Conference 7.286::digital

    A few points I didn't make in .0.
    
    I believe it's fairly well-known and consistent that organizations
    which do have 'whistle-blowers' do tend to prosecute them, rather than
    focus on the problem being highlighted.  I believe there have been a
    number of government and aerospace industry examples of this in the
    recent past.  Thus, I believe that anonymity would have to be a key
    ingredient to any such program.
    
    Also, note that anonymity will not allow some problems to be
    highlighted/reported, because of the ability to ascertain the likely
    reporter due to organizational structure.  Thus, there are always going
    to remain a number of excesses or problems that will never see the
    light of day and be fixed.

Sometimes it may help to have a disinterested third party with whom you
can collaborate. This has been done frequently in this file.
Employee A sees an injustice in an organization with which they are
associated, but is concerned about whistle-blowing due to possible
recriminations. They discuss the matter with Employee Z, often in a
totally different, and unaffected, organization, disclosing all of the
details. Employee Z, after confirming to the best of their ability
the veracity of the story, enters a note here disclosing all of the details,
including the "naming of names, amounts", etc. The facts are on the
table, and true, so there's little opportunity for anyone to counter
it with "you don't know what you're talking about" responses. Employee
Z is not part of the organization "on trial" so there's little likely
to be at risk from their end (assuming they didn't lambaste Ken or any
of his direct reports which might be in their chain of management).
Sometimes, the inequity even gets corrected. The key is in Employee Z's
being careful to validate the story before laying it open.

I believe this approach works best (possibly only) for the disclosure of
areas which demonstrate poor policy/practice, rather than for exposing
specific individual failings. For example, it's probably appropriate
to expose a situation such as "the foo organization is wasting n-thousand
dollars a week on widgets", but probably inappropriate to disclose
"Joe Manager personally trashed n-thousand dollars worth of equipment".
I think that if individuals' transgressions need to be brought to light,
the proper way to do so is to their upper management, not to DEC-at-large.
That's what ODP is for, and if you feel unsafe about using it in such
circumstances, you probably ought to strongly consider getting out of the
organization in question.

Sometimes a poor practice or policy needs different treatment, as those
to whom it ought to be reported may even have been instrumental in
its implementation, and thus somewhat blind to the problems with it.

-Jack

re: 1469.0         Does DEC Need a Whistle-Blower Mechanism?            1 reply
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It raises a bigger question:  let's hypothetically suppose that there
>ARE excesses in expenses still taking place (altho I'm certain there
>are certain noters that will NEVER accept this possibility).  Or, more

>Just HOW does someone go about pointing out the excesses so that they
>can be controlled in the future?  

    Several years back while in central engineering, several
    "cooperating" groups had many arguments as to which 'technical'
    expertise group was at fault for many of the problems being
    encountered. There  was a lot of finger pointing, amongst other     
    figurative fingers; and many hackles being raised; and the problems
    persisted.
    
    Finally in total exasperation the "word" came down from on high:
    "I don't care who is at fault. Find a way to fix the problem!"
    
    When each indivual group became part of the collaboration team to
    resolve the issues; the heat for "blame" was removed; and it was
    clear that it was in the best interest of all to truly cooperate;
    each 'technical contributing group' lent what they new to finding
    solutions; the problems were resolved; and the product was lauched
    amongst a lot of fan-fare. The "True" winner was Digital, each team
    member, and the customer who got a superior product.
    
    If we consider the whistle blowers as trouble makers; then we can
    consider 'consulting specialists" as friends. Many problems 
    remain hidden and the fear of discovery makes very strange attitudes.
    
    The mechanism, I think, for removing excesses, is for concerned and
    enlightened people to constructively point out the the rewards of
    containing or elminating the excesses. This is the goal of Teaming;
    it can be implemented through participation of Quality Circles,
    for those business segments who support them; which, by the way, wil
    be all of DEC over the next five years.

    It may be necessary for those who would want to eliminate the
    excesses, may in reality want to improve the "financial goaling" for 
    executives; business travel, etc.
    
    How can people who really wish to improve the company, by removing
    the fear of discovery through cooperative teaming, be thought of as
    "whistleblowers" ?
    
    In any organization with thousans of people, millions of dollars,
    and a lot of personal discretion; there is bound to be a lot of 
    confliciting opinions as to just how much of something may be
    considered reasonable'; and how much more is an excess ?
    
    Instad of worrying about how to be a sucessful whistleblower,  why
    not begin a process of 'constructive cost control constraints' ?
    
    _Bob_
    
    
    

    Last year I submitted a rather detailed suggestion to DELTA calling for
    a corporate level Ombudsman - or many, if necessary.  The suggestion
    was prompted by a perceived need to highlight shoddy business practices
    yet not have it be a career limiting whistle-toot.  
    
    The official response was that the new and improved Open Door Policy
    negates the need for an ombudsman.  
    
    I do not agree that the ODP will suffice.  The response that it will,
    simply unmasks naivete in our "personell" management team.
    
    Then again, I could be wrong.
    
    Dave

    
>    Instad of worrying about how to be a sucessful whistleblower,  why
>    not begin a process of 'constructive cost control constraints' ?
>    
>    _Bob_
 

	Keep in mind, not every whistle-blower would be pointing
	out "differences of opinion."

	Sometimes its someone's pet project, or the project manager
	is a high-level manager's pet.  How does "cooperation"
	fit in here ?

	I've seen plenty of cases of problems that need to be fixed,
	and neither direct discussion with management, nor use
	of DELTA has resolved them.

	So much for the ol' team spirit, eh ?

	A group or manager with a personal agenda can be almost
	impossible to deflect from folly by being "nice", "cooperative",
	"reasonable", etc.

	Steve H   

    Try the Corporate Audit Department.  They investigate on a confidential
    basis if that is your concern.

    What exactly is the charter of Digital's Audit Department?  This is the
    first time I've heard of it, and I've been with Digital for nearly 12
    years.

    Digital has its own group of internal auditors who can perform a number
    of different functions (audits) within the company. They can audit:
    
    	Security at a site
    	The books (finances) of a department or organization
    	Capital inventories (you bought $523,000 worth of our equipment
    	   for internal use ... can we find it all?)
    	Etc.
    
    As a manager I have been "audited" by our internal auditors. Questions
    ranged from procedures we followed ("Do you have any type of policies
    and procedures manual for your operation") to a complete inventory of our
    capital equipment. Although a few questions were asked related to
    security, it was clear that our auditors had more of a financial
    background. There are other auditors (I understand) who have more
    security oriented backgrounds ... don't know if this is true, but have
    heard it from several sources.
    
    The audit was not fun. It took a bit of preparation and about 1-2 days
    of my personal time. A certain amount of anxiety was associated with it
    ... not that there was anything to hide, but it almost felt like the
    IRS was coming to town. In the end, we passed with flying colors, which
    was nice to know. All of our procedures were "in order" and our capital
    inventory came in at 100% accuracy (i.e., they found everything).
    
    So, auditors exist in the company. I'm sure there are many other tales
    more interesting than mine. One can also be audited by "External 
    Auditors". These are individuals employed by our accounting firm
   (Coopers & Lybrand at present) who are sent in to verify certain things.
   I've not had that pleasure to date.
    
    /se
    
    

    Internal Audit performed an examination of a group where I was formerly
    employed. It was obvious that someone had tipped them off about certain
    things. They knew exactly where to look and exactly what they were
    going to find. 
    
    Working in a financial position, I see auditors, both internal and C&L, 
    every year. In my opinion, the internal ones are tougher. 
    
    Linda

    The auditors also *supposedly* get a reward for finding
    a *finding*.
    
    HRH