In writing this book, we set out to accomplish two goals. We wanted to add to the existing academic research by exploring speak‐up arrangements from the perspective of those that implement and operate them, and we wanted to provide practical advice for practitioners by making recommendations on best practice that emerged from the research. In this chapter, we will summarize our contributions in both of these areas. First, we return to the existing literature on whistleblowing, speak‐up arrangements, as well as wider themes in organization studies and employee voice to highlight how this book has added to knowledge in these areas. Second, we review our empirical work, and revisit what we now know about speak‐up arrangements. Third, we examine the framework we propose for understanding speak‐up arrangements. This framework includes the themes of independence, responsiveness and time, and best practices to overcome challenges in these areas, which includes building trust, fostering an ethical culture in organizations, and learning from speak‐up data. Finally, we re‐iterate the practical relevance of the research, reviewing the recommendations for mangers and speak‐up operators, providing a holistic understanding of speak‐up arrangements in theory and practice. We begin with a review of the academic literature.

ACADEMIC LITERATURE

In Chapter 2 we discussed the issue of retaliation, which is a big risk for whistleblowers despite the fact that whistleblower protection is increasing. Not only is there more legislation being proposed and passed, but regulators are signalling that organizations are now responsible for creating cultures that encourage internal whistleblowing and are insisting that the organizations they regulate implement robust measures for the internal disclosure of information. Despite this, it is common for organizations to act out against the whistleblower. Reasons for retaliation vary; managers can feel deeply threatened by whistleblowers, both employers and co‐workers can resort to reprisals to protect the reputation of specific colleagues or the organization itself, or retaliation can also be deployed as a means of deterring other potential whistleblowers in the organization. This last reason points to the power inequities between whistleblowers and organizations. These inequities are further uncovered by the types of retaliation that are deployed against the whistleblowers: demotion, decreased quality of working conditions, threats by senior staff, the allocation of menial duties to the whistleblower such that their job becomes degrading, harassment, referral to psychiatrists, outright dismissal from work and prolonged legal challenges are all various ways that whistleblowers are penalised. Research has shown that this treatment has severe impacts on the whistleblower. Their mental and physical health suffers, their livelihood is destroyed as they have difficulties finding another job in their field and their relationships often break down. All this points to the need for effective speak‐up arrangements that minimize the impact of speaking up on the person disclosing the information. The question of how to develop such procedures that are both safe and effective has not received much attention in the literature, so our exploration of speak‐up arrangements is a new contribution to the field of organization studies.

Research suggests a close link between retaliation and ethical culture in organizations. To understand ethical cultures we presented research by Kaptein,¹ which sheds light on the ethical environment inside an organization that enables and constrains various types of whistleblowing. His work shows how culture has an impact on how employees speak up, and to whom. This points to the need for speak‐up arrangements, which provides clarity and assurances to employees who may otherwise be silent. This complements research by Morrison and Milliken on the climate of silence (see Chapter 4), which is formed through an interactive process of collective sense making, in which salient events are exaggerated and generalized. Additionally, other researchers on silence have found that the primary reasons behind the pervasiveness of silence are organizations' failure to investigate claims, retaliation against voicing employees, social isolation of voicing employees from colleagues, and gagging clauses.² Although useful, Kaptein's study, like others in the field of whistleblowing, treats speaking up as a static event. We have highlighted in this book recent empirical research that shows whistleblowing is a process, with whistleblowers seeking increasingly more independent recipients to disclose to if the issue they report is not resolved after the first speak‐up. This research shows that most whistleblowers speak up at least two times, and that they do so internally before they go to external recipients. This brings internal and external whistleblowing to the fore, and while these have traditionally been researched as separate and somewhat opposite acts, the general consensus is that they are part of the same whistleblowing process. Nearly all external speak‐ups were raised internally first. If effective speak‐up arrangements were in place, organizations would be better able to prevent external whistleblowing. It is generally accepted that wrongdoing in organizations should be stopped or corrected as early as possible, because this is in the interest of both organization and society. This obviously requires organizational whistleblowing arrangements that succeed in encouraging workers to speak up through channels that allow organizational actors to respond to those concerns. Our research adds to this important area of research by examining some of the challenges that speak‐up operators face when trying to implement arrangements that work in practice.

We also discuss the literature in employee voice as it relates to whistleblowing. Research in this field has split into three streams: employee relations, human resource management, and organizational behaviour. In the first two, articulation of voice represents a challenge to problematic forms of power within the structure and management of the organization. In the third, it represents an attempt to help out one's organization with the aim of improving it through addressing problems. Whistleblowing has usually been researched in the organizational behaviour stream, which sees it as prosocial behaviour meant to help the organization. In response, the critics from the employee relations and human resource management streams question this prosocial view, and allow for voice to be a way that employees speak up to challenge management. Recently, attempts have been made to synthesize the two views by shifting the focus away from the motivation of the whistleblower. This study continues in this trajectory by focusing on the channel and the response of speak‐up operators and taking the stance that the motivation of the whistleblower is less important than the fact that speak‐ups happen. We contribute to the literature with our recommendations for handling speak‐up through processes that focus on the wrongdoing and not the motivation.

On a more theoretical note, we reviewed the research that likens whistleblowing to fearless speech (parrhesia), a concept from Ancient Greece that was developed by Michel Foucault. Fearless speech is understood as a spontaneous speaking truth to power where the speaker takes a risk in speaking out. This understanding brings out the political and ethical impacts of whistleblowing (Kenny et al., 2019)(see Box 2.8). This is important to research on speak‐up arrangements because it highlights the need in organizational settings for the presence of an ‘other' that is able to listen to the disruptive statement; without this, fearless speech's political impact is lost. This other is the recipient of the speak‐up, and their responsiveness to the speak‐up is key. Responsiveness is one of the key themes of the book, and our research adds to this debate by identifying the challenges to this responsiveness, even when the recipient is willing to act. One of the ways to overcome this challenge is to build trust in the organization.

An understanding of trust in organizations is also key to understanding whistleblowing. Trust is framed here as a process, complementing the process view of whistleblowing. In the literature on trust, Möllering considers the importance of expectations, experiences and leaps of faith in relation to how trust is created and maintained. Our research supports this view by taking the stance that, if we research ongoing interactions it is unreasonable to ignore that perceptions about past interactions, propensities towards opportunism, and possibilities of building trust are formed during these repeated interactions. We add to this literature with our empirical work that provides insights into how speak‐up operators attempt to support trust between whistleblower, speak‐up operator, and the organization.

One of the ways to facilitate trust is responsiveness. Responsiveness helps to reduce the culture of silence, although it is important to recognize that it is perceived responsiveness that counts. If the actions taken are invisible to the whistleblower, trust can be damaged even if actions are taken to correct the wrongdoing or discipline the wrongdoer. Our research points out some barriers to responsiveness, discusses how organizations try to overcome them, and also how speak‐up arrangements can be a positive strategy in making sure responsiveness is visible.

Our research overall contributes to the literature in several areas, with both theoretical and practical implications. We highlight how research on speak‐up arrangements contributes to research on retaliation, and how the speak‐up arrangement can be implemented to minimize this, we contribute to research on whistleblowing as a process, and show how this poses challenges for speak‐up operators and requires them to be visibly responsive. We contribute to the literature on whistleblowing and parrhesia by focusing on the response of speak‐up operators and the challenges that they face in responding to disclosures, and we contribute to the literature on trust by showing how speak‐up operators attempt to overcome obstacles and build trust in their organizations with regard to speak‐up processes.

EMPIRICAL WORK

The second part of this book focuses on the comparative study of speak‐up arrangements we conducted with organizations in the banking, engineering and healthcare sectors. Globally, a growing number of organizations are implementing speak‐up arrangements, and speak‐up reports are on the increase, but employees are not always satisfied with the arrangements that are being implemented. To help close this gap, we set out to identify best practice in speak‐up design and operation. In Chapter 3 we analysed common types of wrongdoing, the state of speak‐up systems in each sector, and how internal speak‐up arrangements for each industry case sit against the political and economic context. We then outlined lessons learned and best practices based on evidence. First, we analysed the banking sector in which ‘creative accounting', financial engineering and tax avoidance are the most pressing issues. The second case was from the engineering sector, where corruption has emerged in some big projects commissioned by public authorities, and where regulators are more prominent as health and safety are major concerns. Lastly, we analysed a public healthcare organization, where tackling threats to patient safety was at the top priority for speak‐up operators. Here, highly regulated and complex organizational structures, operating under financial pressure and close public scrutiny, presented unique challenges. Common challenges and best practices emerged from the study.

In all of the sectors, political and economic pressure was a common challenge. The neoliberal view that the market will self‐regulate contributed to organizational cultures that are overly tolerant of risk as long as profits are high and costs low. In the banking sector, fierce competition led to the use of new and highly complex financial instruments that challenged the legal and technological infrastructure as well as making risk analysis almost impossible for both banks and the regulators. In the engineering sector, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in redundancies, increases in workload, and decreases in wages. This led to intense competition and meant that companies had to cut costs and increase profits to survive. In addition to this, a substantial percentage of engineers were employed in multinationals that operate under multiple regulatory regimes, making regulation a difficult if not impossible task. In the health sector, a new consumerist model was introduced that was supposed to increase competition between NHS trusts. The effect of this was that quality of care was gradually replaced by consumer satisfaction as the measure of service quality, which resulted in insufficient monitoring and oversight of the quality of care. For all sectors, profit and efficiency was the main goal. Although this manifested in different forms of wrongdoing, the issues identified stemmed from the same source.

In our comparative research, common best practices emerged. In the banking organization various channels were offered for employees to speak up including: the line manager, internally operated hotline, dedicated email account, key persons and external advice channel. This provided increased accessibility as well as meeting the different needs of employees. Additionally, different functions were involved in operation of speak‐up arrangements with clear protocols, which prevented speak‐up operators from finding themselves in dual dependencies. The organization also demonstrated best practice in that no concern is turned down for being raised through the wrong channel. If an employee uses the grievance channel to raise a speak‐up concern, they are signposted to the relevant function. Furthermore, we found that in this organization responsiveness was embedded in the speak‐up process and formalised in the speak‐up policy. Moreover, the bank had an external advice line that gave employees the opportunity to receive support and guidance from an independent body. This not only facilitated effective whistleblowing but also increased trust. Finally, the organization also documented all speak‐up events.

The engineering firm also exhibited a number of best practices. First, it offered a variety of speak‐up channels: the question channel, the externally operated hotline, internal key persons and the ombudsperson. The Web‐based channel and the hotline were also offered in local languages, making them accessible to a wide range of employees. Second, it also involved more than one function in its speak‐up arrangements, which liaised through clear protocols. Third, although the organization had separate arrangements for speak‐up about wrongdoing and grievance, no concern was turned down for being raised through the wrong channel. Instead, employees were signposted to the relevant function. Fourth, there was evidence of building trust through speak‐up arrangements. Fifth, responsiveness was formalized through procedures and protocols. Sixth, there was an effort to standardize and coordinate responsiveness through a global expat strategy. Seventh, external hotline and the external ombudsperson were available channels, which made it possible to raise concerns anonymously and provide confidentiality. Finally, speak‐up events were documented, with the data used for risk monitoring and published in an annual report.

Lastly, in the NHS Trust, best practices that emerged were: first, a variety of channels were used. Although greater emphasis was put on informal channels in the policy, and these were more popular among staff, channels with varying degrees of formality, independence and anonymity are available. Second, it involved more than one function in its speak‐up arrangements. Third, speak‐up data was used to increase trust in the speak‐up arrangement. Fourth, no concern was turned down for being raised through the wrong channel. Instead, they were redirected to the designated channel. Fifth, responsiveness was formalised through the whistleblowing policy. Sixth, there was awareness of the barriers to responsiveness and strategies were developed to circumvent them. Seventh, the Trust was working towards standardising and coordinating responsiveness across management. The policy registered managers' duty to respond promptly and appropriately. Eighth, the whistleblowing resource on the intranet provided information about the types of support offered by, and ways to contact, independent third parties. Finally, speak‐up events were documented and the data was used to monitor attitudes to patient safety and staff engagement. It became clear that common best practices spanned across organizations, even though the context and the wrongdoing varied. These best practices are useful to practitioners who are operating or looking to implement speak‐up arrangements, as they transcend sectoral and national boundaries. The findings also indicated there were limits to even the best speak‐up arrangements, however, so we have developed a framework that helps practitioners understand and overcome barriers that exist in this area.

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING SPEAK‐UP ARRANGEMENTS

In reviewing the literature and the findings from our research, some key areas emerge. As important as speak‐up arrangements are, they are worthless if no one uses them. Our research highlighted that an ethical culture and trust are also essential elements of an effective speak‐up arrangement, and in turn speak‐up arrangements can help to build trust and an ethical culture in an organization. Key to both of these are three themes that often pose challenges to speak‐up operators: independence, responsiveness, and time.

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the previous chapter, we compiled our analysis of the literature and of the empirical work we conducted, and we provided twelve recommendations for practitioners on how to design and implement effective speak‐up arrangements. These recommendations are:

1. Offer a variety of speak‐up channels.
2. Involve more than one function in your speak‐up arrangement.
3. Build trust through speak‐up arrangements.
4. Be responsive.
5. Be aware of the barriers to responsiveness.
6. Develop strategies to circumvent barriers to responsiveness.
7. Shape and coordinate attitudes to responding.
8. Involve third parties wherever possible.
9. Record all speak‐up events.
10. Report.
11. Consider national and organizational culture.
12. Provide access in different languages.

Each of these recommendations is covered in depth in Chapter 5, but they are all related to the framework of independence, responsiveness and time that we articulated in the previous section (see Figure 4.4). By incorporating these elements into the implementation and operation of a speak‐up arrangement, practitioners can make their processes more efficient and trustworthy, regardless of what sector they operate in.

To conclude, effective speak‐up arrangements are crucial as new legislation and regulation is increasingly being implemented that mandates them, but they also have benefits for the organization, for the employee that makes a disclosure and for society as a whole. Our research builds upon the academic literature on trust, employee voice, ethical culture and whistleblowing more generally by providing empirical evidence on how speak‐up arrangements work in practice. We also provide practical guidance for managers that are tasked with designing or implementing speak‐up arrangements by looking at the challenges organizations have faced and the best practices they have implemented in this area. It is our hope that it is a useful resource to all that are interested in speak‐up arrangements, whether they be academics, practitioners, or employees looking for guidance, and that speak‐up arrangements continue to be implemented and improved to protect those that come forward to speak up about wrongdoing in organizations.