Organisational whistleblowing policies: making employees responsible or liable?

This paper explores the possible impact of the recent legal developments on organizational whistleblowing on the autonomy and responsibility of whistleblowers. In the past thirty years numerous pieces of legislation have been passed to offer protection to whistleblowers from retaliation for disclosing organisational wrongdoing. An area that remains uncertain in relation to whistleblowing and its related policies in organisations, is whether these policies actually increase the individualisation of work, allowing employees to behave in accordance with their conscience and in line with societal expectations or whether they are another management tool to control employees and protect organisations from them. The assumptions of whistleblower protection with regard to moral autonomy are examined in order to clarify the purpose of whistleblower protection at work. The two extreme positions in the discourse of whistleblowing are that whistleblowing legislation and policies either aim to enable individual responsibility and moral autonomy at work, or they aim to protect organisations by allowing them to control employees and make them liable for ethics at work.

Performance measurement and benchmarking of a major innovation programme

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the problems encountered and the solutions developed when using benchmarking and key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor a major UK social house building innovation (change) programme. The innovation programme sought improvements to both the quality of the house product and the procurement process. Design/methodology/approach: Benchmarking and KPIs were used to quantify performance and in-depth case studies to identify underlying cause and effect relationships within the innovation programme. Findings: The inherent competition between consortium members; the complexity of the relationship between the consortium and its strategic partner; the lack of an authoritative management control structure; and the rapidly changing nature of the UK social housing market all proved problematic to the development of a reliable and robust monitoring system. These problems were overcome by the development of multi-dimensional benchmarking model that balanced the needs and aspirations of the individual organisations with the broader objectives of the consortium. Research limitations/implications: Whilst the research methodology provides insight into the factors that affected the performance of a major innovation programme its findings may not be representative of all projects. Practical implications: The lessons learnt should assist those developing benchmarking models for multi-client consortia. Originality/value: The work reported in this paper describes an inclusive approach to benchmarking in which a multiple client group and their strategic partner sought to work together for shared gain. Very few papers have addressed this issue.