Speaker 1: Hey, folks, I want to take a minute to ask
Speaker 1: for your help. This show is a labor of love
Speaker 1: for all of us here on the team at calling BS.
Speaker 1: We debate which organizations to investigate. We carefully consider how
Speaker 1: to best tell these stories. Our goal is to create
Speaker 1: a show that exposes purpose washing and the real harm
Speaker 1: it does in the world. But we also want to
Speaker 1: create a show that's fun to listen to and serves
Speaker 1: as a practical guide for entrepreneurs and leadership teams about
Speaker 1: how to do purpose right. We're really proud of what
Speaker 1: we've made so far, and we're super excited about getting
Speaker 1: season three into production so we can share it with
Speaker 1: all of you now to the help we need. So far,
Speaker 1: we are self funded. We need a sponsor or sponsors
Speaker 1: to help us with the cost of production. But, and
Speaker 1: this is important, we feel like it would be disingenuous
Speaker 1: given the theme of the show to accept money from
Speaker 1: just anybody. It's important to us that the sponsors of
Speaker 1: this show shared of shows values. We're looking for partners
Speaker 1: who are purpose led themselves, Companies or organizations that truly
Speaker 1: walk their talk. Companies who understand the harm that purpose
Speaker 1: washing does and who understand how important it is for
Speaker 1: all of us that more companies embrace the path to purpose.
Speaker 1: If you're a part of an organization like that, or
Speaker 1: you know one that seems like a good fit, don't
Speaker 1: hesitate to drop us a line. You can reach me
Speaker 1: directly at Team Montague at Calling Bullshit podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and let's get on with the show.
Speaker 1: When powerful organizations do wrong, who stands up for what's right?
Speaker 1: Francis how Good is thirty seven, a data scientist from Iowa.
Speaker 1: The thing I saw Facebook over and over again was
Speaker 1: there were conflicts of interest between what was good for
Speaker 1: the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook
Speaker 1: and over again shows to optimize for its own interests,
Speaker 1: like making more money. It's people, in most cases, just
Speaker 1: regular folks. Tyler Schultz says he quit out for Holmes
Speaker 1: and her partner, Sonny Balwani ignored his complaints about falsified
Speaker 1: research right off the bat. I realized that there's this
Speaker 1: open secret that the technology didn't really exist. So all
Speaker 1: these red flags were just piling up insiders who see
Speaker 1: something and aren't afraid to say something, even when they
Speaker 1: know it may cost them dearly Snowdon said he saw
Speaker 1: firsthand and became increasingly concerned about the reach of the
Speaker 1: n S, a electronic surveillance of innocent America. These are
Speaker 1: public issues. These are not my issues, you know, these
Speaker 1: are everybody's issues. There's a name for people like this, Whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Calling Bullshit, the podcast about purpose washing, the
Speaker 1: gap between what an organization says they stand for and
Speaker 1: what they actually do, and what they would need to
Speaker 1: change to practice what they preach. I'm your host, Time
Speaker 1: onto you, and I've spent over a decade helping organizations
Speaker 1: define what they stand for, their purpose and then help
Speaker 1: them to use that purpose to drive transformation throughout their business. Today,
Speaker 1: for the finale of season two, we're devoting the entire
Speaker 1: episode to a special kind of BS detector, the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking with three experts on the topic who will
Speaker 1: explain why these people are so important and why, rather
Speaker 1: than fearing them and shunning them, organizations should actually do
Speaker 1: everything they can to protect them. Imagine you work for
Speaker 1: a biotech company, a Silicon Valley unicorn with a charismatic
Speaker 1: founder and a ten billion dollar valuation. You work there
Speaker 1: because you believe this company is doing the right thing
Speaker 1: changing health care for the better. Plus your grandfather's on
Speaker 1: the board of directors. He's how you were introduced to
Speaker 1: the company in the first place. But one day you
Speaker 1: realize that this promising new technology that you're selling is
Speaker 1: no more complicated than a bio student running tests with
Speaker 1: a pipette, That the data you're publishing is misleading investors
Speaker 1: into thinking you have an invention that doesn't actually exist,
Speaker 1: and that the patients you're testing your technology on, some
Speaker 1: of whom have life threatening conditions, are getting inaccurate results.
Speaker 1: When you talk to your superiors, they dismiss you, and
Speaker 1: when you talk to your grandfather, he dismisses you. So
Speaker 1: what do you do. Do you just quietly quit or
Speaker 1: are you ethnically pelled to say something publicly? A jury
Speaker 1: convicted that Parinis, founder of four counts of defrauding investors yesterday.
Speaker 1: One of her former employees was the first to blow
Speaker 1: the whistle about the problems at the company. He then
Speaker 1: shared his concerns with a state regulator, and then he
Speaker 1: went to the Wall Street Journal. We all like to
Speaker 1: think will do the right thing, that when confronted with
Speaker 1: a problem that goes against our morals, we'll speak up
Speaker 1: or act. But what if calling out the bullshit means
Speaker 1: damaging your career, or your family relationships, or even your
Speaker 1: personal safety. The fact is it is definitely easier in
Speaker 1: a situation like this to just look the other way.
Speaker 1: But if you raise the issue internally and management won't
Speaker 1: address a problem, you are literally the last line of defense.
Speaker 1: We all rely on and benefit from whistleblowers who take
Speaker 1: on risks like this. Without whistleblowers, the public never have
Speaker 1: learned that therein nosis blood tests were built around a lie,
Speaker 1: or that Boeing had a toxic culture that ignored basic
Speaker 1: safety precautions, and that hundreds of people died as a
Speaker 1: direct result. Without whistleblowers speaking truth to power, it would
Speaker 1: be a lot harder to detect bs in the world.
Speaker 1: And here on the show, Francis Hogan was an important
Speaker 1: part of the very first company we covered. Her insider
Speaker 1: knowledge showed the world just how nefarious Facebook actually is.
Speaker 1: A few episodes later, we spoke with whistleblower Tarick Fancy
Speaker 1: about sustainable investing at Black Rock, and most recently, we
Speaker 1: looked into the consulting firm McKenzie with two former employees
Speaker 1: who helped us to understand the culture and the scope
Speaker 1: of BS. At one of the world's most influential companies,
Speaker 1: we rely on whistleblowers because they are a special kind
Speaker 1: of BS detector, people with inside information and the courage
Speaker 1: to go public. When whistleblowers need help, they often turn
Speaker 1: to attorneys like my first guest today, Mary Inman. Mary
Speaker 1: understands the unique challenges of coming forward because she's devoted
Speaker 1: her career to protecting people who do. She's a partner
Speaker 1: in Constantine Canon, a law firm that specializes in representing whistleblowers,
Speaker 1: and over the years, she's built up an impressive resume,
Speaker 1: defending many names you've heard of and countless others that
Speaker 1: you may not have. Mary, Welcome to the show. TI,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for having me today. It's a
Speaker 1: real honor to be on your show. It's great to
Speaker 1: have you here. So for the benefit of our listeners,
Speaker 1: let's start off with an introduction. If you could just
Speaker 1: tell folks a little bit about your background and how
Speaker 1: you found your way into being an attorney for I
Speaker 1: guess you know many of the most famous whistleblowers in
Speaker 1: the world. So um, I went to law school, like
Speaker 1: many lawyers trying to change the world. Didn't really know
Speaker 1: how I was going to do that. I did some
Speaker 1: work in the public Defender's office in law school, UM
Speaker 1: and then clerked for a couple of judges, and I
Speaker 1: just had the most amazing opportunity to drop in my lap.
Speaker 1: A friend of mine referred me to a headhunter that said,
Speaker 1: there's this little boutique law firm that's opening a San
Speaker 1: Francisco office and they specialized in representing whistleblowers. So this
Speaker 1: was like twenty four years ago, and that was a
Speaker 1: time when there really weren't whistle blowers, weren't really the
Speaker 1: esteemed place that they sit in our society today, part
Speaker 1: of every news cycle, it seems like. And I was
Speaker 1: just really really lucky. At the time I started, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court had not even yet said that the whistleblower
Speaker 1: primary whistle blower program called the False Claim Sect something
Speaker 1: we'll talk about later today. It wasn't even held to
Speaker 1: be constitutional yet. So I remember getting advice from people saying,
Speaker 1: what you want to specialize in this one statue that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court hasn't even said is legitimate, is constitutional?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, um, it sounds really intriguing I'm
Speaker 1: gonna roll the dice, and I did, And boy, I
Speaker 1: did I have any idea that this was going to
Speaker 1: become an amazing growth field and that the United States
Speaker 1: government in particular has come to see whistle blowers as
Speaker 1: their most effective law enforcement tool. So who are some
Speaker 1: of the folks that you have represented in your career?
Speaker 1: You know a lot of them. I do know a
Speaker 1: lot of them, and it's been an enormous privilege every
Speaker 1: day I kind of jumped out of bed to represent
Speaker 1: people who really have the intestinal fortitude and the strength
Speaker 1: to speak truth to power. So I think some of
Speaker 1: your listeners probably most familiar. Tyler Schultz says Sarani's whistle
Speaker 1: blower is one of my clients. Um. I've had a
Speaker 1: number of health air fraud whistleblowers, including a gentleman by
Speaker 1: the name of Dr James Taylor, who will be front
Speaker 1: page news in the in the New York Times soon
Speaker 1: exposing Medicare fraud by health insurers. I've also represented another
Speaker 1: gentleman by the name of Benjamin Paling, who has also
Speaker 1: shown a light on United Health Group for Medicare fraud,
Speaker 1: as well as Dr Taylor shining a light on Kaiser permanente.
Speaker 1: So there's been a huge group of them. But the
Speaker 1: one I like to talk about the most is a
Speaker 1: whistle blower that was the subject of a story in
Speaker 1: The New Yorker magazine a few years ago called The
Speaker 1: Personal Toll of whistle Blowing. His name was Dr Darren
Speaker 1: sewell Um, and he's one that I like to talk
Speaker 1: about a lot because I think he might still be
Speaker 1: with us today had he not made the choice to
Speaker 1: be a whistleblower. Tell us that story, what happened there? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I think it's it's something that we're gonna explore.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm confident today is this idea what are the
Speaker 1: repercussions of speaking out? And I'm sure a lot of
Speaker 1: your listeners are well all aware that it can be
Speaker 1: a career defining moment, in fact that it's often considered
Speaker 1: career suicide. And so we're pretty familiar with the fact
Speaker 1: that in certain industries, particularly healthcare or defense, you may
Speaker 1: never work again if you speak out. But I think
Speaker 1: what people are less aware of, and we're becoming more
Speaker 1: sensitized too, is the psychosocial impacts of speaking out. The
Speaker 1: New England Journal of Medicine did a research study a
Speaker 1: number of years ago now that basically looked at whistlers
Speaker 1: in the pharmaceutical industry who had reported off label marketing fraud,
Speaker 1: and the study showed that the health effects were such
Speaker 1: that whistlers have higher incidences of divorce, of alcoholism, of depression.
Speaker 1: And I think so much of that comes from this
Speaker 1: really primal notion that when you speak up and speak out,
Speaker 1: you lose your tribe. You speak out against your tribe,
Speaker 1: and your tribe tends to close ranks around you, and
Speaker 1: there's really strong psychological circumstances to losing your support network.
Speaker 1: So in the case of Dr Seol, he exposed health
Speaker 1: care fraud at health Insure in Florida, and he really
Speaker 1: could never work again because of his personal situation where
Speaker 1: his daughter lived in Florida. He really couldn't just go
Speaker 1: live somewhere else. And so all the health insurers community
Speaker 1: and health care community was aware of him. And so
Speaker 1: when he would get a job interests, you know, when
Speaker 1: they called for references, all of a sudden they didn't
Speaker 1: want to talk to him again. Um, And that became
Speaker 1: a really difficult circumstance for him. Um. He actually wore
Speaker 1: a wire for the FBI on that case. So and
Speaker 1: a lot of stress that goes along with that, and
Speaker 1: you know, and he and he passed away after UM,
Speaker 1: just a long series of circumstances of not being employed.
Speaker 1: So they really do, UM put a lot on the line.
Speaker 1: And it was interesting. I wasn't aware that healthcare and
Speaker 1: defense are particularly that way. I can understand the company, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe uh not being in a hurry to
Speaker 1: hire you back, but the whole industry that you're in
Speaker 1: shutting you is a completely different matter, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. That's UM, that's that's really dire. UM. So
Speaker 1: just just before we get further into some of the
Speaker 1: impacts on the lives of whistleblowers, how do you decide
Speaker 1: how you take clients or whether you take a client
Speaker 1: or not. We represent whistle blowers under what we call
Speaker 1: the US Whistleblower Reward Programs, so that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden narrows the universe. We wish that we could represent
Speaker 1: all whistle blowers. We don't do national security whistlers, for instance,
Speaker 1: in the United States were fairly hypocritical. We're one of
Speaker 1: the most advanced societies for having this notion that in law,
Speaker 1: law enforcement settings we pay whistle blowers for information, recognizing
Speaker 1: what they're giving up by speaking out. That's when these
Speaker 1: whistle blowers are helpful and exposing fraud against the government
Speaker 1: or fraud that impact our regulatory agencies missions like the
Speaker 1: SEC fraud against investors. But when it's fraud by the government,
Speaker 1: when we have those kinds of whistlers, when they're exposing
Speaker 1: wrongdoing by the government, it's a very different setting. We
Speaker 1: don't pay whistlers. In fact, we are just as bad
Speaker 1: and medieval in terms of shooting the messenger. And so
Speaker 1: just to make sure I understand, if I blow the
Speaker 1: whistle on the government for some kind of malfeasance, there's
Speaker 1: no financial reward in that for me, which makes it
Speaker 1: very hard for you to take them on as as
Speaker 1: a client, right right, right. So one of these we
Speaker 1: do is we represent our clients. And this is something
Speaker 1: that became really apparent to me when I moved to
Speaker 1: London and sort of looked at the UK legal system
Speaker 1: is to get to the brass tacks and gets kind
Speaker 1: of boring to people. But I think it's important to
Speaker 1: understand that. Um in the United States, a lot of
Speaker 1: plane emplawyers like myself represent their clients on a contingency
Speaker 1: fee or a success fee basis, so that means we
Speaker 1: only get paid aid if we're successful in returning and
Speaker 1: helping our client get a reward that actually facilitates access
Speaker 1: to justice because in the UK they don't really like
Speaker 1: that kind of a model, and as a result, lots
Speaker 1: of whistlers and other people can't get lawyers because it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to pay you know, six hundred seven hundred
Speaker 1: dollars an hour when um, that's not within your budget.
Speaker 1: So I think that's part of it is that these
Speaker 1: bounties do, and I like, I don't like to call
Speaker 1: them bounties because they almost suggest we're pirates. Um. These
Speaker 1: these rewards and these awards go to whistleblowers to recognize
Speaker 1: what they're giving up and to entice them to undertake
Speaker 1: the risk in speaking out. But what's interesting is these
Speaker 1: programs do a lot more than just pay the whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: They actually create offices of the whistleblower. In the SEC,
Speaker 1: the CFTC, I know we're going through alphabet soup in
Speaker 1: the I r S, they actually have offices that are
Speaker 1: staffed with people who are prepared to receive information from whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: It sounds undane, but it isn't because a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't know where to bring their information, and these
Speaker 1: programs create, you know, staffed experts who are there with
Speaker 1: special forms and web portals to upload your information, and
Speaker 1: they're obligated to report back to Congress and tell them
Speaker 1: how they're doing with this whistle lower information. And that's
Speaker 1: really what's revolutionary here. It's not just that, it's it's
Speaker 1: rolling out the welcome at to whistleblowers in a way
Speaker 1: that clearly signposts where they should go and ensuring that
Speaker 1: the information that they bring is actually looked at. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's important work. So you've touched on a little bit
Speaker 1: already in some of the stories you've told what risks
Speaker 1: whistleblowers take by deciding to shine a light on you know,
Speaker 1: let's call it organizational malfeasance. Can you talk more about
Speaker 1: those risks? You know, what are some of the other
Speaker 1: aspects of it. I can think of one other for instance,
Speaker 1: like Tyler Schultz was in a bizarre situation where his grandfather,
Speaker 1: who was the ex Secretary of State. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Is his grandfather was was also an investor in the
Speaker 1: company that Tyler worked in and on the board, I believe,
Speaker 1: and and so he risked not only, you know, terminating
Speaker 1: his relationship with the leadership of Sarais, but also with
Speaker 1: his own members of his own family, and he put
Speaker 1: a lot on the line there. I think his story
Speaker 1: is a great one to spotlight in terms of what
Speaker 1: are the effects of whistle bling that we haven't necessarily
Speaker 1: explored yet. And one of them, it's what I call
Speaker 1: the inequality of arms that a whistleblower goes against a
Speaker 1: large corporation like Saranos, which was the darling of all investors.
Speaker 1: You know, Elizabeth was on the cover of Forbes magazine.
Speaker 1: And what happens is when you sign up as an employee,
Speaker 1: you signed confidentiality agreements that often include nondisclosure and non
Speaker 1: disparagement clauses. And what happened in Tyler's case is he
Speaker 1: was visiting his grandfather and attorneys from Boy Schiller, who
Speaker 1: were representing sara No Nos, basically served him with a
Speaker 1: restraining order telling him stop violating your confidentiality agreement. UM.
Speaker 1: They had come to understand that he had been giving
Speaker 1: information to John Careyrew with the Wall Street Journal reporter
Speaker 1: who exposed it all. But what happened is his parents
Speaker 1: ended up, he's a young person at the time, ended
Speaker 1: up taking out a mortgage on their home to pay
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand dollars to pay for the attorneys to
Speaker 1: defend against this lawsuit. We're saying he violated their trade secrets,
Speaker 1: their proprietary confidentiality and agreement. And one of the most
Speaker 1: famous things that Tyler said is he said, fraud is
Speaker 1: not a trade secret, right, and that seems intuitive to
Speaker 1: all that that seems intuitive to all of us, right,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that he didn't have to suffer
Speaker 1: through an immense amount of litigation in order to get
Speaker 1: that right result, which is that you know, in public policy,
Speaker 1: we want certain information to get out to law enforcement,
Speaker 1: which is what he did. So it's that these huge
Speaker 1: corporations have a corporate playbook which is to basically destroy
Speaker 1: the whistleblower. And and it's not just to silence them's
Speaker 1: to silence all the employees who are watching everyone else. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, scare scare everybody else, absolutely, So you know,
Speaker 1: that's just one of the things is that they will
Speaker 1: often sue them for theft of documents. They will sue
Speaker 1: them for violations of the confidentiality agreement because they're so intent,
Speaker 1: these companies on digging up dirt with this theory that
Speaker 1: if you besmirched the whistleblower, it diverts attention from the
Speaker 1: message that the whistleblower is is giving right, We'll shoot
Speaker 1: the messenger to divert attention from the pr scandal that's
Speaker 1: happening in front of their very eyes. And unfortunately, that's
Speaker 1: that is the playbook. It makes me wonder because you know,
Speaker 1: I've worked in a bunch of companies and I'm I've
Speaker 1: signed a bunch of n d A. S Is it
Speaker 1: there should be language protecting the person signing if the
Speaker 1: company is committing fraud as as Tyler said, does that exist? Well,
Speaker 1: you have you have put your finger on one of
Speaker 1: to me, one of the best topics, which is UM.
Speaker 1: There is a marvelous whistler who is because of her
Speaker 1: experience of pinterest. Her names of Foma a Zoma. She
Speaker 1: actually broke her n d A to speak out about
Speaker 1: race and sex discrimination at pintrist. She's an African American
Speaker 1: woman UM and she actually went ahead to have two
Speaker 1: laws passed, one in California and one an Oregon called
Speaker 1: the Silence No More Act, And what they seek to
Speaker 1: do is hold those provisions unenforceable. So that's the insidious
Speaker 1: part about these provisions as a lot of people see
Speaker 1: the consequences of violating it. If they signed a severance
Speaker 1: degree with this part of a severance package and you
Speaker 1: have to give back all of that money, there can
Speaker 1: be you know, damages on top of that. So it
Speaker 1: has an enormous chilling effect of the things companies do.
Speaker 1: They've gotten hip to the fact that these whistleblowers can
Speaker 1: get rewards. They put in the separation agreement when you're signing,
Speaker 1: you know, to get your you know years severance for
Speaker 1: working there. How many years they say, I waived my
Speaker 1: right to a reward under any of the whistleblower programs,
Speaker 1: which is only shouldn't that shouldn't be legal. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: that's good. The only way it stops when it is
Speaker 1: when the SEC comes in and finds them. I was
Speaker 1: reading an article today in publication called The Information that
Speaker 1: said that reports to the SEC whistle blowing reports to
Speaker 1: the SEC are up seventy six percent in over which
Speaker 1: was already a record setting year from what do you
Speaker 1: think is causing that. What's what's going on there? Well,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting. Um, what might cause some of the
Speaker 1: numbers is that we saw during the pandemic whistle blowing
Speaker 1: just increasing across US sectors. Um, the SEC I think
Speaker 1: saw fort rise. You know, we're all speculating here, but
Speaker 1: is it because we're no longer in the workplace? You know,
Speaker 1: there was a great resignation or people feeling less attached
Speaker 1: to their employers. Are we having you know, these moments
Speaker 1: of what really matters? So I think it started very much.
Speaker 1: We have to look at the pandemic a little bit
Speaker 1: um to understand some of these numbers. But as to
Speaker 1: the SEC specifically, it's their success so um. I think
Speaker 1: it was last year they crossed the billion dollar threshold
Speaker 1: that they've paid over a billion dollars in rewards to whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's a very controversial topic outside the
Speaker 1: United States, and the United States were very comfortable with
Speaker 1: this idea of paying rewards to whistleblowers UM in commonwealth
Speaker 1: countries in the UK, it's anothema and a lot of
Speaker 1: that comes from very strong cultural stereotypes. I think there's
Speaker 1: a notion that Americans are mercenary and were transactional and
Speaker 1: we have to be paid to do the right thing,
Speaker 1: whereas British people do the right thing right upright, upstanding. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but those rewards say something. I mean they basically, um
Speaker 1: have a ripple effect around the globe when you pay
Speaker 1: two fifty million dollars to a whistleblower, and then that
Speaker 1: means that we really really value them. And so when
Speaker 1: we say you get ten to you know, ten to
Speaker 1: thirty percent of our recovery, we mean it regardless of
Speaker 1: what size there you know penalty was. Whistleblowers trust the
Speaker 1: American regulators because they believe we're aggressive. So international whistle
Speaker 1: blowers have a lot more faith bringing their information to
Speaker 1: US regulators because they know it won't be a feudal act.
Speaker 1: The SEC gets twelve thousand tips a year now. They
Speaker 1: come from ninety nine countries around the globe. Last year
Speaker 1: of the people receiving awards came from overseas. So it's
Speaker 1: really a beacon. Um. We always say it's like Lady
Speaker 1: Liberties torch saying give us your give us your give
Speaker 1: us your poor, you're you're tired, and your whistleblowers. I'm
Speaker 1: want to follow a thread that you you started to
Speaker 1: pull out there a little bit, which was, you know,
Speaker 1: the the results of whistle blowing. I wonder if you
Speaker 1: could talk just about any examples that you have or
Speaker 1: data that you have on whistleblowers whose actions have resulted
Speaker 1: in real change, you know, in things really improving. So
Speaker 1: I can't not start with the Ukraine whistle blower who
Speaker 1: exposed President Trump. I mean in terms of holding powerful
Speaker 1: people to account, that was an extraordinary result and one
Speaker 1: of the oddest things happening. There was of course that
Speaker 1: his identity was exposed by Trump and certain other politicians,
Speaker 1: which is yeah, I mean incredibly like there should be
Speaker 1: sanctions for that kind of a thing because obviously that
Speaker 1: threatens his life and livelihood and safety. So that was extraordinary.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think some of the other whistleblowers,
Speaker 1: I mean, look at the Me Too movement. You know,
Speaker 1: it caused shock waves around the world world, and it
Speaker 1: also caused us all to rethink what an n DA
Speaker 1: is and should we have these kinds of agreements in place,
Speaker 1: and so you know, you look at Francis, it makes
Speaker 1: us relook social media. You look at these healthcare fraud
Speaker 1: whistle lowers, You know, health insurance companies now think differently
Speaker 1: before they upcode these diagnoses that they're doing to get
Speaker 1: more money from Medicare. I mean, it is an incrediblely
Speaker 1: powerful tool to shake corporations out of their slumber and
Speaker 1: into being held accountable for wrongdoing. And I think part
Speaker 1: of it is the deterrent effect. Right. You see these
Speaker 1: big penalties and fines that are levied, and I think
Speaker 1: it does have a deterrent effect. And you know, I
Speaker 1: know from my European experience, a lot of companies choose
Speaker 1: not to list on the U S stock exchanges that
Speaker 1: of fear of having the jurisdiction of the SEC. Really
Speaker 1: oh yeah, oh yeah. Um. So they want access, they
Speaker 1: want access to our capital markets, but there's scared what
Speaker 1: that comes? Right? Interesting? That makes me think there is
Speaker 1: maybe some problems there. So I'm gonna ask you to
Speaker 1: talk about or explain the False Claims Act. What is
Speaker 1: that about, What what is it for? What does it do? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it is the touchstone of you can't talk about
Speaker 1: whistleblower reward programs in the United States without going to
Speaker 1: the False Claims Act. It's actually called Lincoln's Law. It
Speaker 1: was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, and
Speaker 1: it recognized something that is now more true than ever
Speaker 1: today than it was back then, that um, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult for the government to investigate and to detect fraud.
Speaker 1: The United States pours tons of money into medicare and
Speaker 1: into defense, and it's hard to police that from the
Speaker 1: outside and that there's no substitute for a well placed
Speaker 1: insider to bring that information forward. So we want to
Speaker 1: incentivize these people because they have an insiders have incredibly
Speaker 1: valuable information that basically creates a roadmap to the fraud
Speaker 1: for any prosecutor. We often say to the prosecutors, and
Speaker 1: I've heard prosecutors say this does key tam cases are
Speaker 1: like cake in a box delivered to our office. Is
Speaker 1: we just add water? Because the key tam for asking
Speaker 1: that key tam is short for a Latin phrase that
Speaker 1: basically stands for he who stands on the shoes of
Speaker 1: the king as well as himself, and this comes from
Speaker 1: English common I don't want to get too nerdy, but
Speaker 1: there was an idea in England before they had police
Speaker 1: forces that individuals could basically service police. And so we
Speaker 1: took this concept in the United States and we said
Speaker 1: We're going to make these people private attorney generals. They
Speaker 1: will stand in the shoes of the United States government
Speaker 1: and launch lawsuits in their names. So what I think
Speaker 1: so powerful about the false claims because people seem familiar
Speaker 1: with the tip program, with the sec ree file. It's
Speaker 1: hup anonymously and if if they act on your information,
Speaker 1: you can get a reward. Under the False Claims Act,
Speaker 1: we deputize a whistleblower to launch a lawsuit in the
Speaker 1: name of the government. You can imagine how I am
Speaker 1: received when we show up and say, um, we're now
Speaker 1: suing Boeing for you know, something defective planes to the U.
Speaker 1: S Military or something like that. Can you imagine? There
Speaker 1: are now thirty states that have False Claims Act. So
Speaker 1: I have been in the position of suing on behalf
Speaker 1: of thirty cities in California, right because if private contractors
Speaker 1: are cheating the the FISK in California, then they can
Speaker 1: bring these kinds of cases. And I show up at
Speaker 1: the city attorney's office and you know, San Francisco and say,
Speaker 1: I've just folowed a lawsuit in your name. Let's talk.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about how do we go about discovery, Like
Speaker 1: how are we going to prosecute this thing? Right? So
Speaker 1: it's an enormously powerful tool, and it's something that is
Speaker 1: unique to the United States. Although I always say to
Speaker 1: the UK that we stole it for view and now
Speaker 1: we're trying to sell it back to you as our own.
Speaker 1: That's funny. Well, what goes around comes around. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna pivot here in just a second. But the last
Speaker 1: question on this sort of theme of of whistleblower repression. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, CEOs and HR departments often see whistleblowers as traders.
Speaker 1: You know, they do things like right anti whistle blowing
Speaker 1: language into the contracts, as you've mentioned, to prevent it.
Speaker 1: Can you talk about some of the other strategies that
Speaker 1: companies use to discourage whistle blowing. Sure, and so I
Speaker 1: think it really comes back to more of this idea
Speaker 1: of the medieval mindset, the corporate playbook that is in
Speaker 1: place that basically shames whistle blowers who speak out. To me,
Speaker 1: that is one of the biggest things that they do. UM.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting is that in the wake of the
Speaker 1: enron Um scandal, we adopted Sarbanes Oxley legislation that basically
Speaker 1: requires companies of certain sizes to include a designated anonymous
Speaker 1: internal whistle blowing mechanism. So we recognize that maybe if
Speaker 1: there had been a mechanism like that that had been
Speaker 1: clearly signposted, that could have maybe stop and Ron in
Speaker 1: its tracks. Right. So I think that's that's one of
Speaker 1: the things that has been imposed upon companies because they
Speaker 1: haven't created a situation where people feel safe to speak up.
Speaker 1: So I think those those kinds of mechanisms are fine,
Speaker 1: But those mechanisms are only as good as the culture
Speaker 1: that's behind it. Right, You know, it has to start
Speaker 1: with the tone of the top. It has to start
Speaker 1: with creating an environment where, um, people feel safe to
Speaker 1: speak out and you value it. That's the thing, right,
Speaker 1: is culture change within corporations. And there's an irony to this,
Speaker 1: which you pointed out to me in one of our
Speaker 1: first conversations. At your suggestion, I read to Harvard Business
Speaker 1: Review articles about the late data on whistleblowing, and there
Speaker 1: were just a number of eye opening revelations in that data.
Speaker 1: For instance, companies that don't attack whistleblowers actually do better financially. Um,
Speaker 1: So why why is that? So? What this research is
Speaker 1: showing is that companies that create a space where whistleblowers
Speaker 1: feel safe to speak out. Those companies have fewer lawsuits
Speaker 1: against them, fewer federal investigations, with the assumption being whistler
Speaker 1: serve the function and actually helped them stop and correct
Speaker 1: course before some wrongdoing metastasized into the next big PR scandal.
Speaker 1: So I really love it because it tells us that
Speaker 1: not only do we need to change how we think
Speaker 1: about whistleblowers, we need to celebrate them as almost the
Speaker 1: CEO's best friend. I mean, it's such a brain drain
Speaker 1: when you let these people go, because they are really, um,
Speaker 1: your most disruptive in the best possible way employees. Um,
Speaker 1: And why are we creating a yes culture and not
Speaker 1: allowing people, you know, creating a culture where people feel
Speaker 1: safe to challenge what's going on. Aren't we all better
Speaker 1: in our relationships when someone calls us out for doing
Speaker 1: something wrong. Yeah. In addition, they're your bravest employees. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that are at some level the most honest
Speaker 1: of your employees. Like and yet people are drumming them
Speaker 1: out of their companies. They should be, as you say,
Speaker 1: celebrated and protected by the CEO. And and and certainly the
Speaker 1: board if it is true and that and it is
Speaker 1: that these companies do better financially, and it's the job
Speaker 1: of the board of directors to look after investors, and
Speaker 1: boards of directors should be whistleblowers best friends. It feels
Speaker 1: like maybe that is beginning to happen a little bit more.
Speaker 1: It feels like maybe the worm is being beginning to turn.
Speaker 1: But you know you would know this better than I do.
Speaker 1: You feel like the culture is headed in a better
Speaker 1: direction now I do, actually, And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I think, um, we're seeing this change, of course, is
Speaker 1: because chief compliance officers are starting to relate to whistlowers.
Speaker 1: So if you're a chief compliance officer in a corporation,
Speaker 1: you're not dissimilar to a whistle blower. You're not a
Speaker 1: cost you're not a profit generating center. You're seeing as
Speaker 1: the people who put the brakes on it tell you
Speaker 1: shouldn't do it this way. And I think now we're
Speaker 1: recognizing that for a lot of the scandals, compliance officers
Speaker 1: were made compliant officers and we're told to go along.
Speaker 1: And now there's an elevation of compliance officers where there's
Speaker 1: more of a sense that they should be reporting to
Speaker 1: the board board level. You know, they appreciate whistlers in
Speaker 1: a way that a lot of people in organizations don't.
Speaker 1: So what advice would you have for leadership at companies
Speaker 1: to help their company be more open to whistle blowing
Speaker 1: and therefore, you know, kind of open to open to change.
Speaker 1: I really think one of the best things the company
Speaker 1: can do is actually hire a former whistleblower. What signals
Speaker 1: more that you believe in whistle blowers than hiring a
Speaker 1: well known informer whistlel er. I think that's one of
Speaker 1: the things that you can do most um. But I
Speaker 1: think the other thing is we really need to teach
Speaker 1: people how to have difficult conversations. I really think some
Speaker 1: grassroot training on we value difference of opinions and really
Speaker 1: walking the walk and talking to the talk. I always say, like,
Speaker 1: let's put in your performance review that you get a
Speaker 1: certain gold stars right when you expose wrongdoing. Why isn't
Speaker 1: that something that's in our evaluations. Doesn't that also show
Speaker 1: in a very brass tax kind of way, what we value.
Speaker 1: What you put on your performance evaluation for manually is
Speaker 1: what you value. Do you know any whistleblowers who regret
Speaker 1: you know, having made the decision to do it, it's
Speaker 1: a great question. I don't, and I find that to
Speaker 1: be extraordinary. Even after they've been through the ringer, they
Speaker 1: still look back and I feel like it was the
Speaker 1: right thing to do. And a lot of my clients
Speaker 1: are like, I can't exist at an organization where I
Speaker 1: have fear that I may be wearing an orange jumpsuit
Speaker 1: because I could be found to be a co conspirator
Speaker 1: for going along um. And I think with a lot
Speaker 1: of whistleblowers, they feel like they don't want to leave
Speaker 1: it for the next person, and so even after they've
Speaker 1: suffered it, I think a lot of them talk about
Speaker 1: I have to look my children in the eye, I
Speaker 1: have to look myself in the mirror, And so to
Speaker 1: a person, they will always say, it was a hellish journey.
Speaker 1: And we need to change how whistlers are viewed. We
Speaker 1: need to normalize whistling and change this perception that we
Speaker 1: have of whistlers as disloyal. But they would all do
Speaker 1: it again, and I just find it remarkable. That is
Speaker 1: remarkable and and kind of wonderful. I love that the
Speaker 1: last question, is there anything else that I haven't touched on?
Speaker 1: Or asked you about that you think we should talk about.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else you think folks should know? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, there's one thing that I really did want
Speaker 1: to talk about UM today, and that relates to this
Speaker 1: idea that I alluded to about them, anonymity of whistleblowers UM.
Speaker 1: And I think we're now accustomed to the idea of
Speaker 1: whistleblowers having, you know, being becoming almost personalities, right, not celebrities,
Speaker 1: but personalities UM. And I think that what we're starting
Speaker 1: to see with the i C i J, the International
Speaker 1: Consortium of Investigative Journalists is UM what I call what
Speaker 1: a lot of people are referred to as sort of
Speaker 1: a leaking culture. Where in the case of the Panama Papers,
Speaker 1: the Mosak Fonseca law firm, all those files were turned
Speaker 1: over to sadutschs iding the reporters there, and they then
Speaker 1: shared it out to the International Consortium and Investigative Journalism.
Speaker 1: And now we have journalists around the world who are
Speaker 1: looking at people who are taking advantage properly and improperly
Speaker 1: of offshore tax havens UM. And the reason I pointed
Speaker 1: out is that there was I mean, the Panama papers
Speaker 1: kind of shook the world and there have since then
Speaker 1: been Paradise papers, um Pandora papers, right. They this model
Speaker 1: has continued to happen and we don't know who those
Speaker 1: whistleblers are. And isn't that just right? So the the
Speaker 1: SA Deutsches i dig reporters just a few weeks ago
Speaker 1: did uh an interview with their source for the Panama
Speaker 1: papers and it was, you know, a robotic voice, the
Speaker 1: person's face was etched out and all of it and
Speaker 1: what that whistlebler said was his her. Their life was
Speaker 1: completely improved by the fact that they were anonymous. They
Speaker 1: could go ahead and continue to live a life um.
Speaker 1: And so I think that that's something we need to
Speaker 1: think about. And that's one of the things when we
Speaker 1: were talking about the SEC program today. That's one of
Speaker 1: the things it affords is that whistlers can actually report
Speaker 1: anonymously um. And that makes it a lot easier for
Speaker 1: all of us to make that kind of a decision
Speaker 1: and the risk reward calculus if you didn't if you can,
Speaker 1: you know, give the information and not be outed, didn't
Speaker 1: have to blow your life up to do it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I love that. Okay, Mary, this was not unexpectedly a
Speaker 1: fantastic conversation. I want to thank you so much for
Speaker 1: talking with us today, and I want to thank you
Speaker 1: for the work that you do. It's so very important.
Speaker 1: So UM, we really appreciate your spending time with us today. Well, So,
Speaker 1: I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is to
Speaker 1: be on your podcast. In particular, there's such an alignment
Speaker 1: between whistleblowers ultimately UM exposed purpose washing. That's what they
Speaker 1: do for a living, and I know that's what your
Speaker 1: podcast seeks to do. And so I just felt like
Speaker 1: it was the perfect pairing, UM, And what an honor
Speaker 1: to be on your podcast because my clients do call
Speaker 1: bullshit every day. Yes they do, Yes they do, and
Speaker 1: more power to them. After talking with Mary, I'm even
Speaker 1: more impressed with the actions of whistleblowers and convinced that
Speaker 1: the business world should be treating them differently, and not
Speaker 1: just because they deserve better. The research shows that companies
Speaker 1: who deal with problems internally instead of forcing people to
Speaker 1: go public, actually improve their culture and their bottom line.
Speaker 1: It seems like there's a win win scenario here for everybody.
Speaker 1: So how can leadership and companies learn to see internal
Speaker 1: whistleblower reports as an opportunity to fix problems and ultimately
Speaker 1: to make more money. Next up, I talked with two
Speaker 1: experts to discuss ways that that might actually happen. Right
Speaker 1: after a quick break, to continue this conversation, I've invited
Speaker 1: two more experts in whistleblowing to joined me for a
Speaker 1: panel discussion. Dana Gold is the Government Accountability Projects Senior
Speaker 1: counsel and director of Education. Her clients have exposed environmental
Speaker 1: fraud within nuclear power plants and atrocities within immigration detention centers,
Speaker 1: and she has devoted her career to teaching others about
Speaker 1: the critical role of whistleblowers. We're also joined by Kyle Welch,
Speaker 1: professor at George Washington University School of Business and author
Speaker 1: of those HBr papers that Mary sent over to me.
Speaker 1: He is the expert in whistleblower data and has published
Speaker 1: evidence that shows how much they benefit all of us
Speaker 1: and proves that these folks are an asset to organizations
Speaker 1: to start out with today, UM, I thought, you know
Speaker 1: you you both come at this from such different backgrounds,
Speaker 1: and I'm assuming you would both agree that in many
Speaker 1: ways whistle blowing is a really good thing and it
Speaker 1: benefits the world in important ways. But let me start
Speaker 1: by just checking that assumption. Do you both agree with
Speaker 1: that premise? I think you're a little too timid in
Speaker 1: how you talk about it, to be honest with you, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: And I'd be very frank it is you are way
Speaker 1: too timid and how you talk about this. If you
Speaker 1: want to find a problem in an organization, it is
Speaker 1: through humans identifying it and speaking up. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of things that robots are going to replace. I don't
Speaker 1: think robots are going to be able to replace this.
Speaker 1: What is the number one way frauds are caught? It
Speaker 1: is whistle blowing. It's people speaking up and way way
Speaker 1: way way down, less than half like like something like
Speaker 1: it changes every year of the cases are identified through whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: The next is internal lot it. But if you talk
Speaker 1: to anybody in internal lot it or external lot it
Speaker 1: and you ask them, how did you identify the problem?
Speaker 1: They say, well, we were are actually asking for a
Speaker 1: report and somebody spoke to us. And so at its core,
Speaker 1: humans identifying problems and talking about them is how these
Speaker 1: problems get solved. Right And Dana, I see you nodding along.
Speaker 1: Could you speak to that a little bit? Can you
Speaker 1: go into from your perspective, what good do whistleblowers do
Speaker 1: for the world. This is the hundred thousand dollar question
Speaker 1: or million dollar questions or billion dollar questions. So, expanding
Speaker 1: on what Kyle just said, we have systems in place
Speaker 1: in our institutions that make it predictable that they will
Speaker 1: engage in misconduct and wrongdoing. And when you know that
Speaker 1: these systems are broken or incredibly weak, or have these
Speaker 1: problematic drivers. In the corporate sector, we have just the
Speaker 1: profit motive measuring things by the short term, how we
Speaker 1: have shareholder primacy. There all of these drivers that that
Speaker 1: make it difficult to value the public interest, to protect
Speaker 1: the public interests, and the humans, the employees, the workers
Speaker 1: are in the best position to see the problems there there.
Speaker 1: That's why the whistle boor protection laws protect employees predominantly,
Speaker 1: I would say, not completely, but predominantly, because they're in
Speaker 1: the best position to see the problems and to raise concerns.
Speaker 1: And so they are what is standing between us and
Speaker 1: horrific disasters, right. And it's terrifying to me and also
Speaker 1: inspiring at some level because it's the human element of
Speaker 1: how truth and truth telling can actually still make a
Speaker 1: difference and hold abusers of power to account well. Also,
Speaker 1: many of them pay because of the stigmatized environment around whistleblowing.
Speaker 1: They pay off on a terrible price for coming forward,
Speaker 1: career setbacks as well as personal set back. Some people lose,
Speaker 1: you know, their whole support system, they lose relationships with
Speaker 1: their family. You know. It's it's bananas, I would say,
Speaker 1: absolutely it Actually, that makes my point about why it
Speaker 1: it's so terrifying that we're so dependent on whistleblowers because
Speaker 1: the risk that is involved with speaking up against those
Speaker 1: who have far more power. We're all more vulnerable because
Speaker 1: they are vulnerable. It is, it is, It is a
Speaker 1: societal problem that is not that it's why we need
Speaker 1: to care about whistleblowers because they are the one standing
Speaker 1: up for us rather than other rising whistleblowers and um
Speaker 1: thinking of them in some really with with a lot
Speaker 1: of misperceptions that I think, I think are changing. I
Speaker 1: think and I think it's interesting your podcast that talks
Speaker 1: a lot about this erosion of trust in our institutions.
Speaker 1: Right we have a deep erosion of trust in our
Speaker 1: government institutions and our corporate institutions than the past four years.
Speaker 1: Since this past administration. And you've seen whistleblowers come forward
Speaker 1: on on COVID threats right, um, you know, pushing bogus
Speaker 1: therapies um, and not prioritizing vaccines. You've seen climate science
Speaker 1: whistleblowers gagged. You've seen um, you know, Facebook and Twitter,
Speaker 1: and you know the kind of social media whistleblowers come
Speaker 1: forward that people are realizing that it's the humans, it's
Speaker 1: the whistleblowers who are where we're going to get actually
Speaker 1: honest information and protecting our backs. And I think it's changed.
Speaker 1: And you see there's emarrassed poll from a few years
Speaker 1: ago that says like eight sent of people think whistle
Speaker 1: blowers there should be stronger protections for whistleblowers. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a huge change from viewing them as snitches and
Speaker 1: tattle tales and disloyal there's a sense that that's where
Speaker 1: our information is going to come from when we're in
Speaker 1: a sea of dis and misinformation. Yeah, it's obvious you
Speaker 1: both passionately believe that whistle blowing has multiple positive benefits
Speaker 1: from the world. And I guess the natural place to
Speaker 1: go next is how do we remote more of it?
Speaker 1: Although it does sound like it's moving in the right direction.
Speaker 1: How might we accelerate that process? So, Kyle, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ask you to go first, what's the one thing we
Speaker 1: ought to do well? So Tie, there's two things that
Speaker 1: that I always talk about. One of the big things
Speaker 1: that could be done is that for leaders that look
Speaker 1: at whistle blowing or people speaking up understanding the value
Speaker 1: derived from it. Um Essentially, our research shows that firms
Speaker 1: that have more reports internally are better in almost every
Speaker 1: regard governance. Uh, you know, they get ahead of future lawsuits,
Speaker 1: future finds, the amount of future lawsuits, amount of future finds.
Speaker 1: It just basically shows that you're able to avoid negative
Speaker 1: outcomes and there's also a lot of positive outcomes that
Speaker 1: come from it. And so that leaders leaders that essentially
Speaker 1: see reports and say, oh, are whistle blowing numbers are up?
Speaker 1: The wrong question is to say what's wrong? Instead, the
Speaker 1: right question is to say do we have enough resources?
Speaker 1: Which leads me to kind of like my second thing,
Speaker 1: and probably more so for the audience here, there is
Speaker 1: frequently a story told about whistle blowing, and it's unfortunate
Speaker 1: because I think it's wrong. I think it's very wrong.
Speaker 1: So Dana comes from the world of like the worst situations.
Speaker 1: She's seen people in nuclear power plants. You know, I
Speaker 1: guess I watched the Chernobyl series, and so my mind
Speaker 1: goes to the worst were stuff ever? Right? And what
Speaker 1: we've what Dana has is a wealth of experience, basically
Speaker 1: in the trauma room associated with whistle blowing. But like,
Speaker 1: there's this other side of the data that nobody sees
Speaker 1: because whistle blowers that actually get problems solved, that don't
Speaker 1: have to go to court, that don't end up in
Speaker 1: the news, we never hear about. We never hear about
Speaker 1: them because companies don't release something saying, hey, we had
Speaker 1: a serial harasser. We got rid of the serial harrass
Speaker 1: They don't do that. Oh we found out that we
Speaker 1: you know, we have ridgulen stuff. They don't report it.
Speaker 1: What I hear over and over and over again, especially
Speaker 1: from defenders, is how hard it is to be a
Speaker 1: whistle blower. But I would say that based on the
Speaker 1: sample of people that actually report that, by and large,
Speaker 1: the average human is not as evil as the type
Speaker 1: that data is prosecuting in a courtroom. And so when
Speaker 1: you think about that, that should frame also whistle blowing.
Speaker 1: When you think about whistle blowing. The reason why we're
Speaker 1: discovering fraud isn't because we have more corrupt politicians now.
Speaker 1: It isn't because we have more problems, and we've always
Speaker 1: had these problems. It's just this tool. It's like in
Speaker 1: the last decade it's been the birth of it, and
Speaker 1: we've all of a sudden realized how valuable this tool
Speaker 1: is to identifying and solving problems. And so I look
Speaker 1: at it, and I I see a lot more hope
Speaker 1: and positivity coming out of this because I just have
Speaker 1: looked at the data and I've seen firms saving millions
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars resolving issues and not going to
Speaker 1: court as a result of it. The ones to go
Speaker 1: to court. It's like, it's kind of like judging driving
Speaker 1: a car based on the E R room and if
Speaker 1: you only if you only look at the R room
Speaker 1: and advertise the ER room. It's good to talk about
Speaker 1: the E R room because it will help people respond
Speaker 1: right to these cases. But I don't think but it
Speaker 1: doesn't represent the sample of driving. It misses many of
Speaker 1: the benefits. That's right, That's right. That's so those are
Speaker 1: the Thank you, Kyle. So Dana, first of all, any
Speaker 1: thoughts on what Kyle said. Yeah, well, I I just
Speaker 1: want to say I totally agree that you know, I
Speaker 1: work on the fringe of extremes. Right, Like, basically, companies
Speaker 1: or governments or agencies have failed by the time when
Speaker 1: I when I'm involved, when I'm involved, right, So like
Speaker 1: it's just like they missed their I always say they
Speaker 1: have multiple chances. That the first chances do the right
Speaker 1: thing in the first place, that doesn't require needing a whistleblower, Right,
Speaker 1: that's your first chance. Then the second chances when a
Speaker 1: whistle blower, an employee speaks out, identifies a problem, a
Speaker 1: deal with that appropriately. And ninety of employees raise concerns
Speaker 1: internally first, I mean that's what they do. People don't want, like,
Speaker 1: it's not true that a whistleblower is only only when
Speaker 1: you go outside the organization. I mean the laws are
Speaker 1: except for one of them, Dodd Frank, which is complicated
Speaker 1: and we can talk about that. But but basically, you know,
Speaker 1: your rights start your your rights attached when you start
Speaker 1: raising concerns internally to management or supervisors or people who
Speaker 1: are responsible for dealing with the problem. And most employees
Speaker 1: do raise concerns internally first before going outside. So so
Speaker 1: this is like a powerful tool. And that's what Kyle's
Speaker 1: data is so important for establishing, is that you have
Speaker 1: this risk management tool sitting in you know, it's this
Speaker 1: is like your most powerful resource they want to report
Speaker 1: internally first you just have the opportunity to respond appropriately.
Speaker 1: You don't even have to validate. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the other thing that I think it is so interesting
Speaker 1: and one kind of reform tool is that if you
Speaker 1: investigate an employee's concern appropriately, that there's this whole research
Speaker 1: around procedural justice and procedural fairness that if an employee
Speaker 1: raises a concern and the employer has, you know, an
Speaker 1: objectively fair process, they protect the employee from retaliation. They
Speaker 1: communicate with them about the investigation. They you know, and
Speaker 1: like there's a perception that the investigation is fair and
Speaker 1: objective and legitimate. And the employer comes back and says,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, thank you, and this is what we found.
Speaker 1: We actually didn't find that you're just your concern um
Speaker 1: was right actually even though you had a reasonable belief
Speaker 1: about it. Then the employee is like hugely willing to
Speaker 1: accept those results and then becomes an ambassador on behalf
Speaker 1: of other employees and the company that Look, this company
Speaker 1: dealt with my problem in a really effective way. So
Speaker 1: like there's no downside to an employer responding appropriately to
Speaker 1: its employee when they raise concerns. There is only upside.
Speaker 1: You avoid risk, you avoid litigation, you save money, all
Speaker 1: of these things because you have like this best line
Speaker 1: of defense. But it is this internal speak up culture
Speaker 1: that has to be real and legitimate and not used
Speaker 1: which we see sometimes as a tool to actually suss
Speaker 1: out who the reporter is and then retaliate against them.
Speaker 1: I mean, like there are there is some hotline abuse
Speaker 1: that happens, although I think these third party platforms are
Speaker 1: minimizing some of that dramatically, which is great, But I
Speaker 1: think that's a huge pieces. Like there's so many things
Speaker 1: that companies can do and governments can do to you know,
Speaker 1: institutions can do to internally shore up how they respond
Speaker 1: to their workers, to value and encourage them to speak up.
Speaker 1: And there's like a whole list, not just one. But
Speaker 1: then there are external things that we need to do
Speaker 1: to Like we do need to strainen them with more protections.
Speaker 1: We need to, like the me too movement recognize that
Speaker 1: a whistleblower. When they speak up, they have everything to lose,
Speaker 1: nothing to a gain, and we need to listen to
Speaker 1: them and put the presumption that they're they're putting a
Speaker 1: lot on the line if they're bothering to speak up,
Speaker 1: rather than viewing them in a suspect way, and that
Speaker 1: we need to make it safe for them to speak
Speaker 1: up and to support that conduct as a culture. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: so um, that was great. I'll take the floor for
Speaker 1: a moment and um just humbly submit my idea in
Speaker 1: the space, and I'd love to hear what both of
Speaker 1: you think about this, because to me, the problem here
Speaker 1: is education whistle blowing is still culturally stigmatized, although it
Speaker 1: sounds like that may be improving, and and that comes from,
Speaker 1: I think a genuine ignorance about the positive effects that
Speaker 1: both of you have been talking about. And so my
Speaker 1: idea is to figure out how to create whistleblower awards,
Speaker 1: So not rewards, I'm talking about awards that are given
Speaker 1: to recognize the positive benefits to businesses into society and
Speaker 1: maybe get a sponsor. You know, I don't know whether
Speaker 1: the Harvard Business Press would ever, you know, co sponsor
Speaker 1: this or or distribute it. They tend to be a
Speaker 1: little conservative, but it would be great if they would
Speaker 1: get behind this, And why not since it's obviously a
Speaker 1: business success story to promote, you know, whistle blowers. If
Speaker 1: you want to promote better business in the world, you
Speaker 1: ought to promote whistle blowing or you know. Again, possibly
Speaker 1: a fantasy, but the Wall Street Journal as a partner,
Speaker 1: let's celebrate and reward individuals and along the way educate
Speaker 1: the wider world about the clear business benefits and clear
Speaker 1: societal benefits of creating a culture where it is safe
Speaker 1: to come forward. Thoughts on that first of all, as
Speaker 1: as better as it could be, we should recognize that
Speaker 1: the United States, for all our problems, is the best
Speaker 1: in the world at complaining about things. We do the
Speaker 1: best at whistle blowing because we embedded in our culture
Speaker 1: speaking up more so than anywhere else. We actually have
Speaker 1: of huge cultural advantage here. So the whistleblower reports in
Speaker 1: the US are like a mile ahead culturally because in
Speaker 1: our culture, generally speaking, it is not stigmatized nearly as
Speaker 1: much as as it used to be, and people do
Speaker 1: look up to it. And I think that's kind of
Speaker 1: your point, is that we need more people looking up
Speaker 1: to it. I would also push back a little bit too.
Speaker 1: This is not a liberal idea. I mean, this solves
Speaker 1: the problem faster, better and improves it this way better
Speaker 1: than anything else. I agree with that. What are you
Speaker 1: pushing back on, because that was what I was trying
Speaker 1: to say, is that of all the people in the world,
Speaker 1: the hardcore business press are the people who ought to
Speaker 1: be celebrating this, and I don't think they are. But
Speaker 1: it's I would say, though, it's that kind of shooting
Speaker 1: from the hip that creates a problem. We don't know
Speaker 1: that answer because you don't have the data on it,
Speaker 1: and I don't have the date on it. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: my show. I get to have an opinion. I have
Speaker 1: comanecdotal evidence, which is not the kind of data that
Speaker 1: that Kyle does. But I used to um I used
Speaker 1: to run executive education programs on corporate governance for directors,
Speaker 1: corporate directors and general counsel often. And um I was
Speaker 1: running a program at Boston College Law School and an
Speaker 1: issue came up around a lot of concern and interest
Speaker 1: about Dodd Frank and whistle blowers, and it went to
Speaker 1: a place these are all enlightened nice people. It went
Speaker 1: to a place where what can we do about the whistleblowers?
Speaker 1: Can we can we can we get them for stealing documents,
Speaker 1: you know, or violating gag orders. And I was just like, oh,
Speaker 1: oh dear, oh dear, this is the this is exactly
Speaker 1: the problem. And I think that there is this embedded
Speaker 1: problem of perceiving even though I think this is not
Speaker 1: as true for management. I think with general counsel sometimes
Speaker 1: they see whistle blowers as a potential source of risk,
Speaker 1: rather than realizing that I'm going to create more risk
Speaker 1: if my company doesn't deal effectively with the whistleblower. I'm
Speaker 1: actually going to increase our risk by now we're going
Speaker 1: to have a lawsuit around litigation and not just the
Speaker 1: underlying problem. I was like, oh my gosh, the degree
Speaker 1: of education to your point, Hie, around why whistle blowing
Speaker 1: is a good thing and why responding appropriately to whistleblowers
Speaker 1: and how to do that internally is exactly what is
Speaker 1: beneficial to a company. That's what needs to happen. And
Speaker 1: you know, to your point about the awards, I agree.
Speaker 1: I mean, what you're talking about is is valorizing or
Speaker 1: calling out the right behavior rather than the wrong behavior.
Speaker 1: And so if you're measuring, for instance, we only had
Speaker 1: you know, zero safety problems right as opposed to saying oh,
Speaker 1: because that discourages people from reporting accidents right as opposed
Speaker 1: to how did we respond on to those accidents. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have these perverse performance incentives that I think switched
Speaker 1: for the burden to be on how management responds rather
Speaker 1: than drive to encourage just employees to speak up. They're
Speaker 1: gonna speak up if they feel like they're not going
Speaker 1: to suffer retaliation and something's going to be done about
Speaker 1: the problem. And I also just want to say one
Speaker 1: thing about this, the money problem, is that largely that
Speaker 1: is not what motivates people to speak out. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, there's some data that says that money
Speaker 1: depresses reporting right or depresses ethical behavior. And so when
Speaker 1: the SEC, for instance, promotes all of these multimillion dollar
Speaker 1: awards that it's giving to whistleblowers, I think it's just
Speaker 1: sending totally the wrong message personally, um, because like they've
Speaker 1: given out three hundred and twenty eight awards out of
Speaker 1: sixty four thousand, four hundred and twenty one tips that
Speaker 1: they've that they've received since its inception in that means
Speaker 1: you have a point five sent chance, point five percent
Speaker 1: chance of getting an award. It's like you buy buy
Speaker 1: a lottery ticket. I think the success of this program
Speaker 1: is that it's a program that allows for anonymity and
Speaker 1: confidentiality and an opportunity that someone someone responsible might investigate
Speaker 1: and do something about it and yeah, maybe you maybe
Speaker 1: you'll you'll win the lottery and get a payout. But
Speaker 1: it addresses those other two issues that that are motivating
Speaker 1: to an employee who sees wrongdoing, right is that someone's
Speaker 1: going to maybe do something about it and I don't
Speaker 1: have to risk retaliation because I can stay anonymous or
Speaker 1: you know, maintain my confidentiality. Like that's in part why
Speaker 1: this is so successful. So I think it's not about
Speaker 1: this money thing. It's about measuring and incentivizing the right behavior.
Speaker 1: So what are your thoughts, just in general, on the
Speaker 1: idea of rewarding whistleblowers with money at all? Personally, I
Speaker 1: think we have struck, the regulators have struck a pretty
Speaker 1: good balance. If you try to resolve something internally and
Speaker 1: then go external, you have the highest chance for the
Speaker 1: most reward externally on these bounties. So I I think
Speaker 1: that balance is a great balance that the US is
Speaker 1: created because it it doesn't steal this resource away from firms.
Speaker 1: Because if we really want to change things, we want
Speaker 1: the people closest to the problems to fix them. It's
Speaker 1: much harder to get the government to fix them. But
Speaker 1: if it has to go to the government, oh man,
Speaker 1: they better pay. I want to pivot for just a
Speaker 1: second and and talk a little bit about your work, Kyle.
Speaker 1: In your work, you use the Peter Drucker quote culture
Speaker 1: eats strategy for breakfast. Can you explain what you meant
Speaker 1: by that in the context of whistleblowing When you have
Speaker 1: a strong culture in your organization, where when your group
Speaker 1: feels like almost like their kinship with like they're related
Speaker 1: to each other, they all of a sudden make an
Speaker 1: investment in their organization that you wouldn't get otherwise. You
Speaker 1: would not get that otherwise, and so there's all these externalities.
Speaker 1: And Danta kind of talked about this. One of the
Speaker 1: tragedies of this of research and this data is that
Speaker 1: it's very easy to measure negative outcomes. Negative outcomes come
Speaker 1: in the form of lawsuits, fines, and then news stories.
Speaker 1: Those are all the negative outcomes. It's very hard to
Speaker 1: measure the positive outcomes. Somebody that is dealing with harassment.
Speaker 1: Somebody is dealing with the problem at at work, and
Speaker 1: the problem gets resolved all of a sudden, they feel
Speaker 1: a huge weight off of them and working at work
Speaker 1: environment is much better. You think about somebody being harassed
Speaker 1: at work and then taking that home with them and
Speaker 1: how that affects their other relationships with their spouse and kids.
Speaker 1: It's it, it has. There's huge effects to this, and
Speaker 1: and I think we're just we're just getting exposing just
Speaker 1: a little bit of it that it's wide open for us. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just want to expand on that a little bit
Speaker 1: because I just think it's it's often hard to measure
Speaker 1: problems that are prevented, right, Like it's hard when you
Speaker 1: when you actually can prevent a big safety problem because
Speaker 1: the company has addressed it, it's hard to say, well,
Speaker 1: we we prevented a nuclear three mile Island disaster. And
Speaker 1: this is like why it's a you know, it's a
Speaker 1: weird data set to to measure, you know, I think
Speaker 1: about GM. I whish there were more examples like this,
Speaker 1: but you know, Tony Fernendez, the whistleblower who sued on
Speaker 1: his own Haliburton and then GM he's an accounting fraud
Speaker 1: he you know, GM snatched, he blew the whistle on
Speaker 1: Haliburton and huge accounting fraud, right, and he represented himself.
Speaker 1: Actually pro se was very successful. General Motors hired him
Speaker 1: and they brought him on like in a really public way,
Speaker 1: like we're gonna hire the whistleblower. And I just like
Speaker 1: this should happen all the time, like this should like this.
Speaker 1: You know, we've we've touched on this a couple of times,
Speaker 1: but why doesn't it happen more? Let me can I
Speaker 1: push back on that? Just a sect to that the
Speaker 1: name of the show was calling bosh so so so
Speaker 1: let me push back on that. There's an academic article
Speaker 1: that was published by a couple of smart, sharp guys.
Speaker 1: What they did is they looked at uh public keytam
Speaker 1: lawsuits and then they said, okay, let's find the people
Speaker 1: that brought the lawsuits and do background checks on them
Speaker 1: to see where they are in their careers. So, using
Speaker 1: LinkedIn and private Investor, they spend a ton of money
Speaker 1: on this. What they found was their careers showed no
Speaker 1: deviation from their peers. I do know that people's careers,
Speaker 1: people get fired from jobs. I know that event happens.
Speaker 1: But when I'm saying this, I'm talking about means. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about averages and especially means and averages of the population.
Speaker 1: Even at the extreme. They looked at the extreme, and
Speaker 1: in that extreme they said, hey, all these people had
Speaker 1: like similar jobs. They didn't have their set, but they
Speaker 1: were at similar levels relative appears. So i'miding to read that,
Speaker 1: and I hope you send it to me, because I
Speaker 1: think what's interesting about Dodd Frank and the false Claims
Speaker 1: Act of course, right, is that when you file a
Speaker 1: false claims at case, you do so under sealed. You
Speaker 1: file a claim, but the Department of Justice and it's
Speaker 1: under sealed, like it is under sealed, like the company
Speaker 1: does not know. Like this is like a quiet thing.
Speaker 1: But those whistleblowers who blew the whistle not using these
Speaker 1: confidential systems, that experience for the whistleblower becomes then they
Speaker 1: become radioactive quite quite frequently if it's public, you know,
Speaker 1: very very public profile. So I just you know, I think,
Speaker 1: I mean, again, this is like a really dramatic example
Speaker 1: because her disclosures went viral. But I represent Don Wootton,
Speaker 1: who's the nurse at She was the nurse at the
Speaker 1: Erwin County Detention Center. Whistle. Yeah right, blew the whistle
Speaker 1: on all kinds of medical mistreatment, including that women were
Speaker 1: suffering non consensual, unnecessary gynecological procedures that went totally viral.
Speaker 1: You know, her life is completely changed and she can't
Speaker 1: she can't either get a job or retain a job
Speaker 1: as a nurse during a pandemic in her local community
Speaker 1: because she is blamed right as the one responsible for
Speaker 1: ending that contract at that facility. Now that's very dramatic
Speaker 1: example because she's so well known essentially, right, But and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's true for all whistleblowers at all.
Speaker 1: You know this problem, I mean, I think it's but yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that that praises another question for me because you know,
Speaker 1: another expert that we spoke to for the show actually
Speaker 1: mentioned that there are certain industries and and she called
Speaker 1: out health care and defense where you may never work
Speaker 1: again if you speak out. And so I guess it
Speaker 1: does seem like there are some industries where there there
Speaker 1: is a stigma. I will I'm gonna call both on that.
Speaker 1: That those are the most regulated industries. I would say
Speaker 1: your more likely to have a problem in an industry
Speaker 1: that doesn't have those eyeballs. So let me tell you
Speaker 1: why I based this opinion on on the claim of
Speaker 1: health care and defense. In the last year, I've spoken
Speaker 1: at three defense conferences and three healthcare conferences trying to
Speaker 1: understand and better like better understand the outcome and positive
Speaker 1: natures associated with these compliance. Of all the two industries
Speaker 1: that reach out to my research, No two industries reach
Speaker 1: out to this research more like I can't even think
Speaker 1: of a third healthcare and defense. You're hearing the failures
Speaker 1: of it, and so if you hear censored data, you
Speaker 1: will always get a censored by as sample from it.
Speaker 1: And I would say, generally speaking, defense industry. Of all
Speaker 1: the industries that reach out to me, defense and healthcare
Speaker 1: over and over and over again have a huge focus
Speaker 1: on this. I would say compliance in those two industries
Speaker 1: while there are and it makes sense because the problems
Speaker 1: if somebody dies, if something goes wrong, or got secrets
Speaker 1: getting leaked out, it makes sense that compliance would be
Speaker 1: huge in those industries. Dana, did you have any thoughts
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, I mean I think I actually think
Speaker 1: this could be a both and situation in that I
Speaker 1: agree that these heavily regulated industries where the stakes are
Speaker 1: very high, have some of the most sophisticated ethics and
Speaker 1: compliance systems. They understand why it's important to them, and
Speaker 1: they have they're they're just far more advanced. I still
Speaker 1: think even when you hear those outlying pieces of data,
Speaker 1: it's still a sign of failure in that ethics and
Speaker 1: compliance system. When you have a Boeing whistleblower who basically
Speaker 1: said I was raising concerns about safety issues and suffered
Speaker 1: reprisal and they weren't addressed. And the only reason now
Speaker 1: that you're hearing about it is because they suffered reprisal
Speaker 1: and the problem wasn't addressed, and the stakes of that
Speaker 1: response is endangering people. Right, I'm so like, do you
Speaker 1: need like? So, You're right, it might be an outlier,
Speaker 1: but that failure is still a problem. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that everything is bad at that company and that every
Speaker 1: but it's like if you're talking about one plane fallen
Speaker 1: from the sky, you kind of want to prevent that,
Speaker 1: right and no, So, so so let's be clear. What
Speaker 1: I'm saying is that when they do something wrong, go
Speaker 1: hard on the paint on them to hold them accountable.
Speaker 1: But when we're talking about means and averages in those industries,
Speaker 1: the mean firm in compliance, the mean firm associated with this.
Speaker 1: In defense and healthcare, they the reason why they have
Speaker 1: these advanced systems. They try to get ahead of it.
Speaker 1: So when somebody in in that network does something wrong,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, all the more, all the more should
Speaker 1: they be held accountable because of how advanced their system
Speaker 1: should be. Okay, I'm a little confused, So I just
Speaker 1: want to clarify something because I think lots of companies
Speaker 1: have like hotline reporting systems for reporting, and I have
Speaker 1: seen experts who have pointed out that those mechanisms are
Speaker 1: only as good as the culture behind that system. You
Speaker 1: agree with that, okay, but you don't agree And I
Speaker 1: get that data is hard to get here, but you
Speaker 1: don't agree that there are industries healthcare and defense are
Speaker 1: two that have been mentioned by other experts where there
Speaker 1: is a problem, a cultural bias against hiring people who
Speaker 1: have had a history of whistle blowing. But don't you
Speaker 1: think it's kind of apples and oranges? And I think
Speaker 1: this is why I maybe you're struggling and and I
Speaker 1: am too. Is that it's still about people, Like if
Speaker 1: you raised a concern internally and it was dealt with
Speaker 1: through the ethics and compliance system, you're actually not I mean,
Speaker 1: you're a whistle or because you raised a concern, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't become a problem because it's about the management
Speaker 1: response to the report. That's what really becomes the issue.
Speaker 1: It's how does management respond to the report. That's why
Speaker 1: we don't hear all of this data that you hear
Speaker 1: about Kyle. It's like, that's why it's a gold mine
Speaker 1: because here people that report internally and the company dealt
Speaker 1: with it, right, So I'm dealing with when the company
Speaker 1: failed to respond appropriately, right, And it happens a lot.
Speaker 1: We are so busy, like we have a lot, you
Speaker 1: know what, we can't help everybody, right, Like there's a
Speaker 1: lot of failure. And they're in health care and they're
Speaker 1: in defense, like they're in all of these industries, right,
Speaker 1: they're all always failures. And so when I think about
Speaker 1: how we care about the power of an individual who
Speaker 1: sees a problem, right, and when they it's either experienced
Speaker 1: retaliation or the problem isn't dealt with. That's when they're
Speaker 1: prompted to go outside, and once they're public, it becomes
Speaker 1: very hard. I think even you know, as anyone in
Speaker 1: a play, you know, here's someone who blew the whistle
Speaker 1: before publicly, like GM. That's why I made that example.
Speaker 1: It's like they basically use that as as a way
Speaker 1: of telegraphing to their culture and to their workers into
Speaker 1: the world. We like that this person is a whistle blower.
Speaker 1: We care about our accounting cleanliness. We're not afraid that
Speaker 1: is like not reflexibly. If you know that someone is sued,
Speaker 1: you know, has sued an employer in the past, and
Speaker 1: you're an employer hiring someone, you're gonna think out of
Speaker 1: what this person because they're gonna blow the whistle on me.
Speaker 1: I just think it's it's so embedded in terms of
Speaker 1: how we and I think it's where like the blacklisting
Speaker 1: comes up again, for a public facing whistle blower, you
Speaker 1: have to either embrace it and may be really enlightened,
Speaker 1: or you're gonna be like, oh, this person is going
Speaker 1: to see all the problems and my we're going to
Speaker 1: say we all, we'll give you, we'll give you the
Speaker 1: last word, and then we get we get a rep.
Speaker 1: We we all agree that it's bad. And uh, the
Speaker 1: one thing that I that's the important that we agree.
Speaker 1: We agree that if somebody is getting blacklisted for this,
Speaker 1: that it's bad. So what I would say and what
Speaker 1: I tell compliance professionals and people that reach out, is
Speaker 1: that first everyone that wants they want to have an
Speaker 1: organization and a great culture. Most leaders do want that,
Speaker 1: I would say, on average, And so we hear about
Speaker 1: these bad stories, and I would say that the Special
Speaker 1: Victims Unit of whistle blowing is important to understand and
Speaker 1: identify and tell stories from. But make sure our narrative
Speaker 1: is is the average human isn't the type of perpetrator
Speaker 1: that makes people go to this SPU unit of whistle blowing,
Speaker 1: And that there is a lot of good that's happening
Speaker 1: and we never hear about it. I don't know that
Speaker 1: we'll ever hear about all of it, but we should
Speaker 1: understand the s V unit, but understand that that is
Speaker 1: the sampling doesn't show the whole population. Okay, sadly we
Speaker 1: have to wrap this up, but this has been a
Speaker 1: fantastic conversation. I so appreciate both of you. Kyle Dana,
Speaker 1: thank you for being on the show. This is super fun.
Speaker 1: It's fun talking to Dana too. I've seen it from
Speaker 1: a distance for so I was like, I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: to do this with Kyle's and now we know tie,
Speaker 1: So this is great. You're doing great work on this podcast.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that, and thank you both for the work
Speaker 1: that you're doing so so great and so important. Keep
Speaker 1: it up. Alright, folks, We're not giving anybody a B
Speaker 1: S score today, but I do want to drive this
Speaker 1: point home. In a perfect world, corporate mouthfeasance would be
Speaker 1: stopped as soon as it's discovered. Fraud would be dealt
Speaker 1: with internal, and systems that incentivize poor behavior would be
Speaker 1: redesigned to encourage people to do the right thing. We
Speaker 1: wouldn't need whistle blowers. But the point I want to
Speaker 1: make two leaders of organizations everywhere, you have a massive
Speaker 1: opportunity to embrace and support whistleblowers and see them for
Speaker 1: what they really are. There, in many cases your most
Speaker 1: loyal people. They are your bravest people. They are an
Speaker 1: asset to your company, to your culture, and to your
Speaker 1: bottom line. Treat them that way. If you're a whistleblower
Speaker 1: or looking for support and resources to become one. Here
Speaker 1: are a few organizations in addition to the sec that
Speaker 1: Mary Inman recommends that you check out. The Signals Network
Speaker 1: is a not for profit that assist whistleblowers and connects
Speaker 1: them safely with journalists. Taxpayers Against Fraud supports whistleblowers, and
Speaker 1: Vault is an anonymous reporting tool that allows whistleblowers to
Speaker 1: find each other safely within organizations. You can find details
Speaker 1: about how to contact all of them in our show notes.
Speaker 1: And I want to thank Mary Edman, Kyle Welch, and
Speaker 1: Dana Gold both for the work they do and for
Speaker 1: taking the time to talk with me today for this
Speaker 1: special episode. Links about them and their work are also
Speaker 1: in the show notes. And if this episode made you
Speaker 1: want to do the right thing, subscribe to the Calling
Speaker 1: Bullshit podcast on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to people speaking to your ears.
Speaker 1: Please take a minute to rate us and let us
Speaker 1: know what you think of the show. More reviews help
Speaker 1: more people find us, And I want to thank you
Speaker 1: for listening. Our listeners are most important stakeholders and we
Speaker 1: appreciate you spending time with us. Hopefully we'll be back
Speaker 1: in your bed very soon and thanks to our production
Speaker 1: team Hannah Beale, Amanda Ginsburg, D S Moss, Hailey Pascalites,
Speaker 1: and Parker Silzer. Calling Bullshit was created by co Collective
Speaker 1: and it's hosted by Me Time onto You. Thanks for listening.