Whistleblowing processes in Swedish public organisations—complaints and consequences

Abstract

Research on whistleblowing in Sweden is scarce. In this explorative study 21 cases of whistleblowing from human service organisations in Sweden were examined. Extensive material from thematic interviews with 28 whistleblowers, 30 key persons and documents from supervisory authorities such as the National Board of Health and Welfare have been analysed.

Some findings were that the organisation problems motivating whistleblowing were usually cutbacks in vital services for users, unethical working methods or abuse of clients. Internal whistleblowing was usually met with silence from supervisors and directors. The whistleblowers then went on with external whistleblowing by reporting the bad conditions to the higher supervisory authorities who started thorough investigations. Their actions caused a lot of negative reactions in the organisation, but they were also supported by media and ordinary citizens.

The retaliation processes against the whistleblowers were described. Half of the interview group has left their positions, either on sick leave or by changing jobs. The findings show a stigmatisation process with severe consequences for the individuals. But the cited organisations usually had to change their illegal or immoral practices and benefited in the long run from the whistleblowing events.

Få studier av kritikerprocesser (whistleblowing) har genomförts. I denna explorativa studie har 21 fall av whistleblowing inom olika människovårdande organisationer i Sverige undersökts. Omfattande material från kvalitatativa intervjuer med 28 kritiker och 30 nyckelpersoner samt utredningar och dokument från olika tillsynsmyndigheter har analyserats.

Resultaten visar att organisatoriska missförhållanden utgjorde bakgrund till kritiken, t ex nedskärningar i viktig service till brukare, oetiska arbetsmetoder eller kränkningar som brukarna utsattes för. Kritik inom organisationen möttes ofta med tystnad från arbetsledare och chefer. Kritikerna gick då vidare genom att rapportera om missförhållandena till olika tillsynsmyndigheter t ex JO, Socialstyrelsen. Dessa startade noggranna utredningar av fallen. Kritikernas handlande ledde till negativa reaktioner inom organisationen, men de fick ofta stöd av journalister och vanliga medborgare.

Många kritiker beskrev omfattande repressalier som de hade utsatts för. Hälften av de intervjuade hade lämnat sina anställningar på grund av sjukskrivning, omplacering eller byte av arbete. Resultaten visar på en stigmatiseringsprocess med allvarliga följder för de involverade kritikerna. Men det framgår också att organisationerna som en följd av kritiken ibland tvingades att ändra sina oetiska och ibland direkt olagliga arbetssätt. Det går att hävda att organisationerna i det långa loppet tjänade på kritiken och att den i vissa fall ledde till förbättringar för brukarna.

Keywords:

• Organisations/Management
• Participation/Citizenship
• Values/Ethics
• Retaliations
• Whistleblowing

Nyckelord:

• Kritik
• Whistleblowing
• Repressalier
• Offentliga Organisationer

Notes

1. Freedom of expression for public employees is constitutionally protected by the Instrument of Government (1974), freedom of expression basic law (1991, p. 1469) and freedom of the press regulations (1949, p. 105). This is also codified in other statutes, regulating for example social workers’ and health workers’ rights and obligations to speak out, such as the Social Services Act from 2001 and the Health and Medical Service Act from 1982.

2. For social workers there is an international code of ethics, edited by the IASSW, and also a national one, confirmed by the largest trade union organising social workers with an academic degree. These codes contain not only core ideas, virtues, ethical principles and rules but also principles and rules of professional practice (Banks, 2004, in Dalrymple & Burke, 2006).

3. The study was conducted with support from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS).

4. The term actually comes from Glazer and Glazer (1989).

5. In some cases there was more than one informant.

6. Supervisory authorities are, for example, the National Board of Health and Welfare having regional branches in different counties all over Sweden. Other supervisory authorities are the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, for example the Ombudsman of Justice (JO). When observing abuse or misconduct by public employees, you may file a complaint to one of these supervisory authorities and they will start an inquiry.

7. Sometimes our informants had limited insight into what changes had been carried out because they had left the organisation.