Making the Workplace a Safer Place.
Over the past week, the media have reported on several cases that have gained significant coverage.
With headlines such as “Monster enabled by the system that pervaded Harrods” regarding Mohammed Al Fayed, “How Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs wielded power and prestige to fuel decades of alleged abuse,” and “Huw Edwards’ fall from grace is urgent wake-up call to broadcasters,” historical abuses of power are almost becoming the norm.
The abuses referred to above are all sexually motivated, albeit experience tells us that very often sexual violence is often driven more by power than by lust. Yet, we have seen abuses of power that suggest the rich, famous, and powerful don’t think the conventional rules of society apply to them.
Anyone who has worked in law enforcement will have numerous stories of how they have been asked, “Don’t you know who I am?” but someone who, because of their wealth or profile, doesn’t think that the law applies to them and, in essence, is suggesting they be treated differently.
Power has always corrupted, so maybe we need to accept that from a psychological perspective, it should be expected. The failure lies in these individuals’ ability to continue ‘getting away ‘with it.
The other factor that becomes evident when exposed to this subject is how quickly and smoothly individuals slip into this new ‘lifestyle’.
The term “Insider Threat” usually refers to anyone with authorized access who uses that access to wittingly or unwittingly cause harm to an organization and its resources, including information, personnel, and facilities.
I’d suggest that people of power, fame or status can also become an insider threat.
These people have caused significant harm to the BBC, Harrods, politics, and many other institutions, which can impact share prices, turnover, and reputations.
A white paper I published last year, ‘The Insider Threat,’ explored the link between the economic downturn and concerning and threatening workplace behaviours. In it, we established that there was (and remains) a significant lack of reporting of concerns. What this means is that the behaviours were known but not reported.
The four key reasons for this include:
- Employees don’t know what to report
- Employees don’t know who to report their concerns to
- Employees don’t trust the process to be acted on professionally
- Employees fear that they will face reprisals or be exposed
If you were to put yourself in the shoes of an employee who has a concern about the behaviour of a senior or powerful person in an organisation, you would understand how difficult it is to report your concerns.
Many organisations are getting better at signposting how and where to report concerns. Some overcomplicate the process by having more than one reporting hub. This is a mistake. Employees should know where to report their concerns and not have to worry about deciding which box their concerns fall into. That is the organisation’s problem, not the person with the concern.
It may appear obvious to you what behaviours should be reported. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, it may be, but at the moment, some behaviours are subtle and not always obvious. Research has been conducted on the behaviours of concern that can provide an early indicator of a problem, and these behaviours must be repeatedly communicated, openly publicised, and, most importantly, applied to everyone.
The next two factors are critical.
The evidence of many historical allegations made public is that complaints were often made and dismissed or suppressed. There is a perception, often proven to be accurate, that some senior figures are protected, and if they bring success to that organisation, their behaviour is overlooked.
Another factor of concern is that the process or investigation lacks independence.
Having recently completed an investigation at a global brand, it became very clear that whilst the HR team said everything was alright, the investigation’s priority was to protect the brand, not the complainant. This is a very common and perhaps understandable practice. Organisations have spent millions of pounds developing their reputation and will do almost anything to protect them. There has been plenty of recent discussion on the use (or perhaps misuse) of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). What is becoming increasingly apparent is that they are often counterproductive, and whilst they may initially prove effective, in the long term, they are seen as a mechanism designed to hide the truth and suppress the vulnerable.
The recent media coverage of what appears to be the systematic abuse by the now-deceased billionaire owner of Harrods, Mohammed Al-Fayed, reveals a culture of threats and intimidation targeted at anyone who sought to expose the truth. This culture would be shared with anyone thinking of complaining or, even worse, discussing the issues with the media. This supports the 4th element of our research, that complainants fear will face reprisals or be exposed.
The senior management team of Harrods today, undoubtedly unconnected to the Al-Fayed regime, is now faced with managing the crisis that he caused. They will want to reassure their shareholders, customers, and staff that they now enjoy a very different culture but will be faced with picking up the financial and reputational bill for the damage Al-Fayed’s historical behaviour caused. Any NDA previously agreed to will now be ignored.
However, it is undisputed that Saville, Al-Fayed, and even Huw Edwards‘s behaviours were well-known and overlooked.
These behaviours do not have to be related to sexual improprieties. The UK’s new government was elected into power as recently as July 2024, and yet already they are fighting off allegations of their senior ministers having inappropriate relationships with donors and exploiting these financial relationships. Only this week, Labour veteran Diane Abbott accused Keir Starmer of being “in the pocket of millionaires” as senior party insiders fear that Labour is being trialled over the freebies saga.
During the period I worked in Parliament, two general elections took place, and I saw how newly elected MPs quickly got up to speed with exploiting the public’s trust and misusing expenses. You may think that Parliament is exempt from the 4 key reasons referenced above, and yet Parliament is rife with a culture of bullying and exploitation by MPs and ministers.
There is an independent parliamentary commissioner for standards; however, despite the commissioner finding MPs’ conduct falling well below the expected standards, the previous commissioner, Kathryn Stone, a lady I worked with and had the utmost respect and admiration for, stated that she faced intimidation from MPs when conducting her investigations. The commissioner only has the authority to punish minor breaches. When more serious breaches were identified, she often found her conclusions being watered down by MPs themselves when her report was submitted to the Standards Committee, a committee staffed by MPs.
A critical factor in having confidence that complaints are taken seriously includes an independent investigative function. This may appear straightforward and simple, but it is anything but. Despite being ‘independent,’ it will be paid for by the organisation employing it and is likely to demand certain returns on their investment. Depending on the ROI, it can complicate the role and create distrust, failing to satisfy those who rely on it.
A secondary factor, such as having an independent panel to review the investigation’s findings, will help, despite this panel having to report to the organisations again. Trust is built through experience; only when results are seen and experienced can it be independent and reliable.
In less than a month, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 is due to come into force on 26 October 2024, and UK-based organisations will be required to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
Organisations must do something different and ensure that the rules are applied equally.
To truly reduce the inside threat posed by the rich, famous and powerful, reasonable steps must be introduced to prevent all behaviours causes harm.
As a behavioural threat specialist, I believe that this will only be achieved with clear instructions on what behaviours of concern to report and an independent, transparent, and professional investigative response.
