Propuesta de sistema de mantenimiento a las pasarelas construidas con WPC

Whistle-blowing was perceived as a tough, personal and situational decision. Each person has his/her own personal boundaries in assessing which incidents of wrongdoing are unacceptable to him/her so that he/she will or will not blow the whistle. The boundaries were described as a grey area where the wrongdoing was deemed wrongful but respondents put forward justifications in order to make the

wrongdoing appear permitted, understandable or ‘authorised’. The difficulties associated with the decision were described as ‘crazy’ and ‘professional suicide’, particularly when whistle-blowing was committed by junior auditors. Whistle- blowing without having power in the office was perceived as suicide or as a reckless and foolish decision.

If I, as a junior auditor, vigorously and passionately did the whistle- blowing, I might be considered as crazy. (Harley, interview, 2013)

I did not have the courage to prevent that wrongdoing. It is my own experience. When I was a junior auditor, I did not have the power. If I did it [whistle-blowing] while the [working] condition here was not conducive, it means suicide for me. It would be good if the wrongdoing can be rectified completely. But if it does not happen, we will get the damage. If we have the power, then we can prevent the wrongdoing from occurring. (Sab, interview, 2014)

This dilemma was reflected in the way respondents identified the various parties that they took into consideration as part of their decision-making process. They were aware that they would not be dealing with only one or two persons, but instead many more employees acting in collusion. The wrongdoer’s position in the office was also considered. However, the important parties to be considered may be their families.

Having the courage to do whistle-blowing is not enough. For example, I do the whistle-blowing on something and then all of sudden, I got transferred [to another office, perceived as an unfavourable position]. The effect is not on ourselves solely but also on our families. That is part of our consideration. (Rudolph, interviews, 2013)

I did once try to blow the whistle in the KPK online whistle-blowing system. I got a response from them but then they wanted my identity, my name, my phone number and other personal data. And then I started to think deeply if so, it was quite likely I would become the one to blame [by my family]. Instead of the wrongdoing being proven, I would become the highlighted person. I decided not to carry on with the whistle-blowing and so be it. (Rudolph, interviews, 2013)

The wrongdoer’s family was also considered as part of the decision on whether or not to blow the whistle. In deciding to carry out internal or external whistle- blowing, a recipient of whistle-blowing information was afraid that the wrongdoer’s family would get into financial trouble if she blew the whistle

externally and the wrongdoer ended up with a severe punishment. The superior of the wrongdoer who extorted money from an audit client preferred to rectify the issue outside formal procedures. After receiving the information from the whistle- blower (the wrongdoer’s co-worker), instead of reporting it to the internal compliance unit, she instructed the wrongdoer to return the money to the audit client using an off-budget office fund. She then asked the wrongdoer to refund it. She did not want her subordinate (the wrongdoer) to receive a formal punishment that may have taken the form of a dishonourable discharge.

We have discussed it with the leaders here and there was an option to report it to our inspectorate. Because it should be so. But we felt pity if we reported it and then he got punished severely. He has several children and his wife does not work. How could they live? It was decided to punish him [in a way] that would not endanger his family. They were not the ones who had committed it. (Rena, interviews, 2014)

In an incident, I observed someone [in my audit team] accept an envelope [bribe money from audit client]. It was not that much money. Then I saw that he was the single breadwinner of his family, he had many kids and he did not have anything [luxurious]. I do not justify the wrongdoing but I can understand why he did it. I guessed that he/she did it because he/she needed it so bad. (Nickie, interviews, 2014)

Aware of the dilemma, respondents suggested that the decision to blow the whistle should be on a voluntary basis according to the whistle-blower’s ability to overcome the risk. The costs and benefits of the decision were considered. Because of the difficulties involved, whistle-blowing was perceived as a last resort after having talked informally to the wrongdoer as their friend.

It is up to us whether we want to report it or not. We should not be forced to be a whistle-blower. (Lily, interview, 2014)

In an employment relationship, whistle-blowing is the last step. Say it directly that it is unlawful. If it is not addressed, then [try again for] a second time. If it is still not considered, so be it. We are the subordinates right. Thus, maybe we could take the final steps which is whistle-blowing. (Nico, interview, 2013)

Whistle-blowers felt a sense of accomplishment when they decided to blow the whistle. It was perceived as a personal battle that they had won.

In fact, I’m glad that they finally realised their mistakes. So, maybe at that point God does not sleep, there must be a lesson to be learnt. There will be a time when we win and I have done it. (Eve, interview, 2014)

Whistle-blowers were described as brave, risk takers and employees who dared to disagree. The whistle-blowers knew the consequences of their action and they consistently accepted these consequences.

Yes, that was the consequence. I felt like I was isolated in my environment. What we thought was that we needed to be brave and make a stand. After that, we did receive some unfavourable consequences. We accepted these. It was difficult but fortunately, we can show that we were consistent with our attitude and it did not affect our performance. Whatever their manoeuvre that has been done to us, it does not matter. The basic of our attitude is good intention. (Eve, interview, 2014)

On the other side, the silent observers knew that the wrongdoing was wrong. But they chose to ignore the ongoing incidents occurring around them. The most important thing for them was that they were not complicit in the wrongdoing and that they would be the one who would end up being victimised.

People are apathetic. The words they used that make me feel sick are ‘never mind, as long as it does not bother me’. Once they interfere me, I will be the one who take them apart. I heard this frequently. It happens many times. It may be permissive attitudes and habits that are not good. (Sonny, interview, 2014)

I think if it happens, the tendency was,‘I am not conducting an audit here, don’t trouble yourself, and never mind.’ (Andrew, interview, 2013)

Other alternatives taken by silent observers were that they either accepted the money or became a beneficiary of the corrupt activities. But to escape from the dilemma and to ease their feeling of guilt, they then gave the money to the needy, charities or religious events.

Finally, I said to them [audit team], ‘It is up to you, you were the one who take it while I was not here. But I would not take it and I wanted to return it back.’ I just wanted to know that I could not accept that. (Nickie, interview, 2014)

My co-worker did receive something from the audit client. [I received it also] but I did not want it. Alright then, secretly I returned it back. Or I gave it to the needy. I know it was not right, it was a wrongdoing but I did not speak up. Let it be. I might be permissive but almost everybody did it. I

could do something, speak up. But frankly speaking, I did not do it. Even if my heart tells me not to do it [the wrongdoing]. (Sonny, interview, 2014) 4.2.4 Anonymity

Anonymous whistle-blowing was seen as an unethical and irresponsible way to speak up. Sending an anonymous letter was perceived as taking the easy way out. Anonymous whistle-blowers were seen as neglectful and lazy and that they performed the act anonymously to avoid being accused as a wrongdoer or co- conspirator.

They take the easy way. They prefer to write a letter. They do not want to take the hard and tiring way. They are fearful of being blamed for what they say. So there is a sense of laziness, reluctance in communicating. The first is neglect, laziness is the second and the third is avoiding being blamed. They prefer to take the easiest way in which can keep their identity unknown. (Nico, interview, 2013)

Anonymous whistle-blowing may lead to backbiting and prejudice among employees. It can affect the working atmosphere in the office and also employees’ performance. However, in the case of collective organisational wrongdoing, anonymous whistle-blowing was seen as a compromise solution for a silent observer too afraid to openly blow the whistle but also too angry to remain silent.

Yes, I will report it [organisational wrongdoing] with a variety of considerations if it is really and truly detrimental to the organisation. It seems that, in general, the consequences of being a whistle-blower are still very hard to take. In many cases, we see that the whistle-blower is not fully protected. It is better to choose the anonymous unofficial channel. (Augustine, interview, 2013)