FREE White Paper on Circumstantial Evidence
Buy your copy now

WISE Training:
Government accredited, diplomas, certificates and more

Enrol now

The Latest from the Blog

Corrupting Legitimate Processes: What's Really Going On?

Andrew Hedges - Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Corrupting Legitimate Processes

Corruption is a huge problem for Australian organisations because it exists in so many places and in so many forms that the average manager may not even consider it an issue. 

Left unchecked, even minor corrupt behaviour can spiral out of control. 

Using legitimate processes is one way that corruption can be concealed, making it easy to justify and difficult to detect.  

Defining corruption and legitimate processes

Workplace corruption can be broadly defined as behaviour that violates the trust that organisations place in their workers. It can range from serious fraud and abuses of power to minor issues such as fraudulently claiming sick leave. 

Legitimate processes are processes, policies and procedures that a workplace uses to function. They can sometimes be manipulated for corrupt purposes. 

For example, an employee who makes a complaint about a manager may be transferred to another work station, have their overtime hours reduced, or be placed on continuous night shift. The decision-maker justifies the change by saying that there was an operational need for the change, but the timing indicates that it was made because the employee complained.

Detection is difficult
Because the corrupt activity is concealed by legitimate processes, it can be very difficult to prove. It is only by uncovering the background to the decision that corruption may be established.

For example, if our employee was put on permanent night shift just a week after making the complaint against the manager, surrounding relevant factors may be: 
  • There was no warning that the decision was about to be made. 
  • No one discussed the matter with the employee. 
  •  The manager and the shift manager are known to be good friends. 
  • There are emails between the managers about changing the employee’s shift because of the complaint. 
All of these factors are important to consider as they establish context for the decision being made.

Other legitimate processes

Corrupt legitimate processes can also exist in other forms. For example, there might be a strict requirement for payment of invoices to be signed off by two people before being approved. If two employees work together to create and approve false invoices and then pay the money into their bank accounts, this is corruption of a legitimate process. 

If a group in a workplace regularly engages in corruption, for example using a company credit card to buy items for personal use, there may be pressure on other workers to join in or collude. If they refuse, the group may organise for the workers to be transferred.
What is the impact?
Incidents of workplace corruption in Australia are increasing. The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index recently noted that in the past four years, Australia has dropped from 8th to 13th position. Public sector corruption is a key contributor, the ABC reports, but there are also widespread problems in the private sector, notably the banking industry. There have been recent calls for a Royal Commission into the industry to investigate its practices. 

The impact of corruption is huge. In 2012, KPMG’s survey of fraud, bribery and corruption estimated that Australian and New Zealand organisations lost $373 million to corruption. Employees were thought to be responsible for 75% of corrupt activities.
What can be done?
It is important to understand that corruption is usually not spontaneous. There is often a perfect storm of events and situations that causes employees to engage in corrupt activities. 

Understanding what constitutes corruption and taking preventative measures to avoid corruption can help organisations to minimise its effects.   

Corruption is an important issue for all organisations and the better it is understood, the greater the chance of minimising the harm that it can cause. Using legitimate processes is a great cover for corrupt employees. Detection is difficult and there are usually plausible explanations for their actions. If you suspect corruption in your organisation, WISE Workplace can assist with independent investigations and expert advice.  

Intent to Harm: Does it Matter in Workplace Bullying Cases?

Harriet Stacey - Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Intent to Harm: Does it Matter in Workplace Bullying Cases?

We understand that it can seem unfair when the label ‘bully’ crops up in the workplace – particularly when no harm was ever actually intended. We’re all aware of the importance of intent when we look at matters in the criminal space; without identifiable intent, any prosecution team certainly faces an uphill battle. 

However in the civil sphere where workplace law resides, intent is generally not an issue. With some understanding of the risks of running a business, the law aims to provide a relatively even-handed method for sorting out accidents, injuries and mistakes at work. Intention to cause harm tends to go on the backburner in these situations.

Various forms of harm

In the case of bullying claims, it can come as a surprise for many employers that innocent slip-ups and unpopular leadership methods on the part of management can nevertheless be construed as bullying. The recent matter of Carroll v Karingal Inc [2016] FWC 3709 (8 June 2016) demonstrates that even though no harm might be intended, the words and actions of managers and employees can certainly lead to a successful claim of bullying. 

In this matter, Commissioner Tanya Cirkovic heard numerous reports from staff about unfair process requirements, micromanagement and inappropriate comments that accompanied the appointment of the business’s audit and risk manager in 2013. His staff pointed to a manager who ‘said all the right things’ yet embarked on a process of markedly inefficient changes, unrealistic expectations for the team and troublingly racist remarks directed towards a team member.

Inappropriate behaviour and humour

Significant issues identified by Commissioner Cirkovic included the introduction of an inefficient system that resulted in double-handling and a demoralising spate of under-performance for the team. Further, inappropriate remarks and behaviour included laughing at an employee’s accent and remarking on her “Checklish” – a comment on her Czech heritage.

Crucial – avoiding micromanagement

Most significantly, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) took note of the manager’s relentless micromanagement of the employees under his supervision. Ultimately, faced with a sub-standard new system and a supervisor who both demanded compliance and monitored staff with excessive attention to detail, two staff members were able to successfully establish that workplace bullying had occurred.

A cumulative effect

Interestingly, the FWC noted that in all probability the manager had not intended to cause harm through his behaviour. His endeavours to please the employer and provide strong leadership were clear in the evidence produced. However, his seemingly innocent and even industrious intentions were irrelevant to the finding of bullying. The cumulative nature of his indiscretions was also key. 

"I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of his conduct and behaviours was one of significant and systematic micromanaging," Commissioner Cirkovic said.

Bullying – reducing the risks

Carroll v Karingal Inc provides a salutary example of the complex realm of workplace bullying claims. For employers, it pays to understand which behaviours within the team could be seen as bullying – no matter how well intentioned. Nuanced training regarding appropriate behaviour and potential bullying in supervisory roles should be provided throughout the organisation. 

Workplace bullying can be a subtle situation of human interaction gone wrong, and should be front-of-mind in any analysis of potential risks in the workplace. 

If you need to address bullying issues at your organisation, Wise Workplace can provide risk analysis and tailored training. Contact us to find out how.

Uncovering Key Causes of Work-Related Psychological Injury

Harriet Stacey - Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Uncovering Key Causes of Work-Related Psychological Injury

We know that for many employers, it can be rather challenging to face the complexities of work-related psychological injury claims. 

For decades, trip and fall incidents, burns, bending and other visible physical injuries all tended to dominate workplace safety concerns for both employers and insurers alike. Now, with medical advances drawing solid links between employment issues and psychological conditions, claims for work-related injuries have grown exponentially in this area. 

We examine the key causes of many work-related psychological injuries.

Sources of injury

As described by Comcare, the two greatest contributors to the development of these injuries are the combined forces of work pressure and workplace bullying and harassment. These factors together comprise a startling 75% of all work-related psychological injury claims, with other issues such as witnessing violence or experiencing traumatic events at work being significantly less relevant to claims for psychological injury.

Distilling the key causes

We understand that it can be somewhat overwhelming to consider and address the many possible ways in which workers could sustain a psychological injury at work. Yet understanding the causes and risk mitigation strategies relevant to psychological injuries can be crucial for the modern employer. 

While claim numbers for psychological injury are relatively small in number across Australian jurisdictions, their complexity and ultimate cost to insurers and employers is truly phenomenal. To understand the many possibilities for psychological harm in the workplace, we can consider causes within the broad categories of work context and work content.

Work context as contributor

The people, environment and methods of communication that ‘come with the job’ can have a profound effect on workers. As a rather communal species, humans can be strongly affected by the treatment of others, including the way that we are spoken to, included (or excluded) and generally dealt with in the workplace. Poor communication, ambiguous role descriptions and ineffective personal career development opportunities are all examples of detrimental contexts that can surround the core work itself. 

Uncertainty, isolation and bullying – subtle or otherwise – can also be extremely damaging risk factors in the context of psychological health and safety. Couple these negative phenomena with a job that demands up-beat client care and service, and employers may well find themselves with the key ingredients for a work-related psychological injury.

Stress and the content of work

So we have looked at the contextual factors of workplace stress. Yet are there aspects of the work itself – the content – that can lead to the development of work-related psychological injury? Absolutely. How and when work must be completed can have a demonstrable effect on worker psychological health. 

Shift work, fragmentation of work and hours, plus unremittingly meaningless work can also create the perfect storm for psychological injuries. Being required to produce high-quality outputs – fast – in the face of inappropriate facilities and/ or sub-standard equipment can also produce the type of work-related stress that can eventually devolve into a psychological injury.

Just toughen up?

For some employers, it might be tempting to dismiss these facts as simply an inability for employees to toughen up to the realities of work. Yet for better or worse, the medical evidence pointing to the link between psychological injury and some workplace issues is powerful – and continues to grow. The content of the work itself, as well as the context in which that work takes place, can both have strong implications for psychological health in the workforce.

Assessing the risk factors

Tackling the risk management of work-related psychological injuries can certainly take significant time and energy for most employers. For some, a comprehensive psychological risk audit designed to locate and address potential problem areas can be a sensible starting point. Yet it can certainly prove difficult to track down the source of more insidious undercurrents, such as bullying and harassment in the workplace. In these cases, engaging a skilled workplace investigator will ensure that your findings accurately represent the psychological reality of your particular workplace. 

However tackled, the effort to develop a resilient workplace with strong preventative strategies for psychological wellness can certainly pay dividends into the future – for the organisation and for workers alike. Understanding the key causes of psychological injury can be a valuable starting point for mitigating any potentially damaging features within the workplace.  

WISE Workplace provides a suite of courses from 2 hours to 1 day that can help educate and skill employees around bullying and harassment and equip managers in early intervention and prevention strategies to help your workplace remain bully free.  For more information on how WISE Workplace can help you please contact Harriet on 1300 580 685 or visit our website www.wiseworkplace.com.au

Harriet Stacey 

How can Wise Workplace help you? Check out our new video which simply explains what we are about...

>