Consider the following worrying situation. You observe someone at work violating a policy, engaging in an activity that is unethical, illegal or a breach of security and you’re left wondering what to do. Should you say something? Maybe it’s best to let someone else carry the message. After all, the messenger does get shot. And if you do speak up, to whom should you talk? Do you talk directly to the suspected offender, or do you talk to someone who is paid to deal with such things? And if the offender is your boss, then what do you do? Finally, how should you go about saying what you have to say?
Keeping schtum
Faced with this barrage of questions, biting your lip is what 90% of us do. But this has a big impact on you, and the relationship with the other person downstream – we may start to resent the other person particularly if the infraction starts to impact you in some way, or we feel guilty for not saying anything when the issue starts to causes wider team or organisational issues. Over the last two to three decades, there have been an increasing number of incidents where this culture of silence, or ‘ethical fading’ as the Guardian puts it, have been in the media. Instances like the defective ‘O’ rings on the ill-fated Challenger launch in 1986, the BP Oil disaster, NHS patient care or patient safety issues, the collapse of banks and or the more recent phone hacking scandal have all raised an interesting question. If people were aware of such misgivings and potentially dangerous issues in their organisations, why didn’t people speak up and say anything?
It turns out there are a whole host of issues that influence our behaviour to say nothing in these situations. There is immense pressure from shareholders, bosses and colleagues to ask not too many questions. The rewards, incentives and performance management systems really make us think twice about saying anything, coupled with our experience of seeing the consequences of other people who have said anything. Our general apathy to ‘park’ this moral discomfort if something unethical is going on is all too prevalent in organisations today. We look at all the possible consequences of speaking up, and decide that the risks outweigh the benefits. We need to get much better at reversing the maths, and looking more at the consequences of not speaking up.
How many times have we heard of an ethics violation only to learn that several people (sometimes dozens) saw the problem but all silently and uncomfortably waited for someone else to say something – but nothing ever did, and the worse happened – there was a terrible accident, the business critical project failed, the organisation collapsed, or people died. The only way this type of debacle can be stopped is to deal with each violation – catching it early on and before it spins out of control. In short, when in doubt speak out.
Speaking out
Let me start by saying that there is of course not a quick fix to this problem of getting people to speak up. The solution involves aligning all the various sources of influence that motivate and enable people to speak up – and making sure that all these sources of influence are working for us rather than against us. Recent research in the MIT Sloan management Journal shows that when you can get all these sources aligned, you are 10 times more likely to get people to change.
For the purposes of this short article, let’s look at how you can give people some of the skills to speak up to others when you see someone violating a policy, engaging in an activity that is unethical, illegal or a breach of security:
- Start by sharing your good intentions. Let the other person know that you have his or her best interest in mind. This shows that your purpose isn’t to question his or her authority (if the other person is your boss), or that you know all the facts and are trying to now accuse him or her of a crime, but that you want to deal with a possible problem before it spins out of control. As a colleague and respected friend, you want to talk to this person directly.
- Get the other person’s point of view. Once you’ve described what you think you saw, engage in honest dialogue about the issue. Stop and allow the other person to explain his or her point of view. Hopefully the other person has a legitimate reason for doing what he or she did or perhaps you misinterpreted what you saw. Either way, you’ve brought up the issue and learned that no further action is required. You were a friend who had the courtesy to talk openly and directly, and you made no charges or demands. You just shared your facts.
- Use tentative language. As suspicious as the activity may seem, no matter how clear your observations, there might be an explanation for what you saw. That means you’re not going to share your conclusions or, worse still, share them as hardened facts, e.g.: “I couldn’t help but notice you steal from the petty cash. What caused you to do such a thing?” Instead, use tentative terms and expressions: “I’m not exactly sure of what I saw today, but it left me wondering . . .” With a friend you might want to begin with something like: “I saw you do something today that led me to believe you were in violation of policy, and that’s something I just don’t want to believe about you. I noticed . . . and I was wondering what happened”.
- Explain the possible consequences of the action in question. If the other person admits to the infraction and then invites you to either stay quiet or join in, share your view of why that’s not a choice for you. Discuss in detail the likely consequences of the action and why you simply won’t take part. If the person in question is your boss or a person in authority, it’s particularly important that you stick to explaining natural consequences – consequences that they may already be experiencing, or will experience in the future as a result of their current action, but are not currently consciously aware off. Remain professional and calm, but stay firm in where you stand.
- Take it up a level. Finally, if you can’t work it out to your satisfaction, either take it to your boss (if he or she isn’t the party in question) or take it to HR. You’ve shown your respect by talking directly to the person and now you’re going to have to involve another party.
It’s never easy to talk to another person when the topic is “I think you might be breaking the law.” But if you handle it well, it can end well. I once worked with a CFO who thought the CEO was embezzling funds from the company. The two worked closely together, the CFO had spotted suspicious activity, and he was in a tailspin about what to do. With guidance and support, the CFO practiced the conversation, and then had the face-to-face dialogue with his boss.
“I was surprised how well the conversation went”, the CFO later explained. “Since I didn’t make any accusations, but instead stuck with the facts and was tentative in my description, when the CEO explained why what he was doing was perfectly legal (and it was), I wasn’t left standing there being the misguided and accusatory colleague. He understood my goal was to surface an important issue, thanked me for having the courage to speak about such a delicate topic, and if anything, our relationship was strengthened”.
Obviously, not every conversation is going to reveal an innocent party, but every conversation needs to begin with the thought that the other person may well be innocent. This assumption of innocence will help set the right atmosphere for the entire interaction. Equally true, every conversation needs to be thought about carefully, and rehearsed. The more skilled we become at holding high-stakes and sensitive conversations about these ethical issues, the less frequently we’ll have to turn the issue over to others, and the less we will all be plagued by the social and organisational ‘disasters’ that are increasingly prevalent today.
See also: 'You cant do that' by Judith Rhule in The People Bulletin, 19th May 2010