Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?

Survey results published in 2009 by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of New South Wales reported that most public sector organisations in its jurisdiction have established integrity policies and procedures – or ‘organisational integrity systems’ (ICAC 2009). Despite this, many o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ray Plibersek, Alexandria Mills
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: UTS ePRESS 2010-12-01
Series:Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance
Online Access:https://learning-analytics.info/journals/index.php/cjlg/article/view/1910
id doaj-7813ca371280456394d2002a15de52c8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7813ca371280456394d2002a15de52c82020-11-25T01:45:15ZengUTS ePRESSCommonwealth Journal of Local Governance1836-03942010-12-01710.5130/cjlg.v0i7.19101194Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?Ray Plibersek0Alexandria Mills1Sutherland Shire CouncilIndependent Commission Against Corruption Survey results published in 2009 by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of New South Wales reported that most public sector organisations in its jurisdiction have established integrity policies and procedures – or ‘organisational integrity systems’ (ICAC 2009). Despite this, many of the public inquiries conducted by the ICAC that find corrupt conduct often also find a failure to implement or enforce existing anti-corruption mechanisms in agencies. More recently an ICAC inquiry reported that similar patterns of repeated corrupt conduct had been pervasive in one government agency since the early 1990s despite being prohibited by organisational policy (ICAC 2008). These findings are also consistent with the anecdotal experience of integrity practitioners that public sector agencies are experiencing repeated workplace corruption despite the presence of apparently adequate organisational integrity systems. When workplace corruption is exposed, it may be professionally investigated and reforms to address the problems proposed and attempted, yet the same or similar workplace corruption reoccurs. As Barber suggests, ensuring successful delivery requires a “long grind” of “steady, persistent implementation” and “gentle pressure, relentlessly applied” (Barber 2008:112 and 119). This paper examines cases of low-level non-compliance in a municipal waste collection services and a state owned railway to identify some of the factors that could be contributing to reoccurring workplace corruption. The analysis suggests that a major factor in repeated workplace corruption is the failure to monitor and implement reforms recommended by investigations and existing organisational integrity systems. https://learning-analytics.info/journals/index.php/cjlg/article/view/1910
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ray Plibersek
Alexandria Mills
spellingShingle Ray Plibersek
Alexandria Mills
Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance
author_facet Ray Plibersek
Alexandria Mills
author_sort Ray Plibersek
title Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
title_short Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
title_full Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
title_fullStr Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
title_full_unstemmed Is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
title_sort is monitoring implementation the key to preventing repeated workplace corruption?
publisher UTS ePRESS
series Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance
issn 1836-0394
publishDate 2010-12-01
description Survey results published in 2009 by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of New South Wales reported that most public sector organisations in its jurisdiction have established integrity policies and procedures – or ‘organisational integrity systems’ (ICAC 2009). Despite this, many of the public inquiries conducted by the ICAC that find corrupt conduct often also find a failure to implement or enforce existing anti-corruption mechanisms in agencies. More recently an ICAC inquiry reported that similar patterns of repeated corrupt conduct had been pervasive in one government agency since the early 1990s despite being prohibited by organisational policy (ICAC 2008). These findings are also consistent with the anecdotal experience of integrity practitioners that public sector agencies are experiencing repeated workplace corruption despite the presence of apparently adequate organisational integrity systems. When workplace corruption is exposed, it may be professionally investigated and reforms to address the problems proposed and attempted, yet the same or similar workplace corruption reoccurs. As Barber suggests, ensuring successful delivery requires a “long grind” of “steady, persistent implementation” and “gentle pressure, relentlessly applied” (Barber 2008:112 and 119). This paper examines cases of low-level non-compliance in a municipal waste collection services and a state owned railway to identify some of the factors that could be contributing to reoccurring workplace corruption. The analysis suggests that a major factor in repeated workplace corruption is the failure to monitor and implement reforms recommended by investigations and existing organisational integrity systems.
url https://learning-analytics.info/journals/index.php/cjlg/article/view/1910
work_keys_str_mv AT rayplibersek ismonitoringimplementationthekeytopreventingrepeatedworkplacecorruption
AT alexandriamills ismonitoringimplementationthekeytopreventingrepeatedworkplacecorruption
_version_ 1725024088039096320