Australians have many culturally unique traits, including an aversion to what they call “dobbing,” or snitching on their coworkers or mates. Calvin London, himself an Aussie, wonders if this distinctive characteristic raises an intriguing question: What impact does cultural influence have on the success of internal speak-up programs or external whistleblower systems?
Australians have long been recognized as a people who do not dob or secretly tell someone in authority that someone else has done something wrong to fellow workers. The ethics of standing by one’s mates means that many Australians have a dim view of dobbing, which can have a significant effect on the success of internal speak-up programs or external whistleblower systems and provides an example of the consideration that should be given to the cultural aspects of such programs.
Global whistleblower programs
The U.S., with its advanced and successful whistleblower program, and the UK, which has set the standard and provided guidance for many other European countries, are the frontrunners in this field.
In the U.S., a whistleblower may receive a reward of 10%-30% of what the government recovers when the SEC recovers more than $1 million, and the commission may increase whistleblower compensation based on many factors, such as how important the information was to the enforcement action.
In May 2023, the commission announced it had awarded a staggering $279 million to a single whistleblower. This is the largest financial reward ever disbursed under any whistleblower program, sparking a fresh wave of discussions about the merits of rewarding whistleblowers. Proponents of the argument claim that whistleblowers suffer personally and professionally and, therefore, need some compensation to cover costs. Opponents argue that whistleblowers should speak out should do so out of an unblemished sense of righteousness and civic duty, not because they might profit from it.
Financial incentives aside, there is also the problem of retaliation against whistleblowers, which can be a strong deterrent against making a claim. Would a fixed amount of money, $1 million for example, and a promise of protection against retaliation be sufficient to encourage a high-flying, upward-moving employee to dob on their workmates or the company they work for?
If this were applied to a high-flying executive who could potentially earn 10 or 20 times this figure, would it change their thinking?
Differences in whistleblower systems
In the U.S., while regulators would like to see even more reporting and recognize that whistleblowers play a critical role in ensuring companies operate within the law, the success of U.S. programs is evident. The U.S. legal system contains a multitude of state and federal laws that protect whistleblowers who report potential misconduct from any retaliation for making the report. In the U.S. fiscal year 2023, 18,000 tips were reported and led to enforcement actions resulting in penalties of nearly $6.5 billion and awards of over $1.5 billion to 214 whistleblowers.
The U.S. has an established history compared to other countries. The first protection law in the U.S. was enacted July 30, 1778, two years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) as a reaction to several corporate accounting scandals, such as Enron, Worldcom and HealthSouth. Events like this and the long history of protections have established a cultural benchmark for whistleblowing in the U.S.
Levels of protection and whistleblower rewards are less-developed in other countries, and the effectiveness of whistleblower programs across Europe is much lower. For example, whistleblowing systems in German, Swiss, UK and French companies were much less effective.
Many systems outside the U.S. either lack any form of monetary compensation or, perhaps more importantly, any form of protection for whistleblowers. In the UK, for example, it has been reported that 53% of potential whistleblowers did not report for fear that it would damage their reputation and future career.
How to Lose a Sterling Reputation in 3 Years: The Story of the ‘Lying Kangaroo’
Once a beloved cultural icon, Qantas has a long journey back into the hearts of the Australian public
Read moreDetailsCultural impacts
Although there are some indications that the effectiveness of less-established programs or systems in other countries has improved, some, like China, Japan and Australia, are severely hampered by cultural issues and a lack of structure.
In China, for example, managers are less likely to report unethical behavior by their colleagues. The rule of law has not yet received strong institutional support there, and the traditional Chinese concept of mianzi (often translated as “face” or “reputation”) strongly discourages behaviors that would embarrass another person.
And the “collectivist culture” in Japan exalts the importance of loyalty and tolerates unfair-but-loyal behavior over the individualistic culture of the U.S. Even if whistleblowers do report in Japan, company culture tends to override the resulting action, and the initial reports are ignored for some time, as was the case in landmark cases like Toyo Tires, Mitsubishi Materials and Olympus.
Aussies don’t dob
In Australia, cultural implications associated with whistleblowing are not so structured or philosophically based as the examples of China and Japan. It is simple: Aussies don’t dob, and those who have dared to report have received little protection. Whistleblower protections have proven inaccessible and practically unenforceable. In a recent study, 80% of whistleblowers reported suffering personal reprisals for speaking up. In the most extreme cases, people believed they faced the prospect of prison.
Aussies seem to have defined levels of tolerance. Whistleblowing, when standing up against an organization or institution to protect vulnerable people, is accepted. Dobbing/snitching is seen as exposing people to the abuse of unethical organizations or institutions. For example, a major chain store that hikes prices on essential items is likely to draw attention, but somebody who is stealing a basic commodity, say food or clothing, is probably not going to raise flags.
Any progress with Australian whistleblowing programs will need to focus on providing an incentive to report and protection against retaliation, either by their peers or their company. Neither of these is prominent in current programs (unlike the U.S.), but they need to be strengthened to overcome the cultural foundation.
Calvin London, Ph.D., is the Founder and Principal consultant at 
