{"id":3591,"date":"2016-03-03T12:31:42","date_gmt":"2016-03-03T02:31:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplacetraining.com.au\/2021\/09\/11\/corruption-and-deviant-behaviour-in-the-public-sector\/"},"modified":"2016-03-03T12:31:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T02:31:42","slug":"corruption-and-deviant-behaviour-in-the-public-sector","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplace.com.au\/2016\/03\/corruption-and-deviant-behaviour-in-the-public-sector\/","title":{"rendered":"Corruption and Deviant Behaviour in the Public Sector"},"content":{"rendered":"
Corruption is a significant issue in Australia\u2019s public sector. It can exist in many forms with varying degrees of severity. But even though its existence is well documented, it remains difficult to address because witnesses can be unwilling to report their experiences.<\/p>\n
There can be many reasons for this, including social pressures, the use of legitimate processes to hide corrupt behaviour, and using co-workers to assist corrupt activities and prevent detection.<\/p>\n
We often think of corruption as being the most serious frauds or abuses of power, yet it can include what we would normally consider to be reasonably minor behaviours which violate the trust placed in employees. Examples of this might include fraudulently altering timesheets, or claiming sick leave while undertaking a second job during the time off.<\/p>\n
Deviant behaviour can be defined as violations against group norms. This behaviour can be contrary to an organisation\u2019s policies and rules. The two can battle each other as normal behaviour within the group can be seen as being more important than organisational rules and procedures. Although minor, this behaviour can spiral into corruption if left unaddressed.<\/p>\n
While corruption has the potential to and does indeed exist in both public and private sectors, government organisations seem uniquely challenged by corruption issues. This may be because of their large size and the geographical spread of employees, with managers sometimes working in different locations to teams, leaving teams with limited oversight and accountability.<\/p>\n
Social groups within a workplace can band together to promote or hide corruption.<\/p>\n
Just like the schoolyard, people in workplaces can find themselves categorised or indeed categorise themselves into the \u2018in\u2019 or \u2018out\u2019 group. Some who are new to a workplace may want to associate with the \u2018in\u2019 crowd no matter what. If the group is engaged in corrupt activities or deviant behaviour, the new worker may be drawn in and pressured to participate. New employees can be socialised into corruption within the group or bullied to maintain silence.<\/p>\n
Management may have knowledge of the strong sub-culture and choose not to intervene for a number of potential reasons. It may be that the group is performing well and meeting KPI targets, it may be that management is being bullied by staff not to intervene, or it may be that the status quo is being maintained through the use of corrupt alliance and relationships.<\/p>\n
The \u2018in\u2019 group is all about informal power. A worker may not hold a senior role, but they have such strong personal power over colleagues that they end up being the leader within the group. Through use of this power, manipulation and persuasion, they may create and maintain these norms of corrupt behaviours.<\/p>\n
Read more on:<\/strong> Social Identity and the Spiral into Corruption<\/p>\n When corruption is embedded into everyday routines and operations, it can be difficult to detect as behaviours become normalised. Often, these legitimate processes rely upon alliances within the workplace. For example, organisational processes might require a double sign-off on invoices for payment, yet two employees could work together to create and approve false invoices and transfer funds into their own accounts.<\/p>\n Speaking out against corruption can result in changes to a person\u2019s employment conditions, such as redundancy, transferring a worker, cutting hours or changing shifts \u2013 all of which may seem legitimate until the timing is considered.<\/p>\n Employees can develop strong alliances and networks both within their close-knit group and more broadly across the organisation. These alliances can be used for corrupt purposes through an environment of secrecy, agreed rules and clique-like closeness. As employees get transferred to different areas and promoted, or even promote members of their clique, this network can grow both in size and the effectiveness of its corrupt activities.<\/p>\n Once a corrupt employee has developed a network, there are plenty of people to help engage in corruption or to help conceal it. Sometimes, these people are manipulated into assisting through legitimate processes, and may not even realise that they are aiding corrupt activities.<\/p>\n Read more on:<\/strong>\u00a0Use of Alliances and Networks<\/span><\/p>\n People working together have tremendous power to be corrupt and resist detection. The strength of the \u2018in\u2019 group relies upon no one speaking out about the group\u2019s activities. In cases where someone has spoken out, or alleged corrupt activities are suspected by management, corrupt group members can protect each other by providing false evidence that supports members or covers their tracks. This inhibits investigators from proving their suspicions and uncovering the corruption.<\/p>\n Read more on: <\/strong>Banding\u00a0Together to Avoid Detection<\/span><\/p>\n Silence and censorship are closely linked to social pressures. Once an employee group is engaging in corrupt behaviour, they can cover up their activities by insisting on the silence of others.<\/p>\n Newcomers to the group can succumb to peer group pressure for a number of reasons, including:<\/p>\n Read more on: <\/strong>How Silence and Censorship can Enable Workplace Corruption<\/p>\n Can anything be done to prevent corruption?<\/span><\/p>\n Minimal reporting of alleged corruption makes it difficult to detect, with the wall of silence and supportive behaviours within the \u2018in\u2019 group enabling it to continue unopposed.<\/p>\n However, there are a number of precautions that employers can take to limit the impact of corruption and deviant behaviour:<\/p>\n Corruption doesn\u2019t just happen. It is made possible through enabling conditions, and then there must be motivators and benefits. It is not always a corrupt individual acting in isolation either.<\/p>\n Another tool to limit corrupt activity is training. Wise Workplace offers the Certificate IV in Government Fraud Control, which is recognised by federal government agencies, and has been so successful in cost savings that some state and local governments now require public sector investigators to hold this qualification.<\/p>\n The Certificate IV is a national qualification, aimed at investigators who wish to work in government, and government employees who wish to be promoted.\u00a0The course focuses on:<\/p>\n Employee corruption and deviant behaviour is a huge problem in the public sector, compounded by the difficulty in identifying and proving it.\u00a0There are many employees who observe corrupt behaviours but don\u2019t report them because they are too scared to get involved.<\/p>\n It\u2019s difficult to know how best to deal with the problem, but it is clear that education, including an understanding of the enabling conditions and the motivators to look for, plays an important role.<\/p>\n Employees need to be educated about corrupt behaviours, and if more staff can be engaged in higher-level training, the frequency of corruption may start to decrease.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re interested in implementing education and training around corruption, contact WISE Workplace about the Certificate IV in Government and Fraud Control.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\nCorrupting legitimate processes<\/h3>\n
Use of alliances and networks<\/h3>\n
Protection from detection<\/h3>\n
Silence and censorship<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Training can be effective<\/h3>\n
\n