Fratricide within the federal government: how do they get away with it?

Fratricide is recognized as the taking down of members of your own group. Federal Government leaders have compromised and gotten away with various forms of fratricide in recent decades. Federal leaders have taken damaging action against their own employees for following stated organizational goals and missions. Although many employees have sought help to combat the offensive actions of their leaders, those employees have often been offended again by the people to whom they complained (for example, mediators, attorneys, and judges).

Liz, a secretary who works for the federal government, reported several cases of time card fraud. Liz witnessed employees working far less than the 40 hours per week indicated on their time cards. Liz’s disclosure had been quietly discussed by her co-workers years before she acknowledged the violations. Liz’s leaders ignored her complaints and left Liz in a position where she had to ignore the violations and continue to certify fraudulent time cards or seek help from high-level government leaders. Liz decided to report her findings to the leaders of the US Army in Washington DC. Army leaders ordered an investigation and sent an Army Captain to collect evidence and report the findings. The final report revealed that nearly 20% of roughly 500 of Liz’s coworkers claimed work hours that they never actually worked. Liz’s leaders read the Captain’s report and simply issued a rebuttal statement reporting that the equipment used at the entrances to track when employees entered the complex was not working properly. Liz, as a result of her whistle-blowing activities, was punished by her leaders.

Henry, a civil engineer, participated in several teams in which companies submitted bids for contracts with the federal government. After witnessing several cases in which companies were shortlisted to win contracts and the selection criteria were changed to help preferred companies win contracts, Henry reported the illegal practices to his supervisors. Subsequently, Henry was removed from teams, received poor performance evaluations, and moved on to promotions. Henry sought help from other federal organizations such as the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but was unable to get help to stop the illegal actions of his peers and leaders. Henry, as a result of his whistle-blowing activities, was professionally ostracized and threatened with removal from federal service.

Colonel Timothy ran a workers’ department until some of his female employees reported that he harassed them on numerous occasions. An employee reported that the colonel took photos of her under the table during meetings in which she was wearing skirts. Instead of punishing the Colonel in accordance with military law, Colonel Timothy’s commanding officer (General) removed him from his supervisory position over the women he victimized and placed the Colonel on a “special assignment.” The women were forced to carry on their duties knowing that Colonel Timothy could approach them at any moment. The usual stress that results from reporting sexual harassment without significant results undoubtedly consumes Colonel Timothy’s female victims.

In all the cases mentioned in this article, the familiar theme is a lack of integrity and true leadership. Leaders must model the behavior they expect from their employees. When leaders choose not to intervene to stop (and punish) wrongdoers, they send the message that mistakes, including violations of the law, are acceptable. Leaders’ inaction in cases of known harassment and illegal activity is often detrimental to their employees and to the morale of their organizations. Many employees never recover from the harassment they were forced to endure and some, as a result of their leader’s decision not to act, sink to low mental and spiritual levels, possibly a form of fratricide. Leaders at various levels choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than react appropriately to complaints from their employees. In some cases, as evidenced by the fact that Liz, Henry, and Colonel Timothy work in the same organization, leaders repeatedly refuse to act with integrity in response to employee complaints. As a result, offenders are often encouraged to continue their wrongful acts. How do they get away with it? Your “leaders” allow it.