Consultation to a  Whistleblowing  Organisation.
David Morgan

Most of the people in the organisation  to whom I consult have been involved in whistleblowing and often experience loss, not gain, through their decision to disclose. They lose their jobs and feel victims of an uncaring society.

Whatever  it is that they have disclosed, , in the many fields they   emerge from, a general from the  armed forces( exposure of illicit arms dealing),  banking-director  ( dodgy deals and cover ups), judge- law( power of the freemasonry and cover up) politics(public good v individual interest) ship building( dangerous practice)  health-consultants( south staffs and Baby P) police force( corruption) church(abuse) , experience their lives being turned upside down, their places of esteem in their communities dismantled, and importantly, from a psychological point of view, they  lose their peace of mind and faith in their own and  others value and motives.

How tough and suspicious societal attitudes are to people perceived as ,  breaking  free from not only our public laws and standards but who threaten assumptions about the safety of our world. When a whistle is blown we have to decide how we react to the people who tell us things we may not want to know.

Their criticism is a threat to the social order or seen as anti-authoritarian, naive,reduced to an attack on the parental authority. Compliance, playing the game and loyalty to one’s organization is often seen as a sign of psychological health.

So there are real blocks to speaking about problems, betrayals, failures and exploitation due to powerful pressures to bear on those who risk speaking out.

Eg a member of the group Is s vehicle manufacturer who discovers that his factory has been using seriously sub-standard materials, he is in a position to create unemployment for himself and everyone he knows. The economic impact of a scandal to his company, already on the brink of economic collapse, would be disastrous. But he is also aware that the lives of the product’s users, involved in rescue work,  are at risk. He goes to and is shunned by his union and bosses. But still he speaks out. He receives death threats in the post and loses his job. His health begins to deteriorate. He is accused of having mental health problems, which of course he now does and probably did before in a everyday sort of way. He goes to his MP and is told that there is no evidence. The MP and local newspapers are funded by interested parties.

The  judicial person who discovers the conglomeration of Freemasons in her chosen profession and believes that they have operated a cover up over a certain case. And decides to tell the story.

The banker who discovers that in the house of mammon all that matters is profit, ( why the surprise?) and sees that as a consequence of dodgy auditing that his mother’s pension company, and I discover mine,  is eaten up by sharp practice.

In the field of state provision, in hospitals and social services, even today when people speak out over damaging cuts, or mis-management or the appalling culture of un-care at Stafford Hospital or neglect in Social Care teams they are liable to be disbelieved, humiliated and dismissed.

The many stories of painful internal conflict, fear, anger and sometimes bitterness and regret,in contrast to self   interest and survival, even  above the altruism of revealing neglect and incompetence, eg. Bristol Children’s or Haringey Social Services.

Is disclosure a troublemaking act or an altruistic act?

Working as a consultant for this organisationI have worked in person or on the phone with many disclosers or potential disclosers and it’s a fascinating but a paranoid inducing job.

The consultation  group.

The first comment from my first group consultation with a very established and successful discloser was,”Is this place,( my consulting room,) bugged? “

Working with people with these sort of psychological issues and I see this sort of fantasy as a projected form of aggression, externalised onto the outside world, where it then persecutes the originator, from outside in the minds of others or through delusions and hallucinations.

Through externalisation the internal aggressive impulses are thus reduced and put out to tender.

But with this group  I see it does  not seem delusional at all. Their narratives are compelling and feel genuine. Undoubtedly many of the people I see do exist in anxious states of mind and some must surely have had traces of these states before they disclosed. Indeed there is a sub group who are clearly trying undermine every organisation that they belong to e en this one, Its also true that afterwards they feel watched, their level of trust is low and it is easy for some,  to write them all off as vexatious litigants and troublemakers. A very very small minority may indeed be less than idealistically motivated.

Traumatising as it is to hear and seductive as it is to turn a blind eye I have become convinced that the psychological profile of the whistleblower is a complex mix of exposing the parents and people driven to behave morally in an immoral organisation.

While disclosure can be an altruistic act it can all too easily be used for revenge and humiliation. At times, some whistle blowers are clearly eager to attack authorities through resentment. Stalled careers, failed love affairs and no pay rise can see increases in some individual’s willingness to shame or punish their communities, employers or families.

But also  its the organisation as an institution that seems to appear at times dedicated to the destruction of the moral individualist. Frequently the organization succeeds. Which means that Whistle Blowers are attacked , and unable to reconcile their actions and beliefs with the responses they receive from others. Many people in the consultation group who have disclosed might have reasonably expected  some reward, praise and respect,  often have to face.end,,,,,,,

In order to make sense of their stories they realise that truth is not larger than the herd instinct, that someone in charge will do the right thing, that the family is a haven from a heartless world. The projection onto external authorities of our internal versions of parental figures. but when those parental figures are benign and fair minded the failure of external authorities to live up to their expectations.

One aspect of social disclosure that is under estimated is some of the emotional fall-out that is occasioned by revealing truths that other people prefer to keep hidden. “Shooting the messenger”. Disclosers of uncomfortable truths can become the recipient of a great deal of ambivalence from a variety of quarters. Like the therapist disclosers threaten to make something conscious and known that has either been hidden or brushed under the carpet through a range of people turning a blind eye.

Its has been important to understand the powerful forces ranged against the discloser in order to maintain the status quo. Like in the ‘Emperors New Clothes’  the young man in the story pointing out the conmen disclosers can threaten whatever defences and belief systems institutions have developed to permit the behaviour that is being exposed. Revelations can be experienced by the institution and colleagues as humiliating and attacking and others will see themselves as justified in retaliating against a whistle blower and they may be a concerted to discredit or pathologise them.

Its been important to  understand the group hostility to revelations that are threatening to cohesion and this  can be of considerable use to an individual who needs to find a way to maintain their self belief at times of personal stress and marginalization.

Previous emotional and psychological difficulties are exacerbated, if not evident before, brought to the surface. Motives and personal integrity are publicly questioned so the institution that is being questioned can evade any sense of responsibility for wrong doing. The discloser is therefore made to feel the wrongdoer arousing serious self doubt and depression.

The psychological phenomenon behind it is called doubling. E.G. You are a middle level functionary in a bureaucracy or corporation and you possess some truth you know does not conform to your institution or boss’s agenda.

Doubling or  splitting as I would call it as a psychoanalyst means you can hold true to your personal morality while maintaining a separate public or institutional morality.

At home you may never behave this way  but at work telling the truth may hurt not only your boss but your institution, your livliehood and the health and safety of your family. In such situations it is helpful to be able to hold contradictory positions to separate out your different selves and different loyalty structures. (Alford 2002)

Blowing the whistle separates whistle blowers from their former lives. Organisations constrained by law not to fire or retaliate against whistle blowers find a way of doing it. E.G. Julian Assange is currently resident in a small office in the Embassy of a South American state in London. Snowden was equally imprisoned in a Russian airport, and a nuclear scientist after whistle blowing about security risks finds herself assigned to making copies or emptying waste paper baskets. For the first time her reports are negatives and she is passed over for her long awaited promotion.

Global capitalism does create problems and its one that effects us all in different ways,  WB is one of those protest a reaction against the idea that there might be something more important than financial expansionism. This was brought home to me recently when some an ex-head of a global bank was told the group I consult to how he was able to pay millions of pounds to get his mother the best medical treatment in the world, whilst a relative of mine with the same illness was treated at a good but under-funded NHS hospital. The former patient extended her life by several years due to ground breaking treatment she was able to purchase.

Losing social conscience in the name of self interest in these  years of total market economy and austerity is quite tempting.

We are currently confronted by further expansion of the market, abd the accompanying  creeping enclosure of public space, reduction of public services, healthcare, education, culture and increasing authoritarian power led by the buck.

All Whistleblowers seem to deal with a specific combination of factors one economic ( from corruption to inefficiency in the market itself). The other a demand that individual morality can make a stand against organisational might, how else can we fight the excesses of the market place.

” A market economy thrives on inequality so self interest will always triumph over the moral good. Think of the violent reaction to Obamas universal health care plans. (Zizek 2013).”

I think whistleblowers have to be vilified lest he expose the rottenness that we accept, to maintain our lifestyles that are quite often based on the suffering of others.

We all want to believe in a rational world of logic but the excavations of the WB are so disturbing to our structured lives that we prefer not to know. By its very nature it’s about unveiling deceit, and our theories of life can be so comfortable that we can all find ourselves not wanting to know.

As the scandals of mid-Staffordshire so ably disclosed by D who was described as a paranoid schizophrenic by her enemies , and even the terrible tragedy of baby P again brought to light by  E or F a nurse who covertly filmed the abuse and neglect of elderly patients in an NHS Hospital for BBC Panorama, lost her nursing registration for ‘breaching confidentiality’. whilst the staff who were abusing the patients where allowed to carry on working.

These are the symptoms of this ‘mind of state’. Where the individual is sacrificed to market forces and the welfare of others suffers. (Bell)

This is clearly not just in the field of medicine but also many other fields , such as the destruction of the legal aid service.

A consultant psychiatrist I see for depression who has no office, has to hot desk with four other consultants, and is having to meet a patient appointment target that compensates for the fact that he is now the only consultant in a dept that has been decimated by cuts reliant on cheaper locum doctors who do not have the same commitment.

The depression does represent an aspect of his early experience as a child where achievement mattered more than emotional involvement.

The health authority he works, as a result of swingeing cuts, expects him to do the impossible , recreating his early experience , so my helping him separate his own issues, disappointment with authority from the disappointing parental authority, and his fear that I will let him down has been important as has been his exploration that maybe this time he should stand up for himself and patients .

He both has to deal with his own problems and the failings of others who might blame him to avoid their own faults.

I was asked to provide a consultation to the whistleblower group due to the
following crisis.

The  group has been  in difficulty from the beginning, it is made up of people who have
WB from various agencies.  There  has always been an uncomfortable relationship  between security services WB and social concern WB. The crisis came to ahead when
A (army) gives an interview to the press where he criticises a leading public WB Snowden, in the security services, saying he should have gone to his head of command, rather than violate the undertaking he took, having agreed too sign the secrecy agreement required for security services. This was only part of the interview. But it deviated from official policy of the whistleblower groups policy of inclusiveness for all. The socially concerned WB involved in the health and social services are were now threatening to resign,
one very important person representing the elderly has.

The threat of division is very disturbing to some of the new members who have suffered a lot at the hands of their respective organisations and saw the new organisation as a new hopeful start.

“I Have no idea where we are anymore with the group! Getting quite uninspired by it all.

I’ve been playing out the arguments in my head like you do when you’ve had a fight with your mum and are trying to explain the case to the other side – silently! I should probably put things down on paper! But don’t know if that’s a good idea as too many emails flying around already!

“Sadly in recent weeks all of us have been experiencing factional behaviour, and some of us insults, and name calling as well which none of us signed up for and want no part of. It has caused significant damage to the organization including the resignation of one of our most valued members and the loss of many supporting her.

The reasons for her resignation were prompted by these unfortunate circumstances:

Mr A was initially asked to step down because of his remarks in a newspaper interview in June this year against the policies of inclusively accepting all whistleblowers, specifically people from security  services, his  remarks provoked threats of resignation from many members. When repeatedly challenged, He refused to withdraw his remarks or to apologize for the offence he caused. None of us who were party to this wanted to publicize it for fear of damaging the organisation.”

“We are losing the common cause  that united the organisation, its breaking down into the single causes that brought you all together in the first place,  the armed forces, banking, the right of the aged, Baby P, social services, managing together in one group, thus avoided the split in our society.

Maybe a divorce is inevitable, the male bankers and armed forces  separating from the health and social care services,  but try not to forget the personal victimisation and the trauma that everyone, regardless of which sector they belong to, has experienced..

It is this that united us and falling back into  your individual sectors means that  this common cause is lost it does weaken our strength.

Intervention

I am wanting to offer a potential understanding of the current state of play with whistleblower.

As we all know any group has to address what their core interests are, what they have in common, it is important at the moment for us to address what these core interests are and whether a divorce would be harmful to those core interests that we all hold dear.

Can we create a space to examine with an open mind  what our differences are? Sometimes as we know a divorce can be the best approach to differences, however by opening our minds to so called irreparable differences, conflict of interest,  personalities, and politics with a small p., and recognising these tensions are normal in all organisations, something other than divorce maybe achieved.

If there are real reasons to work together they need to be addressed and to sustain the group there has to be some discipline about it, there is a need for a work group to avoid the splits into factions and parental like quarrels. Everyone has a reason to feel abused or hurt because this is the way of human nature and organisations.

I would like to suggest in this meeting we attempt to  discover if there really is a different interest and the best way forward.

To discuss whether its best to stay together for our common interests and goals, or have an amicable divorce which as we know is sometimes better for the children. If its the latter people can then choose to be in one or the other or both groups.

It is probably true that A went out on a limb in the interview he did,  it is true that people like him who represent the armed forces are likely to have much stronger  feelings about security issues, than some, he may indeed have broken ranks and he will be the first to know that this is a serious issue and something to recognise and reflect on.

Are general A and journalist B  to discover whether there are two incompatible points of view, we know to achieve a goal we have put aside things that may impede that achievement.

A would have his say then B and then we would see if we can reach a conclusion.

The conclusion being we might stay together or divorce into two separate organisations which never-the-less support each other, as in divorce.

I would ask that to allow this to happen all hostilities come to a halt.

As you can see conflict otherwise just escalates, especially with dreaded email exchanges.

There has to be a generosity toward each other, a gentleman’s agreement rather than various accusations which are the small ‘p’ politics I am talking about.

We remain one organisation in the interest of us all or we become two organisations that come together for certain things, that allows people to join with either.

As you all know voluntary organisations  are often full of resentments as they can feel there is no reward for hard work and they can become dysfunctional. Can we sort out these differences before we divorce, is the common interest we all share, worth staying together for.

Regarding the hot topic of Snowden, Assange etc

Regarding WB and security issues eg . If we want a good security service the reality is that having a fully supportive public,  that support what the security services are doing is important. I think of the British hearts and minds approach in Malaya.

Crowd sourcing is a form of WB were one uses the people inside the organisation to provide information to maximise the objective. This technology of crowd sourcing is always at the cost of command and control. See how happy people working at
Waitrose are!

Whistleblowers are a version of crowd sourcing albeit a conflict version, the challenge is to make use of it. General A has been whistleblowed by B and C. Others are now blowing the whistle on them. The information from these crowd sourcing initiatives could be used to strengthen our  organisation bring about an amicable separation were we still work toward a common goal.

I would suggest that we have a conciliation meeting to discuss the issues and see what transpires. I am objective and would offer to chair it.”

From Mr G

” I hope that you do not mind me writing to you as I found your contact . I am an ex whistleblower who was/is involved in a very large corporate lawsuit.

I have been unable to secure any employment since a damaging article was published  I am now suing my former attorney and a bunch of others involved.

I am finding life very hard to deal with. I am willing to spend every penny of my savings to see my case go to trial (and hopefully win).The problem I am having is that although many recruiters have said on the phone that the press article is indeed very damaging to my career  (as companies do not want to take the risk of hiring me at a director or managerial role, because I may do the same to their company), the recruiters do not want to tell me this in writing. My lawyer is telling me that we really could do with recruiters or expertsto come forwards and help support my case here. It has been very damaging to my professional career.

I’m hoping that through your organisation and that I may be able to find such help. I and my family have been through years of absolute hell since all this started. What makes this so incredibly bad is that the people I placed my trust in were the ones that deliberately went out of their way to make my name public, knowing fine well the dire consequences this would have on me.

Mr S

“I am a consultant in a surgical unit and have just been sacked and offered a gagging clause because of my concerns about the way medical care is failing in my hospital”