Information leaks are as common as they are frustrating in business and political life. Those who have led any important organisation must have experienced various incidents where one or more of their inner circles leaked information for a myriad of reasons. Sensitive information leaks are often a perverse way of communication but always aimed at causing as much trouble in an organisation as possible.
Leaks have become even more common since whistleblowing was elevated as a pious practice on the altar of transparency. There are, of course, various incidents where whistle-blowers acted with genuine intentions and revealed to the world abusive practices that most ordinary people find obnoxious. Julian Assange paid a high price for being one of the first to turn whistleblowing into an admirable practice.
Every political and business leader knows how difficult it is to stop the leakage of sensitive corporate information. Budding politicians and business students will do well to understand the dynamics that drive employees to leak information to the media. This will help them deal with leakages in an effective way when they become bosses of their organisations.
The most recent case of international leakage of sensitive information is that of Anthony Scaramucci, the communications director of the White House who only lasted in his job for 10 days. Those who love political soap operas must have savoured the real life drama that surrounded the appointment and quick sacking of Scaramucci.
Leaks have become even more common since whistleblowing was elevated as a pious practice on the altar of transparency
Initially, like most business executives, Scaramucci went ballistic when he suspected that one of his bosses, the White House chief of Staff Reince Preibus, might have leaked information to a journalist of the New Yorker. Scaramucci’s verbal outburst was reported on the world’s news channels.
“I’m going to fire everybody, that’s how I am going to do it,” he said when reacting to a question by the Washington Post journalist Ashley Parker. He used even more colourful and vulgar language in his tweets following the alleged leak but my editor will surely censure such comments.
My own experience about leaks is as frustrating as it must be for most people who see their organisation being targeted by the media to drive their political agenda. Journalists love leaks. In fact, they thrive on them to attract readers and viewers. In practice, leaks can rarely be stopped by any organisation as there will always be people who have sensitive information that they may want to use for their advantage.
Leaks often come from the most unsuspected sources. A political administration will always have a few trusted journalists to whom it may want to leak sensitive information to score political points on their rivals. The Washington Post and the New York Times actually encourage their readers to pass on sensitive information secretly. Professional journalists will, of course, check their sources and make sure that their motivation is not one of vindictiveness or muck raking. Hopefully these journalists will also be faithful to their mission to tell their readers the unedited truth at all times.
Employees who are privy to sensitive information will also have their hidden agendas especially when their bosses try to implement change programmes that may affect them negatively. These employees often wear masks: they formally agree with their bosses on proposed changes only to furtively rush to the nearest journalist to leak information they hope will stem change in the bud.
Other employees may be passed over in promotions and will want to vent their frustration by leaking information or even passing it on to competitors of their employer. Some go further and sabotage the information system of their organisation hoping, like Samson, to bring the organisation down with a bang.
My most educational experience in dealing with leaks came from a member of the judiciary who investigated scores of leaks in his career. He insists that it is almost impossible to discover the source of leaks because those who leak information have all the time to cover their tracks.
He, however, confirmed that his over 40 years’ experience in interrogating witnesses in court has given him the ability of knowing who is lying when being interrogated. Unfortunately, the gut feeling that points to a particular source of a leakage is not enough to be accepted as evidence in a criminal court.
Adopting the Scaramucci tactics will never resolve the problem of corporate leaks. Doing always what is right is perhaps the best way of dealing with the aftermath of inevitable leaks in your organisation.
johncassarwhite@yahoo.com