In the second of a two-part feature, Marianna Fotaki, Professor of Business Ethics at Warwick Business School, highlights the key factors in designing and implementing effective Speak-up arrangements.
Designing and Implementing Effective Speak-up Arrangements by Mariana Fotaki with kind acknowledgements to Warwick CORE Insights.
1. Channels and access
It is important to provide easy access to speak-up arrangements. In practice, this means providing a range of different channels because trust in the process, built through familiarity and positive experiences, is likely to lead to changes in the access channels that are used the most. These channels include, and this is not exhaustive, informal channels, email and web applications, internal and external hotlines, and independent external advice.
It is also important to make allowances for cultural factors, including the interaction between organisational and national culture. Our research suggests that culture affects the channels that employees prefer to use to voice concerns. For example, employees in the UK, US and Latin America were less willing to use an external ombudsperson to raise concerns than employees in Germany, the Middle East and Asian countries.
Firms that ignore cultural differences, that try to standardise speak-up arrangements across territories, risk making the process more difficult to access for many employees. Another example of how firms can enable access to speak-up arrangements is by providing channels in multiple languages – at the very least in the local languages spoken by employees.
2. Responsiveness and feedback
Effective speak-up arrangements ensure that concerns are responded to in a timely and effective manner, where possible. Responsive speak-up arrangements build confidence and encourage more use by employees.
A responsive system is one that is well organised, clearly mandated, and adequately resourced. A good example of the kind of problems that arise is the early dismissal of issues as grievances that are more appropriate for HR to deal with. However, what initially appear to be grievances may, on more thorough investigation, lead to details about serious compliance related wrongdoing. It is important, therefore, for organisations to be prepared to identify and respond to both grievance and wrongdoing related concerns.
Equally, organisations must be capable of dealing with an increase in the volume of concerns raised. That might be due to examples of whistleblowing and wrongdoing being publicised in the media, or changes in attitude towards certain types of behaviour more generally in society, such as less tolerance of wrongdoing and increased transparency thanks to social media and the internet. Organisations should also be aware of possible barriers to responsiveness. Perceptions around responsiveness are especially important.
For example, there may be legal limitations to what can be communicated about an investigation or outcome. However, organisations can take steps to manage expectations by explaining about legalities and providing indicative timescales for follow-up activities.
It may be difficult for organisations to be seen to be responding. Responses, such as sanctions taken against individuals, may lack visibility for a variety of reasons. Here, organisations can create a generalised perception of a responsive organisation by implementing various measures. They might for example, where the matter is not a compliance issue, try to include the person who raised the concern in efforts to devise a solution. Responsiveness can also be improved by continuously stressing to managers that responding to concerns is part of their role and limiting the discretion they have with respect to that role.
Another effective measure would be to provide this information in the annual report as a way of demonstrating the company’s responsiveness in dealing with concerns raised and commitment to protecting those who raise them.
3. Trust and transparency
There are several ways that organisations can help create the trust and transparency essential for effective speak-up arrangements. For example, including the HR function as well as compliance, can encourage people to perceive speaking-up arrangements as being about well-being and engagement, not just policing and compliance.
Even the act of implementing effective speak-up practices itself can build trust. Other trust-building factors include involving competent independent specialist speak-up operators and including unions. Also, allowing employees who raise concerns to help develop solutions, where possible, can change collective understanding and behaviour of arrangements in a positive way. Transparency, to the extent that it is possible without endangering the confidentiality and safety of whistleblowers, is also an essential aspect of building confidence in speak-up arrangements.
Actions that create transparency include recording speak-up events and including speak-up data in organisational reporting. Senior managers might, for example, publish aggregate numbers in the annual report and report performance against a best practice framework.
Why we need more champions for whistleblowers
The recommendations we make in our paper are a great start for organisations determined to implement good practices around speak-up arrangements. However, although necessary, these measures are not sufficient alone to embed good practices systemically.
In the same way that business accepted the need for good CSR practices, we need leaders in the field to step forward as speak-up champions, to set and maintain standards, to evidence the evaluation and process of speaking-up. These leaders will publicise the benefits of effective speak-up arrangements. And not just the obvious economic benefits, but also the benefits in terms of becoming a more attractive employer and building better stakeholder relationships, for example. Then, hopefully, other organisations will follow these pioneers.
Perhaps we also need a more visible nudge from policymakers. Meaningful incentives and obligations. Powerful signalling that policymakers and regulators understand the importance of whistleblowing and have the resolve necessary to encourage, enable, and protect, the practice of speaking up.
Because in doing so, senior managers, policymakers and regulators, together, are helping to create a society fit for the 21st century. A society where we can be confident that the vast majority of organisations are not only good places to work, but institutions that we can be proud of.
Read Part 1 of this article
Useful links:
- View Prof. Marianna Fotaki’s academic profile
- Link up with Prof. Fotaki via LinkedIn
- Read a related article: Ethics & Compliance in Firms: Why it happens and what makes it effective
- Discover Warwick Business School.
Learn more about the Council on Business & Society
The Council on Business & Society (The CoBS), visionary in its conception and purpose, was created in 2011, and is dedicated to promoting responsible leadership and tackling issues at the crossroads of business and society including sustainability, diversity, ethical leadership and the place responsible business has to play in contributing to the common good.
Member schools are all “Triple Crown” accredited AACSB, EQUIS and AMBA and leaders in their respective countries.
- ESSEC Business School, France-Singapore-Morocco
- FGV-EAESP, Brazil
- School of Management Fudan University, China
- IE Business School, Spain
- Keio Business School, Japan
- Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
- Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
- Warwick Business School, United Kingdom.
