Workplace malpractice is any behavior related to job performance that deviates from standards, procedures, or reasonable expectations of the employer. For example, it would be workplace malpractice for a market researcher to intentionally include fabricated data in a report assessing the positions of potential competitors. I've explored workplace malpractice in previous issues — see "Counterproductive Knowledge Work Behavior," Point Lookout for September 21, 2016, for examples.
Several readers have expressed interest in the risks of reporting workplace malpractice. They ask, "If I've witnessed an incident or a pattern of workplace malpractice, what should I do?" There's no general answer. But if you're considering making a report, be alert to the risks. Below are some of those risks.
- Failure-to-report risk
- If you choose not to report what you know, you could be in trouble if people in authority learn that you knew what was happening and didn't report it. If one or more of the risks below seem substantial, and you feel unsafe making a report, consider reporting instead that you have information, but you don't feel safe reporting it. That might afford some protection against failure-to-report charges, and it might motivate your employer to address the safety issue.
- Confidentiality issues in the reporting process
- Most misconduct At work, there is no
such thing as a witness
protection programreport management processes do promise confidentiality to those who report misconduct. The best programs offer an anonymous tip line. If your employer doesn't provide an anonymous tip line, confidentiality can sometimes be breached. Be prepared for possible retaliation. In most workplaces, there is no witness protection program.
- Are you certain that you're interpreting correctly whatever you've witnessed? Are alternative interpretations plausible? If alternatives are plausible, your report might be inaccurate, and potentially damaging to you. If the alternatives are plausible, they can also provide you with valid explanations for failing to report what you witnessed: "Yes, I knew about that, but it seemed OK to me because I thought it was X."
- Misidentifying the real perpetrator
- The perpetrator of the malpractice might have been acting under instructions of a superior. If so, your report could affect that superior, who might be powerful enough to mitigate the effects of your report, and vengeful enough to seek retaliation.
- Invalid evidence
- Did you actually witness the incident? Or are you inferring malpractice based on contextual evidence? If the latter, might someone inquire about your failure to report that earlier contextual evidence? If not, report the incident anyway if you feel safe enough. If you have any doubts about your safety, see the comment above about failure-to-report risk.
- Witness testing
- At times, an incident you witnessed might have been conducted in your view solely to determine whether you could be trusted not to report it. The probability of this scenario is elevated if the "test infraction" is minor, or if you were asked in advance to be present, and asked afterwards to be silent. If you suspect "witness testing," you're working amongst sophisticated operators. How long you will remain safe, even if you cooperate, is difficult to predict.
At whatever level you estimate the risks of reporting malpractice, those risks are mitigated to some extent by hard evidence. Documents, recordings, photos, your journals, or records of any kind — anything you have that can corroborate your report. Collecting this kind of evidence might bear risks of its own, so take care. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Ethics at Work:
- Budget Shenanigans: Swaps
- When projects run over budget, managers face a temptation to use creative accounting to address the
problem. The budget swap is one technique for making ends meet. It distorts organizational data, and
it's just plain unethical.
- When You Aren't Supposed to Say: I
- Most of us have information that's "company confidential," or possibly even more sensitive
than that. When we encounter individuals who try to extract that information, we're better able to protect
it if we know their techniques.
- Extrasensory Deception: II
- In negotiating agreements, the partners who do the drafting have an ethical obligation not to exploit
the advantages of the drafting role. Some drafters don't meet that standard.
- Personnel-Sensitive Risks: I
- Some risks and the plans for managing them are personnel-sensitive in the sense that disclosure can
harm the enterprise or its people. Since most risk management plans are available to a broad internal
audience, personnel-sensitive risks cannot be managed in the customary way. Why not?
- Full Disclosure
- The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and
in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in
the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 1: Incompetence: Traps and Snares
- Sometimes people judge as incompetent colleagues who are unprepared to carry out their responsibilities. Some of these "incompetents" are trapped or ensnared in incompetence, unable to acquire the ability to do their jobs. Available here and by RSS on April 1.
- And on April 8: Intentionally Misreporting Status: I
- When we report the status of the work we do, we sometimes confront the temptation to embellish the good news or soften the bad news. How can we best deal with these obstacles to reporting status with integrity? Available here and by RSS on April 8.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.