Spotlight on ECI Research: Why has Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct Skyrocketed?

The ECI 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey® (GBES®) uncovered several trends, including that retaliation for reporting misconduct has skyrocketed. In fact, it showed that 79 percent of U.S. employees and a median of 61 percent of global employees in 10 countries perceived retaliation for reporting misconduct. At an ECI Live event this spring, ECI Senior Survey Researcher Skip Lowney presented findings from the GBES and answered questions about the topic in A Global Look at The State of Ethics & Compliance in the Workplace.

The session was attended by 274 ethics professionals who wanted to better understand dynamics surrounding retaliation. ECI defines retaliation as an inappropriate negative action or behavior against an employee as a result of the employee’s reporting of misconduct.

Lowney said there may be several reasons behind the increase. First, as he said, the question was posed differently in this year’s report. The ECI is continuing to explore other potential reasons for the increase, because, as Lowney shared, retaliation has been rising over the years.

“We believe there is greater awareness among employees of what constitutes retaliation and what is an unacceptable response to a report of misconduct,” Lowney said. “Behavior that would have been acceptable five years ago is understood today to be unacceptable.”

Questions & Answers

Here are some other takeaways – in Q&A format from attendees and answered by Lowney – from E&C Reporting Trends: Understanding the Impact of our Current Environment:

Question: It is interesting that 50 percent of employees in the United States have observed misconduct, yet other countries are lower. Do you have any insights regarding this data?  Are employees outside the United States less willing to say they see misconduct or is there less misconduct in other countries?

Answer: The U.S. datum is calculated on an aggregation of responses to 16 questions asking about specific behaviors (of which the respondent observed at least one), while data from the other countries are based on a single question asking generally about observing misconduct (Observed misconduct, Yes/No).

Some reasons for the differences are:

• A respondent’s memory is stirred when presented with a behavior, whereas they might not have recalled it when answering the general observation of misconduct question; and
• A respondent might not have known/considered that a specific behavior was misconduct and did not include it in their calculus when answering the general observation of misconduct question.

Question: How does retaliation differ by reporting channel?

Answer: ECI has conducted a GBES report specific to retaliation that is available here that goes into that detail. Regarding the finding below, one explanation is that the reporter is perceived as having “gone around” their supervisor (who might actually have been the perpetrator of the misconduct).

Reporters who go to higher management, and especially to the hotline, are significantly more likely to say they experienced retaliation. More than one in four (27 percent) employees who first report to higher management experience retaliation, and 40 percent of whistleblowers who go first to the hotline experience retaliation. Far fewer employees (17 percent) who feel comfortable enough to report first to their supervisor end up experiencing retaliation. (ECI, 2012).

Retaliation: When Whistleblowers Become Victims.

The same report also shows that the more locations to which an individual reports, the greater the likelihood of retaliation. (This was not studied from the perspective of which locations the individual reported to, but, rather, the quantity of locations to which they went). Of those who reported to just one location, 12 percent experienced retaliation. Of those who reported to six locations, 80 percent experienced retaliation.

Question: Regarding the sources of pressure on workers, how does this compare with past years?

Answer: The types of pressure remain similar to past findings. Employees feel pressure to meet performance goals and pressure from their supervisor. Pressure centers around the success that comes with satisfying these drivers, which are, for most employees, the same pressure: To do well in the job you are being told to do by your supervisor.

Question: If managers have a perception of retaliation, which may flow down to employees, is that a possible reason for some companies seeing fewer contacts reporting misconduct?

Answer: ECI does not have specific metrics and data to answer this question, but has numerous findings that imply this would be a contributing reason for a lower rate of reporting.

Some findings:

Employees look to managers for the tone they convey, and respond accordingly. Numerous inquiries into ECI’s data show that when managers conduct themselves ethically compared with when they do not conduct themselves ethically, ethics outcomes improve (pressure reduces, misconduct rates decline, reporting increases and retaliation decreases). It would follow that lower reporting rates would exist in environments in which managers convey the impression that retaliation is the norm.

Tangentially related to this question, ECI reported in 2018 that when senior leaders are reported for violations of interpersonal conduct (abusive behavior, sexual harassment, discrimination), the reporter is 2.6 times more likely to experience retaliation compared with reporting of a non-management employee for such a violation. [ECI, 2018. Interpersonal Misconduct in The Workplace: What It Is, How It Occurs and What You Should Do About It.]

The conclusion to draw from this is that managers have an outsized impact on employee behavior; thus, managers’ perceptions about retaliation are likely to dampen reporting.

If you would like to learn more about this topic, ECI has several working group papers on anti-retaliation and retaliation available here.