A never ending shame that Jes Staley -Barclays CEO, attempted to ascertain the identity of an anonymous whistleblower.
The real implications of this issue
Culture starts at the very top of the company and it cascades down. What is the message being sent by Jes Staley on culture then? Further, culture is one of the key pillars of corporate governance. Taking into account this, it is not surprising that Barclays has had so many wrongdoings and irregularities.
The conclusion from the board is unacceptable. As I say above, culture is one of the key pillars of corporate governance and it starts at the top. Jes Staley had to know that it is not permissible to identify a whistleblower. Believing differently is not a mistake. Labeling this a mistake is a political way of helping him to get away with it.
The excuse from Jes Staley is also unacceptable. He intended to protect a colleague from an unfair attack,….by fairly unprotecting a whistleblower…? I would expect a more smarter answer from someone at his level and with his experience.
This example shows how many serious difficulties whistleblowers have to cope with. These difficulties stem from senior management, and usually from the senior management involved in the wrongdoings or the irregularities.
The legal protection is not enough. Senior management is now more savvy and know how to bypass the legislation. They just need to start raising doubts about the work and performance of the whistleblower. The employment law will do the rest, as if there is any small doubt, the tribunal will conclude that is the poor or wrong performance that caused the termination of the whistleblower employee.
We, however, will not see any performance process with Jes Staley, neither with any senior management. Nor will there be any doubt on his wrong or poor performance. There is still too much unfairness in the coporate world and the law supports this unfairness.
Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) is unable to protect a whistleblower from indirect attacks (i.e.: raising doubts about his/her performance). PIDA only works when there is a black and white situatio whereby the company terminates the whistleblower immediately after he/she raised the protected disclosure and without questioning his/her performance.
Senior management and companies overall are more savvy now. Their immediate reaction is not to fire the whistleblower, but to raise doubts about his/her performance. This way the employment law supports companies and rogue senior management to attack whistleblowers and PIDA protection disappears.
The fact that the US law enforcement agency was willing to assist him on his personal hunt on the whistleblower further reinforces my claim that there is very little protection for whistleblowers. I understand that the UK’s banking regulators are now investigating the bank adn Mr. Staley,…but, is there anyone investigating the US law enforcement agency?
Elisa Turullols – AmbassadorOfAssurance