On the first anniversary of former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed’s death, more than 20 women accused the billionaire of rape, sexual assault or harassment while they worked at his luxury department store. Many had been in their late teens and early twenties at the time.
Since then, a further 65 women have come forward to the BBC with allegations dating back as far as 1977, and 40 people are reported to have contacted the police.
How did Al Fayed silence potential whistleblowers for such a long time? I’ve researched whistleblowing in organisations for almost 15 years. Looking at the allegations made against him, four apparent strategies stand out as textbook examples of how leaders can suppress dissent to continue their terrible behaviour – even today.
1. The organisation as a fortress
As the chairman-owner of Harrods, Al Fayed could wander around its swanky shopping halls and oak-panelled offices as he pleased. And it appears he looked for women to target as he did so.
Security guards had their role, in some cases reportedly turning a blind eye to distraught and dishevelled women leaving Al Fayed’s apartments and houses after attacks. HR people might likewise focus on recruiting certain women – like the security staff, they were just getting on with their work.
That is the thing about bureaucracies, as philosophers from Hannah Arendt to Max Weber have highlighted. Staff are not responsible for the outcome. They just need to do their job.
My research on whistleblowing in financial services shows clearly that the kind of blind rule-following many organisational roles require stops workers questioning the big picture and acting ethically by stepping in.
2. Hi-tech surveillance
The IRA bomb that exploded in Harrods’ car park in 1983 led to a top-notch system of surveillance being installed by its then owners.
So, when Al Fayed bought the store two years later, his need for control was satisfied with cameras and recording systems. Eventually, everyone working at Harrods apparently knew about the system, which appears to have stopped them talking to each other about Al Fayed’s behaviour.
Shockingly, the former Harrods owner appears to have extended this surveillance to the very bodies of the women he targeted. Doctors associated with the company were said to administer mandatory gynaecological examinations to female staff. Fayed was reportedly sent their test results. This meant he had eyes on his workers, bodies and all.
Today, with things like social media and the ability to share large amounts of data rapidly, it is more difficult for organisations to keep information in-house. And so, we have seen a rapid growth in insider threat detection – using technology like keystroke monitoring, where every keystroke on a computer is tracked without the user’s knowledge, to identify potential leaks.
A byproduct has been a “chill effect” on workers speaking out about wrongdoing they see in their organisations – something that has been highlighted by the UN as a problem for society.
My research alongside other academics into whistleblowing in healthcare, engineering and government shows one thing clearly: if trust in the organisation is lacking and workers do not feel protected against potential reprisals, they stay silent. Overt surveillance deters disclosures of organisational abuses.
3. Legal pressure
The “non-disclosure agreement plus settlement payoff” tactic that Al Fayed employed with a number of Harrods staff was straight out of the Harvey Weinstein playbook. The disgraced film producer used non-disclosure agreements systematically to silence survivors.
While non-disclosure agreements are not allowed to be used to stop workers reporting possible crimes or serious wrongdoings, a frightened 20-year-old is not likely to know this.
In the case of Al Fayed, when Vanity Fair magazine published victims’ testimonies and allegations of serious criminality, his lawyers knew the solution. Keep the legal pressure on until the magazine settled.
The use of legal tools to silence whistleblowers is one of the biggest concerns for researchers today. From “Slapp” suits – strategic lawsuits against public participation, filed against people who speak out – to inappropriate use of non-disclosure agreements, defensive organisations increasingly turn to the law in public whistleblowing cases. As analysis of the case of whistleblowers at the disgraced blood testing firm Theranos made clear, often the threat of legal action is enough to keep a worker silent.
4. Dehumanise targets
Al Fayed, we are told, would chuckle as he openly groped women. One woman reported his laughter after an attempted rape at his Villa Windsor in Paris, when he fell on the floor after she pushed him off.
Most people would not find humour in such situations, unless they don’t see their victims as “real people”.
But the likelihood of targets speaking out is, again, slim. A very young person told they are worthless, treated as such, and reminded of it regularly by colleagues and bosses, is not best placed to speak up. Our research with other survivors in work organisations shows how the experience of sexual violence and harassment can leave them vulnerable. They find disclosure of the abuse intolerable without empathetic and supportive colleagues.
In an organisation designed to prevent workers discussing their concerns together – as Harrods appears to have been – the solidarity required to speak out and be protected through the collective is utterly absent.
Harrods’ current owners have said they are “appalled” at the allegations, and the business has reached settlements with many of the people who have complained.
When executing a campaign of “attack, isolate and silence”, money and influence can buy predators a lot of leeway, as other high-profile abusers like Weinstein and Jimmy Savile figured out. But the key thing is the organisation. With the right PR, surveillance, HR and lawyers to take legal action should stories get published, predators will be safe. The secret stays kept – until, one day, people have finally had enough.
Kate Kenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
