Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 03

March/April 2017 // Canadian Government Executive / 15 The Interview this information is buried or misrepresented, there can be tremen- dous costs involved. This type of open dialogue is also key for in- novation. Ideas can and do come from all parts of the organization. Making sure these perspectives are heard provides a competitive advantage. Last, but certainly not least, it is crucial for ensuring a healthy and productive work environment where people can be free to be at their best. JF: I am also certain that this fear goes beyond the borders of our public service. This is an issue that I discuss with my provincial and territorial counterparts, and it is certainly the topic of ongoing discussion and research at the international level. All the same, this research paper confirms that, in the federal public sector, se- nior managers and leaders have an important role to play in this regard. People turn to their senior managers for the kind of lead- ership, the kind of behaviour that will serve as a model for them and for others. It is this kind of leadership that will result in the cultural change that we recognize is needed. Q: What can be done to “normalize” whistleblowing and address the fear of reprisal? JF: Understanding and awareness are absolutely essential. Com- munication has to take place, and it has to continue. Information has to be clear, accurate, accessible and consistent. Uncertainty about what is acceptable behaviour, as well as fear of reprisal, can be addressed to a significant degree, I believe, if people are given information and encouraged to ask questions, raise concerns and share views. People need information about their options, about processes, and about the support mechanisms in place, so that they can make fully informed decisions about coming forward. But they also need to know that their considered views and input are important to their managers and colleagues in getting their work done every day. The more we talk about all issues affecting the work and the workplace, and the more we talk about the value of coming forward, the more whistleblowing becomes a normal and accepted part of our culture in the public service. CD: I agree and one of the most important elements is to explain “why” it’s important. If leaders or the organization do not spend time talking about the why, people may be cynical as to their true motives or feel this is something that is mandated but not truly believed in. This can undermine engagement and trust. Leaders may feel the reasons are obvious, but if this message is not ex- plicitly communicated, their employees will come to their own conclusions. When faced with an information vacuum, people will fill it and unfortunately, it is generally not with a good news story. Q: We inevitably circle back to issues of culture. How do you effect a cultural change that would lessen this fear? JF: Changing the way individuals think and shifting organi- zational culture is a slow process. It requires a collective and continuing commitment to push forward. It is bigger than one office, one project, one law or one person. And when we are talking about issues that go to fundamental questions of fear and uncertainty, and issues of confidence and trust, I think the challenge is even greater. People are looking for reassurance that something will be done to address a problem when they identify it, and that nothing bad will happen to them for having identified it in the first place. This involves not only my small office, but the entire federal public sector. Everyone has to pull in the same direction at the same time, and actions have to be validated at various levels throughout the system, including at the most senior levels of leadership and authority. The conver- sation has to be micro and macro at the same time. But I do believe that senior leaders have a particular role to play in lead- ing by example, by taking positive action to solicit ideas and by being seen to actively encourage discussion, and also to speak out themselves when they believe something is wrong. Respect- ful debate and disagreement are part of a healthy workplace; silence, fear and conflict are not. CD: In the white paper, I discuss a powerful study that looked at how to create a culture where people feel more comfortable speaking up. The strongest predictor was leaders being proactive in both asking for feedback and acting on feedback from their employees. Interestingly, the weakest predictor was having for- mal reporting mechanisms available. So, leaders must recognize that having a system in place is not sufficient to build this type of environment. They play a critical role. Despite the importance of strong leadership, there’s also com- pelling data to suggest this type of cultural change truly takes a village. According to a series of studies, when both supervisors and co-workers are deemed ethical, this sends a consistent mes- sage to employees that it is expected and safe to report wrongdo- ing. However, if one of these groups is not seen as ethical, this dampens the willingness to speak up, even when a supervisor is supportive. Another fascinating finding was that when both par- ties were considered ethical, employees felt less fear of reprisal. This makes a lot of sense. As humans, we look to our environment for cues on how to act. If our boss or our colleagues shun this type of dialogue, we will be less inclined to engage. This doesn’t lessen the onus on leaders. It just means we should, as the expression goes, “be the change you want to see in the world.” We all want to feel that we are valued as ethical, honest and professional individuals, and that these character traits are recognized as important, and in fact that they shared by our colleagues.