning cmpigns, mintining  web presence, obtining funds, running n office nd orgnising vigils nd rllies. e best wy to lern such skills is through prctice. ry to nd n experienced ctivist who will give you tips, or join n ction group  one you re in sympthy with, of course!  in order to lern skills. In most cities there re dozens or hundreds of ction groups of ll sizes, orienttions nd styles. In rurl res nd smll towns, there my not be so much to choose from. evertheless, there re usully some people who hve experience in tking ction. Ask round to nd out who they re nd then pproch them to lern wht you cn. ere re lso some good books on tking ction (see the references section t the end of this book). An ction group doesn’t need to be lrge to be effective. In  group with  dozen members, oen just one, two or three re the driving force nd do much of the work. o if you hve  group with just two or three ctivists, tht is enough to ccomplish  lot. Indeed, mny groups tht seem impressive on the outside re mostly the work of one dedicted individul who writes letters, produces  newsletter, orgnises meetings, nd ppers on the medi. Letters uppose you hve exposed n opertion in which trde licences re given to people without proper quli ctions in exchnge for vrious fvours. ere re ttempts to discredit your clims, your work is put under intense scrutiny nd you hve been thretened with losing your job. If you write  letter to the top mnger, tht won’t help much  tht’s where the thret cme from! Also,  letter from you on your own behlf hs limited impct becuse it cn be dismissed s specil pleding. But if someone else writes to the mnger expressing concern bout the licence issue nd supporting your role, tht’s  different story. It ccomplishes severl things. • It involves someone else supporting your stnd. • It shows the mnger tht someone else supports your stnd. • It provides n exmple to others of how they might support your stnd. e someone else cn be clled  “third prty.” e rst nd second prties re you nd the mnger (or perhps the orgnistion s  whole). In  dispute between two prties, nyone else is  third prty. ird prties re independent nd oen seen tht wy. e whole process of building support involves getting third prties to tke your side. When members of Amnesty Interntionl write to governments on behlf of politicl prisoners, their impct comes from being seen s third prties. ey re “someone else” nd they cre. AI members don’t write on behlf of prisoners in their own countries. ne reson is tht ppels hve greter impct when they come from someone without ny obvious personl stke in the issue. Another is possible dnger from supporting locl dissidents  lso  relevnt considertion in the cse of whistleblowers. In pursuing your own cse, it is  gret dvntge to hve someone else tke inititives on your behlf. e more independent the person seems to be, nd the less they stnd to gin, the better. A person’s lwyers re not perceived s independent; er ll, they re pid to be dvoctes. Fmily members or business collegues re  little better. omeone from  eld with  reputtion for independence, such s  judge or scholr, is even better. f course, reputtions cn be creted nd destroyed. ome lwyers cn estblish n ur of objectivity nd some scholrs cn be discredited. Bck to the writing of letters. If one third prty writing  letter to the mnger hs n impct, then the impct is incresed if severl others write letters. is shows the mnger tht quite  number of people know bout the issue nd re concerned enough to tke the effort of writing. How re you to get people to write such letters? ou cn, of course, tlk to them, explin the cse nd give them informtion on Karen Silkwood, a technician at a US nuclear fuel-rod factory, raised concerns about workplace hazards, and died in suspicious circumstances. She was played by Meryl Streep in the lm ilkwood. who to write to. At this point, hving  write-up bout the cse, with  few documents to bck it up, is quite effective. It lso mens tht you cn tke the issue to wider udiences. For exmple, you cn post your write-up to selected people in other prts of the country or the world. Imgine you re  chief executive officer. our deputy hs reported tht n employee, Jones, whose performnce is suspect, hs mde scurrilous llegtions bout impropriety in  subsidiry. Which pproch do you tke more seriously? e rave ou scroll through  gint le sent by Jones. ou red  few prgrphs, but it’s not quite cler t rst glnce wht the llegtions re. ou notice tht Jones’ document  n “open letter”  hs been sent to dozens of politicins, government officils nd prominent gures. It’s lled with clims bout corruption, denounced in CAIAL LEER AD ECLAAI I!!! In fct, you my not red this t ll: your secretry might hve eliminted it from your in-try s not worthy of ttention. e concerned query ree letters hve rrived in the pst month from individuls expressing concern bout the llegtions tht Jones hs rised. ey sk you to look into the mtter personlly with n open mind. ey lso sy tht they hve the highest regrd for Jones’ integrity nd performnce. e rve might be bsed on  foundtion of fcts, yet it is quite unlikely to be effective becuse it is not trgeted, mkes excessive nd unsupported llegtions, uses the wrong style nd it comes from the ggrieved prty. e concerned query is written personlly ddressed (to the CE), is  query rther thn  sweeping ccustion, is modest in style nd comes from someone who is pprently independent. e concerned query my not be effective either, but it hs  better chnce. ere is no single “best style.” Wht’s pproprite for  CE is not wht works best for  rdio sound-bite. e point is tht the style should be tilored for the udience nd the purpose. ending letters, nd getting others to send letters, cn be  potent method of building support. Letters to  boss, dministrtor or politicin my not chnge nything directly, but they do involve people tking ction. o tke the issue to wider udiences, letters cn be sent to other orgnistions, ction groups, people with  specil interest in the re, nd the medi, mong others. ere re numerous vritions. If someone is willing to give support by writing  letter, think crefully bout where it might hve the most impct. A letter to the president sounds good, but lterntives might be better. Wht bout  letter to the newsletter of  trde union or professionl ssocition? A letter tht is seen by mny others is more likely to build further support. Letters cn be hnd-delivered, posted, emiled or put online. e old-fshioned forml letter still hs  certin edge in terms of presenttion nd impct  it cn be posted or ttched to n emil. Emil hs the dvntge of being very esy to send nd reply to. By the sme token, mny people receive so much emil tht one more my be lost in the clutter. t’s ll the more reson to tke  lot of cre in presenting  cler nd succinct messge. Websites erly every business hs  website  so why not  whistleblower? utting mteril on the web mkes it vilble to the world in exctly the wy you wnt to present it. otentilly it’s  huge step in building support. It’s simple to do  t lest it seems simple. If you decide to put your story on the web, wht should be included? e esiest wy to strt is with the write-up you prepred (discussed erlier in this chpter). It should be completely ccurte, strightforwrd to red, nd comprehensible to n outsider. Remember tht web pges cn be seen nywhere in the world, so your story might be red in Chile, Kore or Algeri. o mke sure you sy where nd when things hppened nd brie y indicte the significnce of locl nd ntionl fetures such s orgnistions. ost likely, your story is long nd complex, so it is tempting to put the whole thing on your site. But rst sk, “Who wnts to red this?” nly  few people will be interested in the detils of your cse. ore will be interested in the messge from the story: they wnt to lern something bout or from your experience. o you might wnt to hve  tke-home messge, which could be bout how the system works, wht you did tht mde  difference or wht you lerned from the sg. When people open  webpge, they immeditely mke  decision bout whether to spend ny time on it. e title is crucil, nd so re the rst few sentences. Hve  look t other web pges to see wht looks ttrctive nd mkes you wnt to red further. ou cn provide  very long document if you wnt, but oen it’s better to present  short or medium-sized story, with links to supporting documents or  longer ccount. In this wy, you provide  conveniently brief tretment for those wnt the bsics, nd  fuller tretment for those with  specil interest in your cse, or who need to be convinced of its credibility. In generl, qulity is more importnt thn quntity. Whistleblowers oen wnt to tell their whole story, with every gory detil. is tempttion should be voided. nless you re  tlented writer, it will be hrd to turn your story into  gripping epic. Furthermore, tlented writers know tht, in mny cses, less is more: you tell wht is needed to mke  point, nd no more. o when setting up  web- site, it is best to strt with  short, ccurte, cler ccount, nd only dd to it when you hve dditionl good mteril. Where should your web mteril be hosted? ne option is to set up your own website. is is quite esy:  serch will led to mny free website services. It’s wise to choose  site hosted outside your country, in  plce not susceptible to pressure. therwise your site might be tken down er your employer mkes  complint to the service provider. Robina Cosser comments Choose the nme of your website crefully. It should be ctchy nd esy to remember, closely relted to your content, but not too similr to the nmes of other websites. ettgs re essentil. ey will mke  big difference to the volume of trffic to your website. Another option is to put your mteril on someone else’s site. is cn hve the dvntge of greter credibility or visibility, especilly if your story is one of severl similr ones. e site might lredy hve  redership, so you don’t need to work s hrd to publicise your story. n the other hnd, you my need to rely on someone else to updte your documents. is my be oky if the site is run by  friend or reltive cting on your behlf  someone who is sensitive nd responsive. utting mteril on the web is like putting  poster on  wll   wll with billions of posters! Hrdly nyone will know your site exists unless you tell them. e esiest wy to do this is by emiling them with the web ddress. ther possibilities include hnding out business crds, putting the ddress in comments on blogs, nd encourging other site owners to mke  link to your site. en there re serch engines: they will utomticlly register your site, ssuming someone else hs mde  link to it. ou cn mke it esier by dding mettgs to your webpges, giving  description nd keywords. ne of the best wys to lern how to design n effective website is to look t  rnge of other sites, especilly those by or bout whistleblowers. ou cn get ides for design, bckgrounds, titles, summries, links nd web domins. Another good wy is to seek comments from friends. end them the link nd sk which spects of the site they like nd which spects could be improved. is will serve  dul function, letting them know bout the site nd obtining feedbck. If your site is effective, you might come under ttck. pponents might mke nsty comments in blogs. ou might receive  thret to sue. ressure might be put on your service provider to tke down the site. ne of the gret dvntges of  website is tht you cn esily modify the text, removing llegedly defmtory mteril, if tht’s wht you choose to do. n the other hnd, you cn use the ttck to generte greter ttention to your concerns. Using mass media ne of the most potent wys of building support is through coverge in the mss medi  newsppers, rdio, television, mgzines. If you stick entirely to officil chnnels, you my void the medi (though it might get involved even then). If you use the strtegy of building support, then you should consider using the medi t some stge. When trying to expose  problem, the medi cn generte wreness with drmtic speed. When fced with  corrupt or reclci- trnt bureucrcy, medi coverge is one of the few things tht hs  chnce of denting business s usul. n the other hnd, sometimes the medi will refuse to touch  story. At other times they turn ginst dissidents nd mke things fr worse. If you’re going to use the medi, then it helps to understnd their opertions  bit. Aer ll, orgnistions py vst mounts of money, for dvertising nd public reltions, to use the medi for their own ends. For the commercil medi, there re two min driving forces to be wre of. e rst is pro t nd is minly the concern of owners nd top mngers. n the surfce, the medi’s gol is to sell its messge to reders nd listeners; from  nncil point of view, the medi’s gol is to sell udiences to dvertisers. e second importnt driving force is competition to get  good story, which is minly the concern of journlists. ny stories re never run or re put on bck pges, oen due to shortge of spce nd udience ttention nd sometimes due to inhibition, such s the risk of  defmtion suit. Journlists like to hve their stories run, nd run s prominently s possible. e dynmics of medi opertion hve led to the cretion of  set of fctors for wht mkes  good story. ese re clled “news vlues.” Journlists nd editors understnd news vlues intuitively nd will judge events by them instntly. Journlists nd editors look for stories involving, mong other things: • • • • • • locl relevnce humn interest con ict ction (especilly for television) prominence (fmous gures rther thn unknowns) timeliness • perceived consequences If the president of the nited ttes is impeched, it’s  big story. If Buddhists in ri Lnk hve been promoting communl hrmony for the pst yers, there’s no story. Complex stories pose  specil difficulty nd oen re dropped or drsticlly simpli ed. tories bout dissent nd whistleblowing do hve  chnce. ey involve personlities (humn interest) nd con ict, nd sometimes prominent orgnistions. Current cses re fr more newsworthy thn old ones. It’s importnt to relise the news vlues involved. ou might believe tht the rel issue is systemtic discrimintion due to deepseted bis nd distorted orgnistionl structures. t won’t get much ttention, even though some journlists my be sympthetic. But if the issue is couched s clims of bis by severl individuls who hve been victimised s  result, then it becomes “ story.” e personlities nd con ict mke ll the difference. sing the medi thus involves compromises. ou my think ttention should be directed t the orgnistion nd its de ciencies. e only story published might be bout the tretment of n employee who spoke out. Even with their limittions, the medi cn be  powerful force ginst socil problems. t’s primrily becuse they crry messges to lrge numbers of people, some of whom re likely to be sympthetic. e medi thus re tools for building support. is is true even though mny stories re distorted nd unblnced. In ddition, mny journlists nd editors do cre bout the issues nd do their utmost, within the constrints of medi culture, to get  messge cross. fficil chnnels re designed to limit the number of people who know bout  clim. ey re  system tht powerholders know how to hndle, following procedures tht re reltively predictble. In contrst, the medi, by tking  story to ll nd sundry, re out of their control. ose who routinely operte through officil chnnels  such s lwyers  commonly dvise ginst seeking medi coverge. ey re not trined nd seldom skilled in using the medi. ore fundmentlly, medi coverge gets in the wy of their methods. For lwyers, legl procedures re the wy they know how to hndle things, nd other methods re  distrction or disruption. ome whistleblower lws speci clly rule out protection if the whistleblower goes to the medi before using officil chnnels. Don’t let this deter you from using the medi. If you’re iming to build support, you should lwys consider medi coverge seriously. Comparing methods If you im to build support, using the medi is one pproch  but not the only one. As we hve seen, wreness cn be fostered using fce-to-fce meetings, letters, petitions, le ets, emil, support groups nd ction groups, mong others. It’s worth compring severl of these. Letters Websites Media coverage Control oen gret gret low Audience trgeted trgeted + others generl Credibility oen high vrible firly high With letters nd websites, wht is sid is controlled by those who write them. e udience of letters is mostly those who re- ceive them directly, though people cn mke copies of letters. e udience of websites is those told bout them, plus those who nd them using links or serch engines. e mss medi, in contrst, cnnot be controlled but oen rech  much wider udience. Although mny people re cynicl bout the medi,  story oen hs considerble credibility. ote tht these ssessments re generlistions. For exmple, your letter my be bdly written nd hve low credibility. n rre occsions, you my be so crucil to  mjor medi story tht you hve some control over the wy it’s presented. o, let’s sy you’ve decided medi coverge would be  good ide. Before you pproch  journlist or issue  medi relese, you need to be prepred. Here re some things to be prepred for. • Wht re the fcts bout the cse? Who, wht, when, where, how? • Who re you? ou need to think bout wht you wnt to sy bout yourself. • Are there ny documents? Depending on the cse, journlists my wnt copies. • Is there nyone else to contct? is includes people who will conrm your clims nd sometimes people on the other side. Hve phone numbers redy. If you hve  concise write-up, it is  wonderful dvntge  it cn help  journlist mke sense of the issue nd get the fcts right. But it’s not essentil. Journlists re not n lien species. ey re just people like you nd me, doing  job s well s they know how. ost of them re friendly. ome will be highly sympthetic to your cuse;  few my be hostile, perhps due to their personl views or politicl ffilition. ost of them will behve professionlly, within their own codes of professionl prctice. It helps to understnd the pressures they operte under. Time pressures. ost journlists re incredibly busy. ey hve to meet dedlines, er ll. ou my hve  wonderful story to tell, but they don’t hve ve hours or even hlf n hour to listen to it. Indeed, to be relly effective you should be ble to summrise the min points in the rst minute of  converstion, or in the rst couple of sentences in  medi relese. our cse is the biggest thing for you, but  journlist my hve  dedline in two hours with three stories to write. o be brief to strt with nd nd out if there is  chnce for  longer tlk. If your cse is  signi cnt one, or if  journlist hs the time to do  mjor investigtion, there my not be quite s much of  squeeze on time. But tht’s the exception. Journlists re usully in  rush. ey my wnt interviews nd documents immeditely. Be prepred. On the record. Remember tht nything you sy could potentilly end up reported  even if you specify “bckground” or “off the record.” If you don’t wnt something reported, don’t mention it. Journlists will try to steer the converstion in certin directions, seeking wht they believe is the best story. ou cn follow if you’re hppy with the direction, but don’t reminisce bout your personl life unless you’re willing to hve everyone red bout the most reveling necdote. Balance. ost journlists seek to present  “blnced” story. t usully mens presenting both sides. Aer tlking to you, the journlist my contct your worst enemy. Even  journlist who is very sympthetic to you my put in sttements presenting the other side. o don’t expect everything to go your wy. If  story hs nothing criticl bout you, it my pper unblnced nd lck credibility. Remember tht  story tht seems blnced to reders my seem incredibly unfir to the other side. If you re in  struggle with  powerful orgnistion, even the slightest criticism of the orgnistion is like  slp in the fce of top officils. Editing. Journlists do not hve nl control over their stories. An editor decides whether they get published nd how prominently. omeone else writes the title. ometimes the rticle is subedited, which my involve rewriting sentences nd deleting prgrphs. If there is  potentil for defmtion,  lwyer my recommend chnges or deletions. ou won’t get to see ny of this. If the story doesn’t pper t ll, it my be becuse it ws never written, becuse it didn’t meet the editor’s criteri (“news vlues”), becuse there wsn’t enough spce, or becuse it ws deleted by mistke. If it ppers, it my hve been chopped nd chnged by vrious people. o don’t blow up nd curse the journlist or editor. ke n enquiry to nd out wht hppened, nd nd out if there’s nything you cn do to help the process long. It’s worth visiting  newsroom to get  feeling for the overwhelming supply of informtion nd of the rush, the chos nd the ese by which  story cn be lost in the process. ou wnt ttention from the medi, but so do lots of other people. Angles. Journlists nd editors need  peg on which to hng your story. It’s not timely to report tht corruption hs been going on in the deprtment for yers. But if you’ve just sent  letter to the deprtment hed documenting some instnces, the letter cn serve s  peg. Journlists hve  good ide of wht “ngles” cn be used to mke something into  story. ou cn help, sometimes, by suggest- ing ides or by tking ctions tht provide ngles, such s writing  letter, relesing  report or holding  meeting or rlly. edi coverge comes in ts nd strts. ou cn be besieged by demnds from the medi one week nd then ignored the next. rt of the reson is tht medi chnnels feed off ech other. For exmple, stff t mny rdio sttions go through the newsppers every dy serching for people or stories they might wnt to follow up. o if there’s n rticle bout your cse in  mjor dily, then you might well receive clls from severl rdio sttions soon er, inviting you to be interviewed. (Less oen do newsppers tke their cue from rdio or V progrmmes.) Another prt of the reson is tht when  story “breks”  rst becomes reported  it is seen s worthy of coverge. A few dys or weeks lter, depending on the issue, it is dted nd no longer considered newsworthy. is is when it cn become cler tht the medi re using you nd your story just s much s you re using them. ou know tht the issue tht concerns you is ongoing nd deserves continuing ttention. But from the medi’s point of view, it is probbly only of short-term interest. It might be  one-dy wonder. A person with plenty of skill in generting coverge cn, to some extent, overcome the medi’s short ttention spn. First, it’s necessry to provide n ongoing ow of newsworthy mteril. For exmple, if you hve documenttion bout buses in n institution, sometimes it cn be effective to relese it bit by bit, over  mtter of months, rther thn in one btch. If you re using officil chnnels, this cn be drmtised:  submission, some testimony,  visitor commenting on the cse,  protest meeting  ech step cn be promoted s  story. Another importnt prt of keeping  story in the medi over time is working with individul journlists. Aer they hve studied the issue enough to write  story, then  follow-up is reltively esy. ey my lso develop  commitment to the issue. Wht you hve to do is continue to supply them mteril nd ccess, nd not offend them by giving  big scoop to someone else. Do you hve to stick with the sme journlists? Wht if they don’t seem to be treting you firly? ere re implicit rules nd expecttions tht pply. If you’re new to the gme, you cn’t be expected to know them. o sk. Ask people with experience in using the medi, nd sk journlists themselves. If you strt receiving medi coverge, it cn seem like  gret thing. It cn even become ddictive! It’s helthy to remember tht medi coverge is not the gol. It’s only  mens to n end. In this cse it’s  component of  strtegy to build support. Building support is  method for helping del with the problem you’re concerned bout. ometimes the medi mke thousnds of people wre of n issue, mking it difficult for powerholders to continue s before. n other occsions the medi my seem to hve no impct t ll   sh in the pn. edi coverge is not  cure-ll. ometimes  story in the medi builds support in n obvious nd prcticl wy, by leding to contcts. omeone reds  story in the newspper or hers you on the rdio nd contcts you. ybe the sme thing hppened to them. ybe they hve more informtion. ybe they need help or dvice. ybe they wnt to help. e medi re tools to put you in touch with others with similr interests. ou might spend yers discussing your cse with friends nd cquintnces, yet only rech  few hundred people. ne medi story might be ll it tkes to put you in touch with  like-minded person outside your norml circle of contcts. embers of support groups nd ction groups know tht medi coverge is one wy to bring in new members. edi coverge is frequently  powerful tool for whistleblowers  but not lwys. n some issues, it is impossible to obtin medi coverge. ere re severl explntions. • our story might not be newsworthy. It could be too old, too nrrow, too morphous or too complex. ou need to see whether there’s n ngle tht could be tken up. • our story might crete too gret  risk of defmtion. If publishing  story opens  medi compny to costly litigtion, this is  deterrent. e story cn go hed if the likely bene ts  wider circultion, greter prestige  outweigh the likely costs. But if the fcts ren’t quite solid enough, if the trget is known for suing, or if it’s only  minor story to strt with, legl risks cn sink it. • our story my threten powerful interests tht hve direct or indirect in uence with medi interests. y you’re exposing  compny for flse dvertising. If the mnger of the compny is friends with the editor of the newspper, tht my eliminte the prospect of  story. r perhps the compny runs  lot of dvertising in the pper. In mny smll towns nd some cities, there re close links between top people in business, government, medi, professions nd other elds. our opponents my hve powerful friends nd this my rule out locl medi coverge. If you re trying to expose bis or corruption in the medi themselves, getting medi coverge is even hrder. If your story is newsworthy but is suppressed due to the locl estblishment, one solution is to look to medi without locl ties. If the city’s newspper won’t touch your story, wht bout  newspper in nother prt of the country, or  ntionl newspper? It’s lso possible to go interntionl, especilly if there re specilist outlets for your issue. ometimes n rticle in  newspper or mgzine published in nother country is the best wy to open up the issue loclly. Remember gin tht medi coverge is not the gol in itself. e strtegy is to build support. If the medi won’t touch the issue, then you need to rely on other methods such s letters, socil medi nd ction groups. An even worse scenrio is tht the medi lunch  concerted, unscrupulous, unblnced ttck on you nd your cuse. is sometimes hppens, whether you re trying to use the medi yourself or not. Lesley Pinson comments It’s very importnt to decide whether you wnt to use print or electronic medi  newsppers nd mgzines or V nd rdio. Ech hs  different wy of presenting  story nd requires different things from you. ou my or my not be willing or con dent enough to pper on V or to conduct  rdio interview. V lso depends on visul effects. A story bout illegl dumping or fulty equipment would provide useful footge for V wheres  story bout nncil frud might provide little for V to present visully. V nd rdio oen follow print medi nd thus  newspper story my led to greter overll coverge by V nd rdio. Also, n rticle in  locl pper cn led to the minstrem medi picking up on the story lter. ou will hve differing levels of control over wht is published, depending on which medi you choose to use. It is worth monitoring different ppers, rdio progrmmes nd V shows to see how stories re presented nd which types of stories re being told. If your story hs politicl implictions, some ppers re more le or right wing thn others. It is lso worth being wre of who is sponsoring (vi dvertising) vrious medi outlets. ome commercil V sttions nd newsppers, for instnce, my be reluctnt to publish  story tht is criticl of one of their mjor dvertising clients. Whilst monitoring different medi outlets, it is worth mking  note of vrious journlists who hve presented similr stories or who hve presented stories in  wy tht ppels to you. Direct contct with  journlist who you feel might be sympthetic to your story, or hve some knowledge of the issue from previous stories, is fr more likely to chieve  result thn  completely cold cll. It lso won’t hurt to ppel to the journlist’s ego with some reference to their previous work, especilly something just published. is is  useful wy to strt the converstion. The ongoing struggle e strtegy of building support is seldom  short-term solution. Indeed, it is best seen s  process rther thn  solution. In the long term, socil problems will only be solved if lots of people become wre of them nd re willing to tke ction. If your concern is bis in  single ppointment, then by the time you build support it my be too lte to do nything. But if your concern is bis in ppointments s n ongoing problem, then building support hs rel potentil. For the ongoing struggle, there re severl things to keep in mind. e struggle has phases and ups and downs. ere cn be periods of intense ction nd periods when nothing seems to hppen. In- terest in tking ction cn rise nd fll. By being wre of this, you cn void being too optimistic during the up phses or too discourged during the down phses. Defence and initiative are both required. If you re hving ny impct t ll, you re likely to come under ttck. ou my be hrssed, lose your job, be the subject of vicious rumours, or even come under  concentrted medi brrge. Defending ginst such ttcks is vitl. At the worst times, return to bsics. Review your gols. Consult with your most loyl supporters. ke plns bsed on building support. If the ttck is unfir, nd you cn show tht it is unfir, you cn use tht to build support. As well s defending ginst ttcks, you need to tke inititives, otherwise the gend is lwys set by your opponents. Agin, review your gols, consult nd mke plns. Be ready to reassess your strategy. If your strtegy doesn’t seem to be working, mke  creful exmintion. Is it becuse you ren’t doing it right, becuse the other side is too strong, or becuse it’s  bd strtegy? Even if your strtegy seems to be working, it my be worth exmining. erhps you cn do better. erhps there’s  trp looming. Appendix: the sabotage option • A systems nlyst leves  rm but leves behind  “logic bomb” tht, hlf  yer lter, introduces systemtic errors into the rm’s computer les. • A blst furnce opertor, by purposely not mking quite the right djustments, llows  shutdown to occur, t gret expense. • A lwyer, bout to leve his compny, sends out bogus letters to clients under his hed’s nme, undermining the reputtion of the rm. • A wrehouse employee switches off the electricity for the cold room over the weekend. • A pckging worker dds  slip of pper with n unplesnt messge to thousnds of gis posted out to competition winners. ese re exmples of sbotge t work. uch sbotge hs  long history, nd cn be found in ll mnner of occuptions. ometimes workers, under intense pressure, cn only obtin relief by disrupting or destroying mchinery, nd the person who does it hs wide support. ometimes  single disgruntled employee tkes ction s  method of revenge. Is sbotge  useful option for deling with problems such s corruption? sully not. ere re some cses where sbotge cn never be justi ed. For  mechnic to “ x”  cr so it breks down could put someone’s life in dnger. For  frmer to poison  neighbour’s property is environmentl vndlism. For  doctor to purposefully mke n opertion fil mounts to ssult or murder. ese sorts of criminl tctics re sometimes used ginst whistleblowers nd socil ctivists. Few whistleblowers even think of sbotge s n option. ey re oen the most committed nd hrd-working of employees, with pride in doing their jobs well. o do less thn one’s best for others is repellent. evertheless, er being treted in the most bominble wy by  mngement tht cres only bout its power nd is willing to do nything to cover up problems, even the most conscientious employee my begin to hve drk thoughts of revenge. ere re severl resons, though, why sbotge is not  good strtegy. • botge seldom tckles the problem in  direct wy. If  compny is corrupt, then wiping its computer les certinly cuses hvoc but does little or nothing to expose the corruption or institute  process to overcome it. • botge usully hs to be crried out in secrecy. is mens tht it hs to be n individul or smll group opertion, with little chnce of involving lrge numbers of people. Hence it is  poor wy to build support, since sympthisers cn only observe rther thn prticipte. • botge cn led to incresed support for mngement nd ntgonism towrds the sboteur. If co-workers or clients re seriously inconvenienced, they my turn ginst the person they believe is responsible. o powerful is this effect tht sometimes  scheming mngement will crry out the sbotge itself but blme it on someone else. e sme thing hppens when n gent, for exmple pid by the police, joins n ction group or ttends  rlly nd tries to provoke violence, knowing tht violence by protesters oen discredits them. us, there re some strong resons ginst sbotge s  strtegy to x problems. However, sbotge cn’t be ruled out utomticlly. For exmple, mny fctory workers in occupied Europe under the zis worked slowly, mde more mistkes thn necessry nd sometimes wrecked equipment, t gret risk to themselves, ll in n ttempt to reduce output tht served the zi wr mchine. An ethicl resister cn sk severl questions in mking  decision. • Could sbotge led to risks to physicl or mentl helth or the environment? If so, it’s not pproprite. • Does sbotge help solve the problem? If not, it’s not  good method. (Is the min reson revenge?) • Does sbotge hve signi cnt support? If not, it’s likely to mke people more ntgonistic. • Are there ny lterntives to sbotge, especilly lterntives tht build support? If so, they re probbly preferble. Ironiclly, honest ttempts to point out problems re oen clled “sbotge” or “trechery.” If corruption is deep-seted, then exposing it does indeed undermine the usul wy of doing things. It’s importnt to go beyond the rhetoric nd nme-clling nd look t who nd wht is serving the public interest. In most cses n open nd committed stnd ginst corruption nd bd prctice is fr more thretening to vested interests thn covert wrecking. o turn round the lnguge, it is vested interests who re the rel “sboteurs.” 10 Case studies: considering options ese cse studies illustrte problems nd strtegies in: • • • • • • • workplce injury scienti c frud bullying nncil corruption police corruption sexul hrssment n unresponsive nti-corruption gency. e following cse studies illustrte the process of working out  strtegy. Any single cse study cnnot esily illustrte multiple strtegies. o prtilly compenste, I’ve introduced vrious “exits,” where the story would tke  different direction following  prticulr choice. e erly exits re ctully the most common outcomes  lmost lwys unsuccessful. Insiders and outsiders ese cse studies focus on insiders: people closest to the problem, oen working for n orgnistion. ey fce the gretest chllenges nd hve the gretest risk of filure. However, in ech cse study there is  role for outsiders who wnt to tke ction. utsiders usully re reltively sfe from reprisls (though there re exceptions such s tckling orgnised crime). utsiders therefore hve more opportunities for cting openly. n the other hnd, outsiders oen lck the detiled informtion vilble only to insiders. Combining the insights of insiders with the ctions vilble to outsiders cn produce  powerful force for chnge. A case of workplace injury John worked for  mjor electricl compny in  section tht constructed nd tested lrge trnsformers. Aer severl yers, he obtined  promotion nd ws put in chrge of testing  big nd urgent order. His duties required him to ssume wkwrd positions, including exerting force with his hnds bove his hed. John begn developing pins in his right forerm. However, being extremely conscientious, he persisted working for long hours through the pin, which soon becme much worse. Eventully he ws unble to work without extreme pin, which rdited up through his elbow nd shoulder nd begn ppering in his le forerm. ⇒ Exit . John rrnges for nother worker to nish testing the urgent order. He then resigns nd spends severl yers off work before his condition begins to ese. ⇒ Exit . Aer reporting his problems to his supervisor, John is dismissed for filing to nish the urgent order. He spends severl yers off work before his condition begins to ese. ⇒ Exit . Aer reporting his problems to his supervisor, John is put on “specil duties” tht supposedly tke his injuries into ccount. However, he is victimised in vrious smll wys, sometimes being given tsks tht re fr too difficult to complete (even if he hd been fully t) nd sometimes being given boring nd pointless jobs. When he requests equipment to do his job, it doesn’t rrive or he is given incorrect items. He encounters problems obtining leve (which hd never been  problem before), is sked to ll out forms over nd over (copies re supposedly “lost”), is repetedly trnsferred to different loctions, put on inconvenient shis nd given no sympthy by his supervisor. In the fce of this petty hrssment, eventully he decides to quit. John decides to put in  workers’ compenstion clim. He scrutinises the workplce’s occuptionl helth nd sfety greement nd nds tht mngement hs been negligent: it should hve, but didn’t, provide specil equipment to reduce the risk of strin, institute mndtory work breks nd wrn workers of the initil symptoms of overuse injury. He discusses the sitution with severl co-workers. ⇒ Exit . ngement nds out the John is prepring  workers’ compenstion clim. Rumours re spred bout him being  poor performer nd mlingerer who hs mnufctured clims bout pin to divert ttention wy from his own filure nd who is out to bene t his pocketbook t the expense of others. John is so distrught by the rumours tht he leves without pursuing the compenstion clim. ⇒ Exit . At the workers’ compenstion hering, lwyers for the electricl compny produce evidence of John hving been in  minor cr ccident ten yers erlier, which they clim ws responsible for his problems. John is successful nevertheless. e compny ppels the decision, nd the ppel bord reduces his bene ts considerbly. John hs nother option: pursuing  civil court ction on the grounds of negligence. He nds out bout wht sort of evidence is required, nd tlks to some co-workers bout testifying on his behlf. He obtins photos of the workplce nd typicl trnsformers. He sks bout lwyers nd is directed to one experienced with similr cses. He prepres  comprehensive cse. ⇒ Exit . In court, John’s cse begins to fll prt. nly one of his supportive witnesses is willing to testify; the others re too frid. everl mngers nd co-workers testify ginst him, climing tht he never worked long hours nd never complined bout pin or disbility before tking sick leve. e electricl compny presents documents showing tht specil equipment hd been purchsed nd instlled well before John begn work on the urgent order. (It is obvious tht the dtes on these documents hd been flsi ed.) His own photos re climed to be from n erlier period. His cse fils. Before he goes to court, John mkes contct with  workers’ compenstion support group nd meets mny others with stories like his own. He lerns tht corporte negligence is commonplce, s re injuries nd dirty tricks to discredit those who mke compenstion clims. He obtins  lot of helpful dvice on countering court clims. He compiles  dossier on his own employer. With help from one relible current worker nd severl former workers with cses like his own, he obtins documents tht will counter ny flsi ed ones the electricl compny might use. He goes to court nd wins  substntil mount in dmges. ⇒ Exit . e electricl compny ppels. enwhile, employers hve been pressing the government over mounting costs due to overuse injury cses. e government itself is  mjor employer, mny of whose workers re mking clims. e government puts  low cp on dmges pyble through civil courts, mking it impossible to obtin suitble compenstion. ⇒ Exit . e electricl compny offers  settlement. John will receive  substntil py-out, but he must gree to  cluse preventing him from sying nything bout the cse or the size of his py-out. Due to his inbility to work, he ccepts the settlement. Lter, though, he is distressed to lern tht nother worker t the compny develops n injury becuse proper equipment nd systems hve still not been instlled. Analysis. Employers oen ttempt to discredit workers who suffer injuries. A smll minority of workers’ clims my be contrived (“mlingering”) but the bulk re genuine, nd oen the employer is culpble. Employers cn lwys deny responsibility for n injury; in ddition, sometimes they dispute the very existence of n injury, s in the cse of bd bcks, overuse injuries nd stress. For  lone worker to tke on n employer or insurnce compny tht is ttempting to void pying compenstion cn be s trumtic s the originl injury. What outsiders can do Join or set up  workers’ compenstion ction group. A case of scientific fraud rh,  tlented resercher with severl yers of postdoctorl experience, obtined  contrct position in  mjor lb, where she worked with severl others including the proli c Dr Willims. rh ws  hrd worker but she could not believe the tremendous rte t which Willims produced results. ne dy, while glncing t his lb books, she noticed  curious pttern. It ppered tht hlf of his results were duplictes of the other hlf. is mde it seem tht he hd done twice s mny tests s he ctully hd. ⇒ Exit . rh sys nothing. When pressed for time she occsionlly strts duplicting her own results just like Willims. ⇒ Exit . rh comments to Willims bout the results. He psses it off s  uke. e next dy Willims’ current lb book no longer displys the duplictes nd ll previous books re locked wy. rh gets  bd report nd is terminted t the rst vilble opportunity. rh, hving red bout some cses of scienti c frud, knows tht she must obtin proof. ver the next four months, she is ble to photocopy hundreds of pges from Willims’ lb books. ere re quite  number of instnces where hlf or two-thirds of Willims’ dt re copies of n initil dt set (presumbly vlid). he mkes severl sets of copies nd gives one set to  trusted friend. ⇒ Exit . rh gives ll the evidence to the senior scientist in the lb. He dismisses the duplictions s insigni cnt. He sys the bsic results re correct nd hve been con rmed by other lbs. e only effect is to chnge the size of some of the error brs. he writes to the journls tht published Willims’ reserch. ey do not respond. he writes to their scienti c society nd gets  noncommitl response. rh gets  bd report nd is terminted t the rst vilble opportunity. ⇒ Exit . rh tries to build support by tlking to other reserchers in the sme lb. It’s not long before Willims nds out. rh is trnsferred to menil duties, her equipment is tmpered with while she is wy, nd rumours re spred bout her dishonesty nd psychologicl hng-ups. he cnnot stnd the strin nd resigns. rh investigtes the issue of scienti c frud. he soon lerns tht forml procedures for ddressing scienti c frud hrdly ever work nd tht the ccuser oen pys the penlty. he decides to lie low for the time being nd gther evidence nd support. he consults  sttisticin who grees to nlyse the dt nd nds tht in nerly every cse, n initil set of dt is reproduced two or three times. But usully the duplicted points re not in the sme sequence nd so not redily identi ble by csul observtion. he lso consults with some senior scientists who re known for their investigtions into scienti c frud. ey sy tht Willims’ ctions re de nitely improper. Fiddling with dt is not uncommon, though the totl scle of Willims’ fking is unusul. rh writes up  concise, rigorous tretment of Willims’ frud, bcking it with smple dt sheets. he prepres  pln of ction to ensure the issue is not covered up. ⇒ Exit . he wits until she is reppointed to  ve-yer post, with  promotion, nd then tkes her report to the hed of the institution for  meeting. e hed promises to seek independent opinion nd to keep the mtter con dentil. Within  week it is obvious tht Willims hs  copy of her report, so she goes s plnned to the medi, where  science reporter hs been primed with the story. A blitz of newspper nd rdio coverge cuses  storm in the institution, which sets up  forml investigtion  into both Willims nd rh! he nds tht some of her lb books re missing. he is ccused, mong other things, of indequte documenttion of her own reserch, of flse clims for expenses, nd of  flse sttement bout  publiction in her curriculum vite when she rst pplied for  job. e internl inquiry is  whitewsh of Willims. rh, under constnt scrutiny t work, ponders whether to continue, to mke n ppel for n independent inquiry, or to leve. rh wits until she obtins  job t nother institution. Aer settling in nd nding tht cheting is not crried out or condoned, she consults with her boss bout exposing Willims. Her boss sys the publicity will detrct from their reserch, but she lso sys she’ll support rh if tht is wht she decides to do. Aer discussing the mtter with ll of her new collegues, she releses her report to the medi. o  the sme publicity, the sme ccustions bout rh, the sme whitewsh. rh’s creer is held up somewht, but she hs chieved one importnt im without mssive cost to herself. Analysis. Exposing scholrly frud  whether it is fudging dt, plgirism or flsi ction of credentils  cn be extremely risky. In developing n effective strtegy, rh hd to decide whether to use forml chnnels. he lso hd to decide who to tlk to. Willims ws chrming, tlented nd mbitious, nd hd so mny supporters tht it ws risky tlking to nyone in the institution. As  result, she ws best ble to build support from independent scientists nd through medi coverge. If the medi hd declined to report the story, she could hve circulted her report to scientists in the eld, perhps with considerble effect. What outsiders can do Bring together scientists who hve been victimised for speking out bout frud. Find scientists willing to comment on frud cses nd journlists willing to investigte them. A case of bullying teve worked in  government deprtment in  lrge section deling with trde policy. He ws experienced nd got on well with his co-workers. ings chnged when  new boss, Joe, ws brought in from nother deprtment. Joe ws tlented, with  reputtion for being  tsk-mster. He could be chrming but lso hd  drk side. He would suddenly turn on individuls, shouting nd swering t them. At stff meetings he would sometimes humilite n individul by mking cutting comments bout their work. teve soon noticed  pttern. Joe never ttcked those who were totlly complint nd who were no thret to him. But nyone who showed  bit of independence nd tlent ws  likely trget. ⇒ Exit . teve decides to sty on Joe’s good side, does his bidding nd informs Joe bout people who re “stepping out of line.” ⇒ Exit . teve leves for nother job s soon s possible. teve does not wnt to leve, for two min resons. He enjoys the work, nd he is concerned bout some of his co-workers who re lso friends. ver  period of months, teve lerns more bout Joe’s method of opertion. Joe’s erce verbl buse hs lowered morle; severl vulnerble workers hve resigned or gone on leve for stress. A few who hve ttempted to stnd up to Joe hve suffered from sustined hrssment. Joe nds minor ws in these individuls’ work nd demnds tht it be redone. He rrnges ssignments so workers re likely to fil, nd then explodes t them when they do fil. Few cn survive such  sustined ttck on their competence. ⇒ Exit . teve tries to mtch Joe t his gme, nd exchnges shouts nd insults with him in  mjor confronttion. Within the next month, teve is set up for n embrrssing filure, receives  forml reprimnd nd is given  choice: trnsfer to  lesser post or resign. ⇒ Exit . teve hs  “hert-to-hert” tlk with Joe, informing him of the destructive effects of his behviour. Joe seems to listen, but lter teve is set up for n embrrssing filure, etc. ⇒ Exit . teve goes to tlk to Joe’s boss, sking for some intervention. Joe’s boss sys Joe is producing results nd tht teve should just get on with his job. teve is lucky. If Joe’s boss hd told Joe bout the meeting, his job would hve been on the line. teve does some investigting. He tlks to people who worked under Joe in his previous jobs. His style ws the sme then. He ws ble to intimidte his subordintes but chrm his superiors, nd his tlent nd hrd work won him promotions in spite of the trum nd demorlistion he le in his wke. teve begins keeping  dossier on Joe. He tlks to Joe’s victims nd writes up ccounts. Becuse he is experienced nd trustworthy, most of them re willing to sign the ccounts when teve promises not to use them without permission. teve nds tht some of Joe’s ctions verge on ssult, such s when he grbbed one person’s shirt nd threw something towrds nother. teve lso nds tht Joe mkes mistkes himself. ome of his decisions re wed, nd he sometimes misuses funds for his own dvntge. is is minor-level buse of privilege, but it revels  mjor double stndrd considering Joe’s nding of fult with others. ⇒ Exit . teve submits  forml complint bout Joe, using testimony from severl co-workers, to the deprtment’s internl grievnce committee. During the investigtion, Joe shows only his good side. e grievnce committee is uncriticl of Joe, nd recommends only some shuffling of duties nd meetings with outside meditors. op mngement doesn’t bother to implement even these recommendtions. Joe begins  focused nd subtle hrssment of every individul whose testimony ws in the complint. (He hs found out severl nmes from mteril given “in con dence” to the grievnce committee.) teve is the prime trget, but survives becuse Joe is promoted to nother deprtment. teve begins to collect informtion bout bullying t work. He lerns tht some bosses, when they perceive threts to their professionl competence nd survivl, for exmple when subordintes do not mesure up to expecttions, respond with interpersonl ggression. He nds tht in his deprtment such individuls re usully tolerted nd tht mngement lwys sides with bosses ginst subordintes, no mtter how outrgeous the boss’s behviour. ⇒ Exit . teve prepres  summry of key points bout bullying, its effects nd how to respond to it. He circultes copies to ll his co-workers, nd this encourges some of them to resist. He nds two others who re willing to work with him to formulte  strtegy to del with Joe. Joe tries every trick he knows to brek up the group, befriending one nd hrssing nother. e struggle continues. ⇒ Exit . teve prepres  sttement bout Joe’s behviour, mking sure tht every sttement is bcked up by documenttion. Aer tking  job in the privte sector, he circultes copies of the sttement throughout his old deprtment nd Joe’s new deprtment (Joe hs been promoted). e sttement severely crmps Joe’s style. Joe sues teve for defmtion. ⇒ Exit . teve, t  socil function, meets  top mnger nd cutiously rises concerns bout wht to do bout dmging behviours. e mnger hs just herd  presenttion bout how to chnge brsive bosses, checks out teve’s informtion nd clls in  consultnt to work with Joe. It turns out Joe didn’t relise how much he ws hurting others nd grdully lerns skills in more effective people mngement. Analysis. Bullying bosses re very dmging, yet mngements seldom re willing to ct ginst them. Building support is difficult when bosses use divide-nd-rule techniques. et if no one stnds up to bullying, the problem will just continue. What outsiders can do Circulte informtion bout bullying. et up  bullying support group. A case of financial corruption Chris hd yers of experience s n uditor in nncil institutions. Aer joining  mjor bnk, she grdully becme wre of n opertion involving  ird World country, “Dlenz.” pecil low-interest lons were being given to the Dlenz government ginst bnk policy, since these were high-risk lons. yments from Dlenz  not lon repyments  were being mde to the bnk nd put into  specil fund, which top bnk officils used for personl ssistnts, crs, fmily holidys, cruises nd lvish prties. When Chris sked  co-worker bout the sitution, she ws told tht this ws stndrd prctice for Dlenz  ll the other bnks did the sme  nd tht the perks provided by the specil fund were  prt of the remunertion pckge for bnk executives. It ws simply  mtter of convenience tht it drew on Dlenz money. ⇒ Exit . Chris does her best to mke the Dlenz opertion pper norml nncilly nd to get to  position where she cn use the specil fund. ⇒ Exit . Chris rrnges for  trnsfer to nother section. he’s suspicious bout the Dlenz opertion but doesn’t wnt to risk her job. ver  mtter of months, Chris nds out more bout the Dlenz opertion. By reding reports of Amnesty Interntionl nd serching the web, she nds tht Dlenz is  brutl dicttorship known for torturing dissidents nd exploiting the workers. he lso nds tht the stndrd executive remunertion pckge includes only some of the perks pid from the specil fund. he is sure it is improper for Dlenz money to go into the specil fund. ⇒ Exit . Chris tlks to the hed uditor t the bnk bout her concerns, nd expresses her belief tht the lons should be stopped nd Dlenz money not ccepted for ny purpose, much less the specil fund. e hed uditor sys tht the low-interest lons re bene cil to the Dlenz people nd tht the pyments from the Dlenz government re “just the wy they do business.” Chris sys she’s not convinced nd she’d like dvice on how to pursue the issue. t night there is  specil delivery to Chris’s house: ll personl items from her office,  letter dismissing her due to “urgent dministrtive reorgnistion” nd  cheque for three months’ slry s severnce py. ⇒ Exit . Without telling nyone in the bnk, Chris writes n nonymous rticle in  nncil mgzine reporting on “ nncil irregulrities” in Dlenz. Although her bnk isn’t mentioned, there is n immedite investigtion to nd the source of the story. he is  prime suspect, prtly becuse her denils re hlf-herted  lying doesn’t come esily. All mtters concerning the Dlenz ccount re removed to higher levels. Chris’s job becomes highly unplesnt er  witch hunt for the informnt leds to suspicions nd petty hrssment. Chris decides to lie low nd gther informtion. ver the next yer she collects more informtion bout repression nd corruption in Dlenz. he mkes copies of documents bout pyments into nd out of the specil fund. he mkes contct with two independent specilists, one on Dlenz nd one on nncil institutions nd corruption. he prepres  creful ccount of the Dlenz opertion t the bnk. ⇒ Exit . Chris mkes  forml submission to the Finnce Regultory Commission,  government body concerned with violtion of bnking codes. Although submissions re supposed to be con dentil, within  mtter of dys Chris is dismissed. e Commission tkes months before ruling tht the mtters re not in its jurisdiction. Chris sues the bnk for improper dismissl under whistleblower legisltion, but this fils becuse she did not use  designted internl chnnel rst. he mkes submissions to severl other bodies, to no vil. oliticins re similrly unhelpful. ⇒ Exit . rough n ction group FJI, “Finncil Justice Interntionl,” she is put in touch with two other ethicl resisters, in different bnks, who know bout dels with Dlenz. ogether they prepre  comprehensive critique tht they publish, under pseudonyms, in  mgzine specilising on corporte corruption. FJI sends copies to socil welfre groups in Dlenz. Aer resigning nd setting up n independent prctice, Chris gives her story to the ntionl medi. However, only  few lterntive newsppers tke it up. e bnk mounts  concerted ttempt to discredit Chris nd for severl yers she brely mkes enough to survive on her independent udit consultncy. ⇒ Exit . A people’s movement is emerging in Dlenz, in prt stimulted by disgust over high-level government corruption. Chris becomes  vlued informnt for the movement, providing informtion nd credibility. Analysis. When corruption reches to the highest levels  top bnk officils, regultory bodies, politicins  it is extremely difficult to bring bout chnge. From  personl point of view, Chris needed to exmine her gols crefully. How importnt ws it to del with the problem? How importnt ws her own creer? What outsiders can do Join or set up n ction group such s “Finncil Justice Interntionl.” upport people’s movements ginst corruption. A case of police corruption ony ws nerly when he joined the police. He hd hd  number of office jobs nd then studied business computing t university, developing n interest in frud nd other white collr crime. Aer initil police trining, he ws pired with n old hnd, mithers, deling with cses of burglry. ony immeditely hd to decide how to respond to criminl ction by mithers nd others on the burglry squd. en they would stel from the site of  robbery, tking jewelry, csh nd sometimes other goods. eir justi ction ws tht “the insurnce compny pys.” If they could nd ny drugs, they would tke nd sell them. ey considered it  norml bene t of the job  “crem on the cke.” ⇒ Exit . ony joins in the steling. He lter moves up into the corporte crime section nd mkes quite  creer for himself. ⇒ Exit . ony reports the steling to his commnder. He is immeditely removed to menil office duties, given  bd report nd drummed out of the force. ony, through his reding on crime nd the police, knew this sort of corruption ws commonplce. His toughest tsk is to not prticipte while not rising the suspicions of his tem-mtes, but he mnges to pull this off by ppering to sympthise with their ctions. He decides to document police the s much s possible. He keeps  diry of ll robbery scenes ttended, listing goods tken by mithers nd others. He lso mkes tpes of some of their converstions, though these were not esy to interpret due to use of police jrgon. ony plnned to lie low nd gther s much mteril s possible. He is horri ed to witness severl brutl ssults on robbery suspects. He could understnd his temmtes’ frustrtion. e suspects were lmost certinly guilty, yet in mny cses there ws not enough evidence to convict them, even when the police systemticlly lied under oth to help the prosecution. ony tpes some of these incidents of police ssult. ⇒ Exit . Aer collecting  dossier of dmning mteril, ony prepres  comprehensive submission to the olice Accountbility Agency (AA),  new body set up to del with police corruption. Aer mking his submission, ony is clled in by the AA to discuss wht he knows. hortly erwrds, ony comes under severe ttck. e AA ws supposed to keep his submission con dentil, but it becomes cler tht some of its members hve links to corrupt police. ony is personlly bused by mithers nd others; the tyres to his cr re slshed; he nds thretening notes in his locker; his wife nd children receive thretening phone clls. e fmily ct is found killed. In spite of ll this, he sticks it out. en, one dy, s he is putting on his jcket, he is rrested. Drugs nd  lrge wd of csh re found in the jcket. Complints bout him re led with the AA. He is dismissed. He thinks bout tking the mtter to the mbudsmn or  politicin but is deterred by the possibility of  criminl chrge bsed on his frme-up. ony ws wre tht the sort of buse nd corruption he ws witnessing ws tolerted throughout the force. He decides his only hope of success lies with populr outrge generted through medi coverge. olice beting of robbery suspects is, unfortuntely, not likely to produce ll tht much concern. But ony lso witnesses some police ssults on innocent individuls, especilly homeless people, youths “with n ttitude” nd rcil minorities. ne prticulrly brutl ttck results in two young people requiring emergency surgery, nd ony mnges to mke n udio recording. ⇒ Exit . ony tkes his documenttion to the locl medi. However, weeks pss nd nothing ppers. everl journlists tell him it is  good story but tht the medi cnnot fford to run it becuse the police union hs  record for suing, nd the costs would be too gret. ony next tkes his mteril to the ntionl medi. elevision networks re not interested due to lck of  visul dimension  ony hs no videos. ost of the ntionl press do not run the story: it is too much of  locl issue to justify the investigtive resources required. ne crusding mgzine, though, runs  mjor story. Although ony is not mentioned by nme, he is soon identi ed s the source, nd he soon comes under ttck, though nothing too bltnt, since ony’s tem-mtes re wre tht he might be recording them. Aer the medi ttention dies down, he is thoroughly frmed  with ltertion of officil records  put through serious misconduct proceedings nd dismissed. e mgzine mkes  mjor story of the dismissl, nd  few other medi outlets tke up the issue t this point. However, ony’s creer is destroyed. ony decides to nd llies before going public. As  precution, he mkes multiple copies of ll his documenttion nd gve copies to severl trusted friends. He lso mnges to obtin  copy of his own police le  spotless so fr  nd mkes copies to protect himself in cse of future ltertion. Aer reding further on the problem of police corruption, ony relises tht it is systemic in most police forces nd tht there is evidence of  ntionl-level “brotherhood.” erefore he cnnot expect to ddress the problem by exposing  few individuls. He mkes contct with  ntionl ctivist group deling with police buses nd, s  result, meets severl police whistleblowers from round the country. He lerns from them the incredible personl cost of chllenging police corruption from the inside nd the virtul impossibility of bringing bout chnge when the mjor politicl prties re cmpigning on “lw nd order.” ⇒ Exit . ony leves the police nd tkes nother job. He joins  minor politicl prty nd works to implement  policy tht would ddress police corruption. ⇒ Exit . ony helps the ctivist group write nd produce  booklet designed for people subject to police brutlity. e stress of keeping ll his outside ctivity with the group  secret becomes too much nd he leves the force. ⇒ Exit . ony decides to keep  low pro le nd move s soon s he cn to the white-collr crime section. Here he nds n outlet for his computer skills. Before long he discovers tht corruption pervdes this re too. e min differences re tht there is no direct violence nd the mounts of money re vstly greter. With his links to police whistleblowers he is mde constntly wre of the difficulty of exposing problems nd building support without scri cing his creer. He keeps collecting informtion, pssing it on to criminology reserchers nd looking for n venue to use it where it might ctully chnge things. Analysis. It is exceedingly risky to expose police corruption from the inside, yet exceedingly difficult to tckle it from the outside. rticulr circumstnces re required to open the possibility of rel chnge. ony hd  fr better chnce thn most, hving prior work experience nd skills, yet none of his options gurnteed nything like success. What outsiders can do et up  police corruption ction group. Bring together police whistleblowers. Cmpign to chnge policies, such s drug lws, tht llow police corruption to ourish. Lotte Fog blew the whistle on radiation underdosing at Royal Adelaide Hospital. Initially she preferred to be anonymous, hence the silhouette. A case of sexual harassment Lydi is  recent engineering grdute who obtins  job in  mjor corportion. he ws one of severl femle engineers ppointed t the sme time into n re previously completely dominted by mle engineers nd technicins. Lydi needs to lern on the job, nd some of the technicins know more thn nyone bout prcticl things, since mny of the senior engineers hve mngeril roles. All the femle engineers encounter  degree of hostility, especilly from the technicins. ere is foul lnguge nd sexul jokes obviously intended to cuse them distress, nd they re undermined by not being told bout certin stndrd wys of doing things. ne of the other new engineers, Alice, is singled out for hrssment: certin men stre t her body while ignoring wht she sys nd put pornogrphic pictures in her desk drwer. ere re incidents where men grb her, ostensibly to protect her from  dnger. Alice con des tht she is thinking bout quitting. ⇒ Exit . Lydi shows little sympthy. he tries to become “one of the boys,” joins in lughter t Alice’s expense nd ignores the more serious hrssment. ⇒ Exit . Lydi decides to leve t the rst opportunity. he thinks she will be the next trget er Alice. ⇒ Exit . Lydi tlks to the min hrssers, telling them tht Alice is seriously upset nd thinking of leving. is only encourges them to esclte their ttcks. In  prticulrly serious incident, Alice suffers  minor injury nd then goes on leve for stress. Lydi joins Alice in mking  forml complint to their mnger. othing hppens for months, nd the hrssment continues. Lydi comes under more systemtic ttck nd eventully leves. ey tke the compny to court under ntidiscrimintion legisltion. e compny ghts them tooth nd nil, nd ccuses them of bd performnce nd even cheting to obtin their engineering quli ctions. Aer two yers they lose the cse. Lydi undertkes  systemtic study of the problem. he reds books nd rticles bout sexul hrssment, nd lso studies mle engineering culture. he tlks to sexul hrssment counsellors nd ctivists nd mkes contct with other femle engineers who hve come up ginst the problem. he nds out tht forml complints hve very little chnce of success. Aer tlking to ech of them individully, Lydi clls  meeting of ll the femle engineers to shre their experiences nd informtion. ome of them were not wre of how bd things were for Alice. ey gree to support ech other. ey begin to systemticlly collect informtion bout every incident of hrssment. ⇒ Exit . Aer the hrssment continues, Lydi nd Alice mount  court cse under ntidiscrimintion legisltion, thinking tht the detiled evidence they’ve collected will llow them to win ginst the odds. e cse turns their mle co-workers ginst them nd, even without overt incidents, the hostility leds both of them to resign. Aer three tough yers they win the cse nd re wrded compenstion. e compny ppels. Aer two more yers they settle out of court for  substntil sum, which, however, is smll compred to the dmge to their creers. enwhile, the court cse hs triggered some super cil chnges by mngement but united the mle engineers nd technicins ginst the two women. ⇒ Exit . e women decide to pproch one of the compny’s new vice-presidents, the rst womn to be ppointed to this level. e V tells them they should just tough it out, the sme wy she did. Lter, when contcting femle lwyers nd counsellors, they nd tht the V  n in uentil person in severl circles  hs undermined some of their support. Lydi relises tht to chnge the culture in the workplce, it is necessry to get the support of some mle workers. By crefully observing them, she notices tht severl of them refuse to prticipte in hrssment nd  few re obviously repelled by wht is hppening but re not con dent enough to intervene. e women spek to severl of these men, emphsising how the hrssment is reducing productivity nd reducing the chnce of mking the chnges needed to keep the compny competitive. ey lso provide some le ets on sexul hrssment. wo of the men re openly sympthetic. (e wife of one of them is lso n engineer, working elsewhere but confronting similr problems.) bserving  serious “bump-nd-grb” incident, one of the sympthetic mn speks criticlly to the hrsser, who in turn becomes very ggressive nd nerly strts  ght. A mnger hppens to witness the entire episode. ⇒ Exit . e hrsser is summrily red. A trde union officil, with strong links to the most serious hrssers, gets the technicins to go on strike, telling them tht the hrsser is the victim of  neurotic feminist who hs just broken up with her boyfriend. Aer the compny grees to bide by the decision of n rbitrtor, the technicins return to work. e rbitrtor nds tht dismissl ws too strong n ction, nd the worker is reinstted. e whole episode mobilises most of the workers behind the hrsser, who is seen s  victim of mngement. ⇒ Exit . Awre of the incresing tensions, the mnger is glvnised into ction nd is ble to implement  “restructuring” tht mostly seprtes the serious hrssers from the women. As  result they hve n esier time but the culture in the work group with the hrssers remins dedly. Analysis. exul hrssment is  serious continuing problem, with close links to bullying. If it is deeply entrenched in workplce culture,  long-term strtegy oriented to building support is necessry. What outsiders can do Join or set up support groups for people who hve been sexully hrssed. roduce publicity bout the problem. ount cmpigns trgeting notorious hrssers. Case of an unresponsive anti-corruption agency Kylie is  middle-rnking mnger t  compny tht successfully tenders for government contrcts. he becomes wre of  kick-bck scheme by which senior stff t the gency receive pyments from compnies in exchnge for fvourble tretment. he wnts to expose the scheme but is wre tht, if she does so, her own compny might lose some of its contrcts. Kylie decides to mke n nonymous submission to the Committee on Government Corruption (CGC), n independent governmentfunded gency set up to investigte nd root out corruption in government bodies. ix months er mking her detiled submission, nothing hs hppened. he then rings the CGC nd sks wht hppens with nonymous submissions. he is told tht the CGC normlly doesn’t ct on informtion unless the informnts identify them- selves, but tht identities of ll informnts re kept in the strictest con dence. With misgivings, Kylie composes nd signs  creful letter sking for ction on her previous submission. oon er, her compny loses n expected contrct nd she is the only person lid off, though her work hd been highly regrded. A friendly co-worker tells her tht she ws suspected of hving stbbed the compny in the bck. ⇒ Exit . Kylie, severely burned by the experience, moves to nother prt of the country, obtins nother job nd vows to sty out of trouble in future. onths pss, nd no ction is tken in reltion to her submission. Kylie obtins  clericl job nd decides to persist with her concerns. he pproches severl other gencies but is told tht the CGC is the most pproprite body for her complint. Her clls to the CGC result in blnd ssurnces tht her submission is “being looked into.” ⇒ Exit . e CGC is being reviewed er yers of opertion. Kylie decides to mke  complint to the review committee, pointing out the filure of the CGC to mintin con dentility. e review committee, however, gives the CGC  fvourble report. lking to  member of the review committee, Kylie is told tht there is not ny solid evidence tht the CGC ws responsible for her dismissl. Kylie, tlking to her friends bout her problem, is told bout someone else who went to the CGC but obtined no stisfction. he contcts this person, hers  similr story to her own, nd is told bout others. oon she hs  list of hlf  dozen people who re disgusted with the CGC, either becuse it hs filed to follow up their informtion, reveled their identity, or botched investigtions so tht the min culprits escped while penlties were imposed on  few scpegots. Kylie relises tht her experiences re typicl. he nd two others decide to set up the CGC Reform Group. ⇒ Exit . e Reform Group decides to lobby government officils who formlly hve oversight over the CGC. ey muster ll their evidence nd rguments ginst the CGC nd then prepre submissions nd rrnge meetings. Aer two yers it is pprent tht only super cil chnges will be recommended. ost Reform Group members lose interest due to lck of progress. e Reform Group decides to dopt  strtegy bsed on publicity. Aer prepring their rguments to be bold nd punchy, they contct some journlists nd produce medi releses ccusing the CGC of being “clumsy on corruption.” e resulting medi stories bring in mny new members with further stories of CGC filures. ey lso stimulte  few individuls to write letters to newsppers in defence of the CGC. CGC officils do not comment er the rst round of stories, obviously hoping the issue will die down. But s the coverge continues week er week  stimulted by new Reform Group members  the CGC issues its own medi releses. It lso promotes stories bout successes in deling with corruption nd ttcks the Reform Group for being ignornt nd unrepresenttive. ⇒ Exit . e Reform Group mintins its medi cmpign nd is quite successful in denting the imge of the CGC. Eventully, though, they run out of fresh stories nd journlists nd editors lose interest. e CGC wethers the storm nd continues on s before, though not s mny whistleblowers pproch it s before. ome members of the Reform Group begin  deeper investigtion of the CGC, looking into its history, record of performnce nd lso t the record of similr bodies in other countries. ey discover tht the CGC hd never been given the resources or mndte to tckle the most signi cnt forms of corruption  especilly corruption linked to the politicins who hd set it up  nd tht it hd grdully dried into  pttern of pper-shuffling (to stisfy stringent bureucrtic reporting requirements), focusing on  few super cil but high-pro le cses. ⇒ Exit . ese reserch-oriented members of the Reform Group prepre severl sophisticted ppers bout the filure of government-initited cmpigns ginst corruption nd get them published in journls nd mgzines. is cdemic orienttion turns off mny other members. In  lst-ditch effort to regin momentum, the Reform Group produces n excellent le et bout the weknesses of the CGC. However, there is not enough energy to give it wide distribution. ome members of the Reform Group decide tht they need to tke ction into their own hnds. By focussing on the CGC, they were ssuming tht slvtion cme from someone else. ey decide to set up the “eople’s Committee on Government Corruption” or CGC. It would tke submissions, estblish investigtion tems nd produce documents. It soon becomes obvious tht this is n enormous enterprise nd tht it will be necessry to concentrte on  few speci c res nd types of corruption. CGC orgnisers relise tht they need to set the highest stndrds for its investigtion tems nd tht they might be in ltrted or set up. ne erly spin-off is tht two workers t the CGC pproch the CGC with inside informtion bout how the CGC opertes nd why it hs voided tckling well-known res of mjor corruption. Analysis. Government oversight bodies re oen under-resourced nd lose ny drive to tckle deep-seted problems. Individuls who expect results re oen disppointed. eir best chnce of chnging things comes from bnding together. Even then, it is extremely hrd to counterct the dvntges of  government body with forml legitimcy nd connections. ometimes it cn be more productive to tke direct ction ginst the problem rther thn continuing with  complint ginst n officil body’s lck of ction. What outsiders can do Join or set up  group such s the CGC Reform Group or the eople’s Committee on Government Corruption. 11 Surviving Whistleblowing cn hve devstting consequences for helth, nnces nd reltionships. ou should tke steps to mintin ech of them. e personl consequences of whistleblowing or otherwise chllenging the system cn be severe. nless you’ve been through it yourself, it cn be worse thn you cn possibly imgine. ere re impcts in three mjor res. Health. e stress of coming under ttck cn led to hedches, insomni, nuse, plpittions, spsms nd incresed risk of infections, cncer, stroke nd hert ttck, mong others. sychologiclly, impcts cn include depression, nxiety nd prnoi. ny whistleblowers suffer post-trumtic stress disorder. Finances. ny whistleblowers suffer in their creers, losing out on possible promotions nd new jobs. ore seriously, they my tke  cut in py or lose their jobs. n top of this, legl nd other expenses re oen more thn  , nd sometimes more thn  , . Relationships. Getting involved in  mjor cse plys hvoc with personl reltionships, due to the llegtions nd rumours, the stress nd the time nd effort tken ghting the cse. is cn cuse friends nd reltives to sty wy nd cn brek up mrriges. Impcts in these three res interct: helth nd nncil problems put  strin on reltionships, nd  brekdown in reltionships cn ggrvte helth problems. Maintaining good health e impcts of stress re to some extent unvoidble. If you ctch the u, then it will run its course. But there re wys to reduce the worst consequences. Regulr exercise is importnt. Wlking, erobics, jogging, swimming nd cycling re excellent. ey build tness, reduce bodily tension nd hve  psychologiclly clming effect. ome competitive sports cn be good too, though there cn be tension due to the competition itself. Good diet is vitl. is mens eting regulrly nd in modertion, with plenty of fruit nd vegetbles. Vitmin-rich nd minerlrich foods re especilly importnt; mny people tke supplements s well. A wholesome diet mkes  big difference in helping resist stress. is is stndrd dvice, but it cn be hrd to follow when under intense pressures. ere cn be  tempttion to overet or to skip mels (depending on the person) nd to et the wrong sorts of foods. e sme pplies to drugs. moking, lcohol nd other drugs my give short-term relief but they cn ggrvte physicl problems nd cover up psychologicl problems. It cn be extremely difficult to chnge hbits, especilly in  stressful sitution. Willpower is oen indequte. Lte t night, er hours spent prepring  submission, it is fr more tempting to rech for  smoke or  chocolte thn for  crrot stick. ere re severl wys to try to overcome this sort of behviour. ne is to sk  fmily member, friend or co-worker to help. If the rest of the fmily is eting  wholesome mel, it is esy to join in. If  friend comes by every dy to join you for  wlk or  swim, it is esier to keep up the hbit. A second wy is to design your environment so bd hbits re hrder to follow. If there re no cigrettes in the house, it’s esier to resist the urge for  smoke. If there re tsty fresh fruits lwys vilble but no rich ckes, then sncking on the fruit becomes esier. A third wy is to estblish  routine to del with stressful events or times. ou might write down  list of “things to do” whenever feeling severely stressed. For exmple: “( ) tke deep, slow breths; ( ) wlk round the block; ( ) write down exctly wht it is tht is mking me feel stressed; ( ) tell myself tht I m working hrd t mking  difference.” in this list on the wll or put it in your pocket, nd then use it. Experiment to nd wht works for you. Another importnt prt of mintining good helth is to get plenty of rest. is cn be difficult. Insomni is  common rection to stress. It is possible to spend hlf the night wke worrying bout wht ction you should tke or wht’s going to hppen next. ere re severl things tht help cope with insomni. Regulr exercise nd good diet help. veruse of cigrettes, lcohol nd most other drugs don’t. leeping pills cn help in the short term but over  longer period re undesirble. It is wise to go to bed bout the sme time every night nd, even more importntly, to get up the sme time. If you cn’t sleep, then get up nd do something unrelted to wht is worrying you, such s red  novel, listen to the rdio or do  cr. Lck of sleep on its own is not dmging. If you re sleep-deprived, you cn still crry out most tsks with full competence s long s you mintin concentrtion. It my seem unfir to hve to wtch your diet nd void overindulgence. Why should you? ink of it s being in trining. A top swimmer hs to put in lots of hours in the pool, et suitbly nd get sufficient rest. A whistleblower, in order to succeed ginst enormous pressures, lso needs to put in the required hours of preprtion nd to mke sure their body cn withstnd the stress. Furthermore, ppering t nd helthy gives you more credibility when meeting others. Just s importnt s physicl tness is psychologicl tness. is is not just  mtter of remining sne but of keeping  blnced, fresh perspective on the world. is is vitl to be ble to build support nd to formulte nd pursue  sensible strtegy. Retining  sense of perspective in the fce of hrssment nd other pressures is  chllenge. If your body is recting, with insomni, hedches or worse, this dds to the chllenge. ome pressures re externl, nd it my not be possible to void them. ther pressures re self-imposed, for exmple spending long hours prepring  submission. ry to moderte the self-imposed pressures. ln hed to void lst-minute demnds. Ask for extensions to dedlines. ke regulr breks in work sessions. If you re  perfectionist, sk  friend to help you decide when things re polished enough. It cn help to lern skills in mentl relxtion. ou could try medittion, lerning from  book or  techer, or something like ti chi, with both physicl nd mentl spects. ny people think tht emotions just hppen nd tht there is nothing we cn do bout them. Actully, emotions cn be controlled to  considerble extent. ou cn decide wht you wnt to feel nd set bout chieving it. Rther thn responding to ttcks with fer nd nger, you cn decide tht you’re going to try to feel lled with con dence, resolve, dignity  even compssion. ne of the wys to do this is through “self-tlk.” Athletes do this to build their self-con dence nd crete  deep belief tht they cn win ginst the odds. When you re in  secure sitution, perhps just er wking up or before going to sleep, you recite to yourself ffirmtions such s “I m  worthy person. I will persist with con dence nd good humour.” If you’re  visul person, using pproprite imgery might work better. Wht’s hppening here is tht you control your thoughts nd this in turn helps shpe your emotions. ere re limits, though. If  friend of yours dies, it is nturl to feel grief. But it is lso nturl for tht grief to decline in intensity over  period of time. If it persists, then it is time to use self-tlk to chnge your emotionl stte. imilrly, n incident of serious hrssment cn be expected to led to strong feelings, such s nger, fer or depression, depending on the person nd the circumstnces. rough self-tlk, these negtive emotions cn be minimised. Another pproch is medittion in which you simply observe your thoughts without judging them. is process my be enough to mke negtive thoughts grdully go wy. Alterntively, by observing your thoughts, you cn identify the ones you wnt to replce. Feeling prticulr emotions cn become  hbit. Aer  lifetime of feeling excessive resentment or distress t certin types of situtions, it is not esy to chnge. Don’t expect  sudden personlity trnsformtion. Just keep working t it. ne wy to bring bout chnges in your emotions is to behve the wy you wnt to feel. For exmple, you cn pretend to be con dent even though you feel insecure. If you keep cting con dently for weeks nd months, eventully you will strt to feel con dent. When under stress, just tlking with  sympthetic person cn do wonders. It cn be  serious mistke to bottle up feelings. e more serious the sitution, the more importnt it is to tlk. It cn be with  friend or  trined counsellor  someone you trust nd who is helpful. If selecting  therpist, try to obtin dvice, for exmple  recommendtion from someone who hs been in  similr sitution. If, for some reson, you re unble to tlk bout your sitution with nyone, you cn tlk to yourself. Just sy out loud wht you’d sy if someone were there. An lterntive is to write it down. A diry cn be immensely therpeutic. peking nd writing help to get things “out of your system.” Surviving financially A few dissidents don’t hve to worry bout money. ey my hve lrge svings or  prtner with  secure job. But for the mjority, nncil survivl is  crucil issue. A primry fctor tht keeps most people from speking up bout problems is fer of loss of income. n top of this, ghting  cse through the courts nd some other chnnels cn be incredibly expensive. e keys to surviving nncilly re to: • • • • mke  complete nd honest ssessment of one’s sitution; live on  sustinble budget; prepre for the worst outcome; ct now rther thn lter. It cn be difficult to mke  complete nd honest ssessment of one’s nnces. ome people don’t know wht they re spending. Keeping  detiled budget over  month or more cn be helpful. erhps there re lots of expenses for the mortgge, the cr, eting out, medicl tretment, buying clothes or sending the children to  privte school. e key is to be wre of them. nce you know your nncil sitution, work out  budget tht you cn mintin, so less money is going out thn is coming in. Idelly you should be sving some money too. ext, prepre for the worst outcome. If you re being seriously thretened with dismissl, then prepre for dismissl nd  period without work. If you re pursuing  legl cse, it my tke twice s long s the lwyer predicts nd cost twice s much. If you win, the other side my ppel. e worst cse is tht you lose. ke this into ccount when, for exmple, considering whether to sk to borrow money from reltives. If you lose your job, you need to cut expenses immeditely. It’s tempting to keep up the sme lifestyle in the hope tht you’ll get your job bck in n ppel or nd  new one. is is risky nd cn mke things fr worse lter on. It my be wise to move to cheper lodging, sell or do without certin luxury items, or to chnge to less expensive hbits or hobbies. Cutting expenses my seem like giving up. Indeed, in  few situtions, mintining ppernces cn be importnt to winning  cse. But usully the cost of your clothes nd the newness of your cr re fr less importnt thn your bility to survive nd keep ghting the cse. ou re much more likely to survive if you re living within your nnces nd prepred for the worst outcome. therwise, due to lck of money, you my hve to give up in the middle of the struggle. If you win  big settlement or get your job bck, it’s time to celebrte. But don’t ssume money problems re over. If you cn’t get  job or re dismissed gin, your bnk blnce could dwindle to nothing before you know it. rudent nncil plnning is essentil to give you long-term security. Maintaining relationships ursuing  cse cn become n ll-consuming struggle, tking up every wking minute nd every thought. ince you’re struggling for your beliefs nd your life, it’s nturl to become single-minded. ince you tlk only bout your cse, your reltives, friends nd co-workers will strt to think you’re obsessed. ey’re right! ere re two importnt resons why mintining reltionships should be  priority. First, personl reltionships re importnt in themselves. For most people, they re n essentil prt of  life worth living. Is your cse so very importnt tht it’s worth lienting those closest to you? truggles re oen fr more intense nd long-lsting thn ever imgined t the beginning. A friend who strts off mking  temporry scri ce my eventully nd it becomes too much. Rekindling friendships my not be so esy. f course, the struggle my help you decide who your “rel” friends re. But do you wnt the struggle to de ne ll your reltionships? e second importnt reson why mintining reltionships should be  priority is tht it cn help you succeed in your struggle. our fmily, friends nd co-workers re potentil llies. ey cn give you prcticl ssistnce nd emotionl support. It’s fr better to win them over thn turn them off. our cse my be the most importnt thing in your life but it won’t be for most other people. A few my shre your pssion but mny others will prefer you to be the wy you used to be. Spend time with those you care about the most. If you re spending lots of time on  cse, you won’t be ble to do ll the socilising you used to do. ime with those closest to you should be  priority. Focus on the other person. Listen to their concerns nd perspectives. If the other person hs herd  lot from you bout the cse, one useful technique is not to rise it unless they sk. en, be brief nd let them sk for more informtion if they wnt to. For csul cquintnces, use only the briefest of summries. If they wnt to know more, let them sk. If you hve  write-up, tht cn replce  lengthy repet of the story. ere re severl dvntges to sying less rther thn more. ou re better ble to mintin reltionships nd void lienting people. ou crete  better imge s  sensible, blnced person, nd this cn help you succeed in the struggle. ou cn get  better sense of how other people perceive nd rect if you listen rther thn tlk. nderstnding other people’s perspectives is very helpful in mking your own messge more effective nd keeping your cse in context. 12 Whistleblower groups A whistleblower group cn both support individuls nd help tckle socil problems. ptions include networks, support groups nd ction groups. ne of the most useful things for ny person with  specil problem is to tlk with others who hve similr experiences. is is true of men with prostte cncer, children of lcoholics  nd whistleblowers. When whistleblowers meet ech other, it cn be remrkbly bene cil. For some, it is the rst time they hve tlked with nyone who relly understnds wht they’ve been going through. e relief nd ressurnce this provides to someone who hs been under constnt ttck is hrd to pprecite. o, just contct some locl whistleblowers, cll  meeting nd wy you go! t cn be ll it tkes. But things re seldom this simple. Here I will outline some fctors to consider in orgnising to support whistleblowers. is drws hevily on my experience with Whistleblowers Austrli but includes insights from other groups. Getting started In  city of , people, there re probbly dozens of people with whistleblowing experience nd mny with current cses. As well, there will be others who re sympthetic or concerned, such s free speech cmpigners. Finding out who these people re my not be so esy. ne wy is to sk prominent whistleblowers, whether locl or from elsewhere. Individuls whose stories re in the medi re oen contcted by others with similr experiences. Another wy is to serch the Internet or news dtbses. ver  yer, it wouldn’t be surprising if severl cses were reported. Finlly, there is publicity. An dvertisement or, fr better, n rticle or news story bout whistleblowing is n excellent wy to encourge people to contct you. ometimes, though, there re plenty of people known to be willing to ttend  meeting, but no one is willing to do the work. Clling  meeting is not  big opertion. Find  venue   person’s home, or  room in  librry, church or school  select  dte nd time, nd send out notices. But someone hs to do the orgnising, nd only  minority of people will tke the inititive nd ssocited responsibility. Action groups nd support groups depend on these orgnisers. ny groups never strt becuse there is no such person. thers depend on one person, without whom the group would collpse. For  group to hve resilience, there should be severl people who will tke responsibility. t’s the best sitution. From now on, I’m ssuming tht there is t lest one orgniser. e next question is, wht should be done? ere re  number of possibilities, ech with dvntges nd disdvntges. Networks A network is essentilly  set of ctul or potentil links between people. It could be  list, with ech person providing contct informtion, their res of knowledge nd experience, nd wht they re potentilly willing to do to help dissidents, such s provide dvice, write letters or tlk to the medi. Aer tht, it ll depends on someone’s inititive. A journlist cn use the list to nd people willing to spek on prticulr topics. omeone on the list might send rticles to everyone else on the list. ny networks operte through emil lists, Fcebook pges, Googlegroups or other pltforms. When you think bout it, it’s obvious tht every orgnistion hs one or more ssocited networks. Employees know ech other, or t lest some of them know ech other. ey my just meet on the job, or they my ring ech other t home, go to prties, etc. e sme pplies to church members, club members nd students, mong others. In ll these cses, there is n orgnistion nd  network. A pure network, in contrst, doesn’t hve n orgnistion. ere re no meetings, no money, no constitution, no office berers. ere’s just the list or online venue, nd everything else is t someone’s inititive. e key exception is tht one or two people need to tke responsibility for mintining the network. As in most voluntry ctivities, orgnisers re vitl. ny contcts occur through personl referrl. When someone sks me for dvice, I oen suggest tht they contct certin other people. ther contcts rise when people serch the web nd nd n rticle or blog or whtever  nd  link to you. If you re mentioned in  newspper or give  tlk on rdio, people with similr concerns my be inspired to contct you. A network is more thn  list of nmes or  website. It is  process,  set of ctive reltionships. If  network is ctive, it usully mens tht its members re engged with the issues s well s with ech other. eople involved in groups oen begin to think tht the orgnistionl spects  meetings, regultions, policies  re centrl, nd forget bout the network spects. In relity, networks re crucil fetures of orgnistions, nd sometimes more importnt thn the orgnistion itself. Individual support If someone rings with  problem, you my be ble to offer informtion, support nd dvice. Individul support is one of the most vitl prts of helping whistleblowers nd promoting dissent. It doesn’t re- quire gret knowledge, but rther  sensitivity to  person nd their concerns. ere re  few things tht re oen helpful. . Listening. en  person with  problem just needs someone to listen without judging them. ey my be ble to work out  solution themselves without ny dvice. ere cn be  gret tempttion to jump in nd tell  person wht they should be doing. t my be counterproductive. eople need to rech their own decisions. Wht cn help, sometimes, is suggestions of options or implictions  but not  long lecture. Listen … listen. . Contacts. ou my be ble to suggest people who cn help or who hve hd similr experiences. ybe there is n orgnistion or  meeting. A lot of support is helping  person mke the right contcts. (Bck to the networks.) . Information. ou my hve rticles or other mterils tht cn help. (ee below.) erly everyone hs much to offer in giving individul support, if they wnt to. If you wnt to improve your listening skills, observe others who re good t this, for exmple t meetings. Ask for feedbck from people you tlk to. ry some role plys in “ctive listening.” For improving knowledge of contcts, tlk to people yourself, sk people for their recommendtions, ttend meetings nd get dvice from good networkers. For improving knowledge of informtion sources, red things yourself nd sk others wht ws most helpful to them. Information materials lking to people is ne but it tkes time nd cn become repetitive. Giving someone n rticle or link tht ddresses their prticulr sitution cn be extremely helpful. o provide support effectively, it’s vluble to hve  collection of mterils, so the most relevnt ones cn be given to  person seeking ssistnce. hort tretments re oen most helpful to begin with. hort rticles re good nd so re copies of news stories. Books nd lengthy reports cn be helpful for those who hve  deeper interest. Wht should the mterils be bout? • Informtion bout the topic, whether it is ethics in the workplce, corruption, wht hppens to whistleblowers, or methods of responding. • Contcts: nmes, ddresses, phone numbers. • Where to get more informtion: orgnistions, websites, links to rticles nd books. For some people,  pcket of informtion mterils is the min help they’ll receive. ey my be isolted geogrphiclly or socilly, or they my be in  risky position nd nervous bout speking too widely bout their cse. Informtion kits should be designed nd chosen to help people to become s self-relint s possible. Support groups and action groups Whistleblowers cn form support groups or ction groups  both of which re described in chpter  or groups tht re combintions of both. upport groups probbly offer the best chnce of giving whistleblowers more con dence nd support without the distrction of forml procedures nd business. ey ren’t necessrily esy to run, nd sometimes they re lled with tension nd nguish  mny whistleblowers need  lot of support  but it’s worth the effort. Whistleblower ction groups cn use  vriety of methods, including lobbying politicins, producing newsletters nd reports, crrying out investigtions, mking informed public sttements, writing letters, orgnising meetings nd promoting civil disobedience. ey cn hve vrious gols, such s promoting whistleblower legisltion, chnging lws or policies tht constrin free speech of employees, opposing the use of defmtion lw ginst free speech, exposing corruption nd injustice in speci c res (police, bnks, building industry, etc.), opposing censorship or promoting open government. Here I’ll just give  few brief comments bout some key issues fcing whistleblower nd relted groups. Action versus support. In mny groups there is  mixture of functions, including both ction nd support. Getting the blnce right is hrd. ome people re coming to get things done  ction. ey re oriented to tsks. thers re seeking support. ey re primrily concerned bout mintining reltionships. upport or mintennce is lwys involved, t some level. If support functions re neglected, personl tensions cn ter  group prt. n the other hnd, if support becomes the primry focus, nothing gets done. ometimes it cn help to seprte these functions, for exmple to hving personl shring t the beginning of  meeting, or by hving seprte support nd generl business meetings. Advocacy. hould the group tke up n individul member’s personl cse, nd thus become involved in dvoccy? r should it stick to support, eduction, publicity, lobbying nd/or direct ction? ome individul cses re very worthy. uch cses cn provide leverge for wider chnge, nd ssocited publicity cn further the cuse. e disdvntge is tht dvoccy is inevitbly selective. Due to shortge of resources, only some cses cn be supported. t mens not supporting others. If people expect to nd dvoctes, most will be disppointed. If they expect to obtin  sympthetic er, some informtion nd  few contcts, there’s  better chnce of meeting their expecttions. Openness. hould the group be open to ll comers? r should it be restricted to those who stisfy certin criteri? If  whistleblower group is restricted to those who re “genuine” whistleblowers, wht is to be done bout someone who hs spent time in prison nd clims he ws frmed becuse he spoke out? omeone hs to judge ech clim, nd this cn be contentious. ome who ren’t whistleblowers will slip through the net nd some who re genuine my be put off by the process of scrutiny. n the other hnd, ll sorts of people cn ttend n open group, nd this my include  few disruptive ones who re given no credence by nyone else. Jean Lennane comments Whistleblowers re normlly very conscientious nd oen somewht obsessionl people, who by de nition won’t shut up nd go wy. When they rst come to  whistleblower group, they re lso lmost lwys totlly preoccupied with the importnce nd injustice of their own cse. is cn mke it difficult to run  group. Be wre nd be prepred! Becoming ble to step bck from one’s own cse to see the bigger picture is vitl in the heling process nd mkes people fr more effective in tckling the system. nce there is  core of whistleblowers who hve reched this stge,  group becomes much more productive s well s fr esier to run. Hierarchy. e trditionl bureucrtic model is bsed on hierrchy. eople in positions t the top hve the most power nd issue orders to subordintes. Voluntry groups like churches lso cn operte bureucrticlly, even though those t the top hve little or no legl uthority. An lterntive model is of equlity, in which ll members re equl in forml sttus, with no office berers. en in such groups there is n ttempt to rotte tsks nd develop ech person’s skills in different res. e hierrchicl model gives some dvntges. fficil office berers hve more sttus nd credibility with the medi. If, s is usul, they hve lots of experience nd skill, their positions give them officil snction to mke key decisions nd set policy. But there re disdvntges. Hierrchy tends to breed power struggles. Ambitious or sttus-conscious people seek positions t the top not becuse of wht they hve to offer but becuse they wnt power nd sttus. thers become resentful. is cn result in spiteful bttles, including cliques, bckstbbing, sbotge nd liention of members. Without officil leders, eglitrin groups sometimes hve  difcult time gining  medi pro le. n the other hnd, they re oen more stisfying for members. However, power struggles cn occur even when there re no forml positions of uthority. In ll groups there re differences in experience, knowledge, skills nd reltionships. ome people use these to obtin dvntges or personl rewrds for themselves, such s recognition or pid trvel, nd others my be resentful of those with tlent. ere cn be some stndrd problems, such s hording of informtion, rumours, formtion of fctions, nd ttempts to gin power or undermine others, tht re common in virtully ll groups. Hierrchicl groups, though, tend to hve these to  greter degree. ere re  number of wys to minimise concentrtion of power in trditionl orgnistions, including limited terms for office berers, postl bllots, externl meditors nd rndom selection of chirs for meetings. Whistleblowers Austrli, most of whose members re whistleblowers, hs provided personl support nd dvice to hundreds of individuls, produced  vriety of informtion mterils nd wged cmpigns on severl importnt topics (such s the right of workers to mke public interest disclosures without reprisl). is ctivity hs been n importnt fctor in creting  wider wreness in the medi nd the community of the signi cnce of whistleblowing. Although Whistleblowers Austrli hs hd its shre of internl strife, its experience shows tht whistleblower groups cn mke  difference. Assessment ere’s no single best wy to promote the cuse of whistleblowing. etworks, individul support, informtion mterils, support groups nd ction groups cn ll be vluble. Ech person cn contribute in their own wy, for exmple by offering support to  friend, joining n ction group or writing  letter or submission. Different pproches re needed, becuse no single pproch is right for everyone nd every circumstnce. We need to help others nd the best wy they cn contribute, nd to keep lerning bout how to improve. e tsk is lrge but, s long s people cre, there is hope. References For those who wnt informtion, the most common pproch is to put “whistleblowing” into  serch engine nd see wht comes up. If you get to ny of the mjor sites hosted by whistleblower-support orgnistions  such s the Government Accountbility roject  they will offer much vluble informtion s well s links to other sites nd sources. ere re numerous books bout whistleblowing, plus mny personl ccounts by whistleblowers, s well s lms such s e Insider nd e Whistleblower. ost of these re informtive. Despite different circumstnces, the experiences of whistleblowers frequently follow  stndrd pttern, so lerning bout wht hppens to others cn provide helpful lessons. In this context of n bundnce of informtion, I offer here only  few references, with n emphsis on the res I’ve covered. y own website is http://www.bmrtin.cc/dissent/, with mny documents, contcts nd links to other sites  including links to severl of the rticles cited here. Practical guides om Devine, e Whistleblower’s Survival Guide: Courage Without Martyrdom (Wshington, DC: Fund for Constitutionl Government, ), vilble t http://www.whistleblower.org/progrm-res/ gp-reports/. ny whistleblowers hve sid this is the most prcticl mnul vilble. It hs lots of informtion bout  officil chnnels which, however, is of limited vlue to people elsewhere. om Devine nd rek F. ssrni, e Corporate Whistleblower’s Survival Guide (n Frncisco: Berrett-Koehler, ). An up-to-dte comprehensive tretment, highly vluble. uch of the informtion is gered to  circumstnces. Jen Lennne, “Wht hppens to whistleblowers, nd why,” in Kls Woldring (ed.), Business Ethics in Australia and New Zealand: Essays and Cases (elbourne: oms elson, ), pp. – . A vluble summry of insights. Reprinted in in the online journl Social Medicine. Books about whistleblowing C. Fred Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Failure (Ithc, : Cornell niversity ress, ). A thoughtprovoking ssessment of the mening of the whistleblower experience, with  penetrting nlysis of how whistleblowers’ lives nd beliefs re destroyed. Richrd Cllnd nd Guy Dehn (editors), Whistleblowing around the World: Law, Culture and Practice (Cpe own: pen Democrcy Advice Centre; London: ublic Concern t Work, ). An excellent collection of cse studies, ssessments of legl protection, nd civil society responses. Willim De ri,Deadly Disclosures: Whistleblowing and the Ethical Meltdown of Australia (Adelide: Wke eld ress, ). ny detiled cse studies, with  pessimistic view bout prospects. yron eretz Glzer nd enin igdl Glzer, e Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry (ew ork: Bsic Books, ). A vivid picture of whistleblowers’ commitment nd courge nd the terrible reprisls visited on them. Geoffrey Hunt (ed.), Whistleblowing in the Health Service: Accountability, Law and Professional Practice (London: Edwrd Arnold, ). Geoffrey Hunt (ed.), Whistleblowing in the Social Services: Public Accountability and Professional Practice (London: Arnold, ). Robert Ann Johnson, Whistleblowing: When It Works — and Why (Boulder, C: Lynne Rienner, ). retment of reltively successful high-pro le  cses. rci . iceli, Jnet . er nd erry orehed Dworkin, Whistle-blowing in Organizations (ew ork: Routledge, ). A comprehensive review of reserch. ernce D. iethe, Whistleblowing at Work: Tough Choices in Exposing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse on the Job (Boulder, C: Westview, ). An informtive, logicl, blnced survey of whistleblowing in the . Bureaucracy rk Bovens, e Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations (Cmbridge: Cmbridge niversity ress, ). A politicl, ethicl nd orgnistionl design nlysis of how to control complex orgnistions by using demnds for ccountbility. Deen Weinstein, Bureaucratic Opposition: Challenging Abuses at the Workplace (ew ork: ergmon, ). A vluble perspective for understnding the nture of bureucrcy s  power system nd the implictions for whistleblowers. The psychology of wrongdoing eople who do bd things seldom think of themselves s bd people. ese books give n insight into wht’s relly going through people’s minds. Roy F. Bumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty (ew ork: Freemn, ). Fred Emil Ktz, Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil: A Report on the Beguilings of Evil (Albny, : tte niversity of ew ork ress, ). Low-profile operations — and surviving in organisations ere is no de nitive tretment of how to bring bout bottom-up chnge within orgnistions. ese books del with survivl or fostering chnge or both. Lee G. Bolmn nd errence E. Del, Escape from Cluelessness: A Guide for the Organizationally Challenged (ew ork: Amcom, ). Advice for understnding nd promoting chnge in  corportions. Ir Chleff, e Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our Leaders (n Frncisco: Berrett-Koehler, ). How to help the orgnistion by serving when pproprite nd gently chllenging leders s needed. Hrry E. Chmbers, My Way or the Highway: e Micromanagement Survival Guide (n Frncisco: Berrett-Koehler, ). n deling with controlling mngers. Lur Crwshw, Taming the Abrasive Manager: How to End Unnecessary Roughness in the Workplace (n Frncisco: Jossey-Bss, ). n wht drives overbering bosses nd how to del with them. Leonrd Felder, Fitting in Is Overrated: e Survival Guide for Anyone Who Has Ever Felt Like an Outsider (ew ork: terling, ). e bene ts of nd skills for being different. Joep . . chrijvers, e Way of the Rat: A Survival Guide to Office Politics (London: Cyn, ). A prcticl mnul, presented from  cynicl perspective. Judith Wytt nd Chuncey Hre, Work Abuse: How to Recognize and Survive It (Rochester, V: chenkmn, ). A comprehensive tretment on surviving psychologiclly, well worth detiled study. Verbal skills Verbl skills cn mke  tremendous difference in bringing bout chnge. uzette Hden Elgin, e Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense (ew ork: Fll River, , revised edition)  nd mny other books with relted titles. A highly insightful, prcticl tretment. m Horn, Tongue Fu! How to De ect, Disarm, and Defuse any Verbal Con ict (ew ork: t. rtin’s Griffin, ). A wonderful mnul on effective verbl communiction. George J. ompson nd Jerry B. Jenkins, Verbal Judo: e Gentle Art of Persuasion (ew ork: Willim orrow, ). An excellent prcticl tretment on how to be effective verblly. Official channels ere is no single reference tht gives  comprehensive description of how nd why officil chnnels fil so oen. ese tretments del with spects of the problem. Willim De ri nd Cyrelle Jn, “Behold the shut-eyed sentry! Whistleblower perspectives on government filure to correct wrongdoing,” Crime, Law & Social Change, Vol. , , pp. – . oms . Devine nd Donld G. Aplin, “Abuse of uthority: the ffice of the pecil Counsel nd whistleblower protection,” Antioch Law Journal, Vol. , o. , , pp. – . oms . Devine nd Donld G. Aplin, “Whistleblower protection–the gp between the lw nd relity,” Howard Law Journal, Vol. , , pges – . Anthony J. Evns, “Deling with dissent: whistleblowing, eglitrinism, nd the republic of the rm,” Innovation: the European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. , o. , eptember , pp. – . ne Rosenbum, e Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right (ew ork: HrperCollins, ). Leaking e Art of Anonymous Activism: Serving the Public While Surviving Public Service (Wshington, DC: roject on Government versight; Government Accountbility roject; ublic Employees for Environmentl Responsibility, ), especilly pp. – . A prcticl mnul, oriented to  circumstnces. Julin Assnge, “How  whistleblower should lek informtion.” (erch for it on the web.) Very sensible dvice. Kthryn Flynn, “e prctice nd politics of leking,” Social Alternatives, Vol. , o. , , pp. – . A nice summry tretment. icky Hger nd Bob Burton, Secrets and Lies: e Anatomy of an Anti-environmental PR Campaign (elson, ew elnd: Crig otton, ). An ppendix, “A brief guide to leking,” is informtive. Strategy for activists For skills on nlysing the sitution, developing  strtegy nd tking ction, see: ul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: a Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals (ew ork: Rndom House, ). Doyle Cnning nd trick Reinsborough, Re:imagining Change: An Introduction to Story-based Strategy (smrteme, ). Virgini Coover, Ellen Decon, Chrles Esser nd Christopher oore, Resource Manual for a Living Revolution (hildelphi: ew ociety ublishers, ). Chris Crss, Towards Collective Liberation: Anti-Racist Organizing, Feminist Praxis, and Movement Building Strategy (klnd, CA:  ress, ). er Herngren, Path of Resistance: e Practice of Civil Disobedience (hildelphi: ew ociety ublishers, ). Brin rtin, Back re Manual: Tactics against Injustice (prsnäs, weden: Irene ublishing, ). How to mke ttcks counterproductive for the ttcker. Bill oyer, with JoAnn cAllister, ry Lou Finley, nd teven oifer, Doing Democracy: e MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements (Gbriol Islnd, BC, Cnd: ew ociety ublishers, ). Rndy hw, e Activist’s Handbook: A Primer for the s and Beyond (Berkeley: niversity of Cliforni ress, ). Ktrin hields, In the Tiger’s Mouth: An Empowerment Guide for Social Action (ydney: illennium Books, ). Wr Resisters’ Interntionl, Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns (Wr Resisters’ Interntionl, ). Surviving ere is  lot of writing bout “resilience,” t work nd elsewhere. se this s  keyword to nd recent sources. Roy F. Bumeister nd John ierney, Willpower: Rediscovering Our Greatest Strength (enguin, ). n understnding nd using willpower. lvtore R. ddi nd Deborh . Khoshb, Resilience at Work: How to Succeed No Matter What Life rows at You (ew ork: Amcom, ). Jmes W. ennebker, Opening Up: e Healing Power of Expressing Emotions (ew ork, Guilford, ). Writing s  tool for deling with emotionl problems. is is one of severl works by ennebker helpful to nyone under stress. Kthryn D. Crmer, Staying on Top When Your World Turns Upside Down (ew ork: enguin, ). Index ction groups, – , – , , – , , – , – . See also direct ction; socil ction dvice, – , – , , – , dvoctes, – , – . See also lwyers nlysis, – nonymity. ee leking; secrecy ttck: methods of, – ; resons for, – behviour, – blcklisting, blming, – bullying, , – , . See also hrssment bureucrcy, – , – . complints, – . See also officil chnnels computers, – contcts, context, – corportions, – corruption: nncil, – ; police, – . See also problems Cosser, Robin, , , , , , , cover-up, – . See also secrecy co-workers, , – , , . See also support De ri, Bill, – , defmtion, , , devlution, – . See also rumours dilogue, – , – , . See also person-to-person pproches diries, . See also written ccount direct ction, – . See also ction groups; socil ction disbility, – dobbing, doctors, , , – , – . See also helth documents, – , . See also evidence double stndrd test, – Ellsberg, Dniel, emotions, , , . See also motives evidence, , , – , – fmily, , , – , , . See also support nncil survivl, – Fog, Lotte, forml chnnels. ee officil chnnels friends, , – , – , , , , . See also support gols, – government, – , officil chnnels – . See also hrssment, , – , ; sexul, – . See also bullying helth, – . See also doctors; emotions hierrchy, – . See also powerholders hotlines, – , Jckll, Robert, – journlists, , – , – , , , – , . See also medi lnguge, , , , , , , , , cGregor, Isl, , medi, mss, – . See also journlists medition, – orl zes, – motives, – , . See also emotions networks, – newsppers, , . See also journlists; medi news vlues, – informtion, – . See also documents; evidence; references; reserch intimidtion, – . See also reprisls Krdell, Cynthi, , , , , , – , lwyers, – , – , , , , , . See also dvoctes leking, , , – , – Lennne, Jen, , , , , , , , letters, , , – , – , – Lindeberg, Kevin, , listening, low-pro le opertions, – , – . See also verbl skills , , officil chnnels, , – , – , – , – , – , , – , ; choosing, – ; filure of, – opponents, – opportunity cost, – , ostrcism, , person-to-person pproches, – photos, inson, Lesley, , , – , , , , – , , – police, , , , – power, – . See also powerholders powerholders, – , , – , – preprtion, – pressure group politics, – . See also ction groups problems, – , – psychology of wrongdoing, rdio, , . See also medi recordings, , – , – references, – . See also informtion reltionships, – . See also co-workers; fmily; friends reprisls, – reserch, – , – , – . See also informtion; scienti c frud rumours, – , – sbotge, – scienti c frud, – secrecy, – , . See also leking; low-pro le opertions self-respect, , erpico, Frnk, sexul hrssment, – silencing cluses, – ilkwood, Kren, socil ction, , – . See also ction groups; direct ction solutions, , – speking, – . See also verbl skills sttements, – strtegy, – , , , – , – style, – , , – success, – support: building, – , – getting, – ; groups, – – ; individul, – surviving, – , sympthisers, – . See also reltionships; support ; , threts, – timing, – , trps, – trust, – , , , – , V, – . See also medi unions, – verbl skills, websites, – whistleblower groups, – . See also ction groups; support groups Whistleblowers Austrli, , , , , , , , whistleblowing: ttckers’ perception of, – ; consequences of, – , – ; lnguge of, ; references, – ; trps in, – Wignd, Jeffrey, WikiLeks, – workplce injury, – written ccount, –