Office Tipster Hot Line May Not Be a Hot Idea : Programs are most useful when evidence of wrongdoing exists

Is it a good idea for governments and businesses to install tip telephone lines so that employees can report fraud, crime and abuse by their peers at work? Well, it could be, depending upon the workplace and the situation in question. It’s not quite as simple as checking a student’s book bag or locker for weapons or drugs. In the adult world, the downsides are slippery and steep and ought to be closely considered before any such operation is established.

Consider, for example, one case that we came across. It seems that a single mother working at an accounting firm was always leaving the office early, a fact that was reported anonymously to an employee tip line. For the next month or so, she worked under a cloud of suspicion. She could not help but notice as her comings and goings and her work were closely scrutinized.

It turned out that she was one of the most productive workers at the firm, able to finish tasks accurately and ahead of schedule, bored and ready for more serious work, and motivated to leave early so that she could pick up her child from school.

To reward her (and perhaps to avoid a big lawsuit), she received a promotion, a raise and a schedule that allowed her to pick up her child on time. All she had to do was to agree in writing that she was satisfied with said outcome. Her immediate supervisor was chided for being oblivious and unresponsive to his employees’ talents and familial responsibilities.

Whew.

It’s possible that this particular “tip” was an honest mistake. But in today’s cutthroat business climate, and with governments eyeing personnel reductions, anonymous tip programs need plenty of thought before being implemented.

The evidence suggests that they can be used to seek revenge or slow a rival’s progress. It’s for that reason that there ought to be some mechanism for ensuring, as much as possible, the veracity of the system.

Perhaps employees making the most serious accusations (charges that might be grounds for a serious reprimand, suspension or dismissal of the accused) ought to be required to identify themselves or to make such claims in person.

In such a way, the anonymity of the accuser could still be preserved, and frivolous or malicious charges would be less likely.

In fact, corporate and government executives might want to ask themselves whether such an in-house tip line is needed in the first place. If you have a reasonable amount of confidence in your employees and supervisors, and if production and morale is high and waste is low, why bother?

Consider, for example, the rather expensive and sophisticated Los Angeles County government office that keeps close tabs on employee hanky-panky. Yes, at one count, they had helped recover $1.1 million from errant employees. But, on average, they were spending $1 for every 33 cents they had recovered.

In another arena, consider that about 10% or fewer of the tips actually lead to problems that must be addressed. One huge defense contractor, for example, says it receives, on average, about 1,500 calls annually on its employee tip line.

On average, about 139 result in disciplinary action, and about 30 result in employee dismissals. The math is easy: More than nine times out of ten, the tip is either flimsy, wrong or motivated by concerns that have little to do with building a more honest workplace.

The tip lines make eminent good sense, however, when there is reason to suspect a larger problem. One example? An investigation into abuse of the Virginia state government motor pool that exposed numerous cases of employees using state vehicles for personal use, including long excursions and vacations.

Without such palpable suspicions, however, the tip lines are probably more trouble than they are worth.