A claims executive wrote: “Regardless of anonymity, you have the duty to investigate. However, it may well be necessary to eventually determine the accusing party.”

Similarly, a legal executive noted: “Proceed to investigate, as that is the protocol, but keep in mind that anonymity raises serious issues of reliability. Also, consideration should be given to alternative ways of communicating complaints and the legal action that may take place if there is retaliation.”

One association executive seemed to favor anonymity: “My preference is to let the accuser remain anonymous and uncover necessary details in the investigation. What is important is that employees know the organization is concerned with 'right and wrong' and that ethics are taken seriously. There is no doubt, however, that the accusing party could shed more light during the investigation–especially if the alleged violation is not clear or contains no factual information.”

Despite these three comments, every respondent took issue with an absolute need for anonymity.

“Investigating without identity is fraught with peril. Complete anonymity is unwise, but any investigation must be done with discretion,” began an executive in charge of a group of professional investigators.

“You need the identity of the complaining party or you are opening a Pandora's Box,” wrote an Illinois producer.

An insurance company CEO commented: “Identifying yourself as the complaining party is the stand-up thing to do.” A second Illinois agent observed: “I do not believe one can believe in a violation and not identify him or herself. If you believe in your profession and desire to improve it, stand up and be counted and report the unethical act.”

“You need the identification of the person complaining to insure fairness–both to the complaining party and to the party being complained about,” responded a reinsurance executive.

A North Carolina producer wrote: “Unidentified accusers may not be reliable.” He explained by relating his participation in a panel that included famed Boston Celtic's coach Red Auerbach. A member of the press raised an ethical issue involving the NBA and repeatedly used the phrase, “they said,” to support the issue. Red asked the reporter who “they” were and got no response. The coach would not address the issue further, noting that the comments could be hearsay, rumor, a misobservation or a vendetta.

Many responding mentioned that the accuser might have additional, vital details. A Kentucky producer said evidence of the unethical activity must be obtained to justify an investigation. Every complaint should include the evidence, and if it does not, there is no way to get it from an unidentified source.

Similarly, one CEO noted that if the allegation cannot stand on its own, further details are needed and facts must be verified with the person making the complaint.

A life insurance company executive noted the importance to the accused of knowing who made the allegation: “Should that information bring harm to another, it would be wrong not to know the source of the information. The information needs to be validated, and that is difficult when the source is not known.”

A risk manager added: “Unless there is an independent way to investigate the complaint, the complaining party must be identified. If not, it may be a tool for attacking the accused. Because once someone is merely accused, they are tainted–so much so that the stain often remains even after acquittal.”

Additionally, the majority of respondents noted the legal tradition in the United States of the accused being able to confront their accuser.

A Washington producer addressed organizational policy toward retribution relating to anonymous complaints: “First, the organization must have an absolute policy of nonretribution, with serious consequences for violating the policy. The policy must be clear and disseminated to all employees. It is then ethical to expect the employee making the ethics allegation to identify him or herself without fear.”

Many others agreed, including the reinsurance executive: “It is management's responsibility to set an environment of trust and commitment so that those reporting violations will feel safe from retribution and so that their identities will be protected.”

A producer indicated that in a small office, it would be easy to identify the complaining party and, in the long run, retribution would not matter: “If the report is real, there is nothing to worry about. If it is not real, management must be given a chance to change the situation that generated the complaint.”

A Florida producer said knowing who complained gives the investigator the chance to obtain the details: “If those details reveal no violation, it not only stops the investigation but also allows the accuser to be told why there is no violation so that no grudges are maintained.”

Another take on employee concern for retribution came from two risk managers: “Once someone has decided to report an unethical act, they have already decided to leave the firm–whether they know it or not. Staying anonymous only gives them more time to get the resume out,” they wrote.

A life producer suggested a procedural method for protecting the identity of the accuser and, potentially, the reputation of the accused: “The investigation would be undertaken by a committee of three individuals sworn to secrecy to look for proof. The committee would not have any supervisory personnel of either party.”

In summary, most respondents agreed it was important to know the identity of the accusing party–but that the identity, at least in the short run, must be protected. There was also a consensus that an organization must have a well-publicized and enforced policy of nonretribution.

Most respondents, in one way or another, indicated that secrecy and nonretribution equally applied to both the accuser and the accused. If the accusation is not based on fact, or if all available facts indicate no ethical violation, the accused must not be tainted.

Further, if the accused unknowingly acted unethically, but with “good intentions,” the accused should be allowed to modify their behavior without fear that the unintentional act will destroy his or her reputation or career.

Finally, it was also noted by a few respondents that if the accused was truly unethical in the act and consistently operated in an unethical manner, their misbehavior would become well known within the organization and to those with whom they dealt.

Therefore, in the long run, the identity of the accuser will not be as important as the organization showing that it takes ethical behavior seriously.

with whistleblower art: