Assignment 2
Deadline: Week 7- 29/07/2021 @ 23:59
Course Name: Business Ethics and
Social Responsibility
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT422
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: Summer
CRN:
Academic Year: 1441/1442 H
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade:
Out of 10
Level of Marks: Low/Middle/High
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
•
The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder.
•
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
•
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented; marks may be reduced for
poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
•
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
•
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
•
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other
resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
•
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No
pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
•
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Department of Business Administration
Business Ethics and Social Responsibility - MGT 422
Assignment 2
Marks: 10
Course Learning Outcomes:
•
•
Develop awareness and understanding of cultural and national differences related to ethics.
Write coherent project about a case study or an actual research about ethics.
Assignment Instructions:
•
•
•
Login to Saudi Digital Library (SDL).
Search for the article entitled as Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport Case.
by Gee & Bridgman (2019). in SAGE Business Cases.
Besides this research paper use other relevant material to support your answers.
Questions:
1- Why is the ability for employees to ‘blow the whistle’ important for the reputation of
organizations? Consider this in relation to the case. (2.5 points, words 150-200).
2- What aspects of the ministry’s culture made it more/less likely that staff concerns about Harrison
would be taken seriously? (2.5 points, words 150-200).
3- What actions would you take to develop a culture at the ministry that encourages and rewards
employees who speak up about inappropriate behavior? (2.5 points, words 150-200).
4. Based on your understanding of the reputation matrix, how do you describe the type of leadership
exemplified in this case by Martin Matthews? Why? (2.5 points, words 150-200)
Answers:
A.1…
A.2…
A.3…
A.4…
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
Case
Author: Debbie Gee & Todd Nicholas Bridgman
Online Pub Date: April 04, 2019 | Original Pub. Date: 2019
Subject: Change Leadership, Leadership & Ethics, Critical Management Studies
Level: | Type: Indirect case | Length: 4547
Copyright: © Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
Organization: Ministry of Transport, New Zealand | Organization size: Large
Region: Australia and New Zealand | State:
Industry: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
Originally Published in:
Publisher: SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526496720 | Online ISBN: 9781526496720
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
This case was prepared for inclusion in SAGE Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion
or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein
shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use
only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial
purposes. 2021 SAGE Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
The case studies on SAGE Business Cases are designed and optimized for online learning. Please refer to
the online version of this case to fully experience any video, data embeds, spreadsheets, slides, or other
resources that may be included.
This content may only be distributed for use within Saudi Digital Library.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526496720
Page 2 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
Abstract
This case covers a high-profile public sector criminal case of prolonged and serious fraud by
a former senior manager, Joanne Harrison, at New Zealand’s Ministry of Transport that went
unchecked for five years, despite attempts by employees to draw attention to her repeated
non-compliance with procurement policies. An independent inquiry later confirmed allegations
by four staff who raised concerns that they were subsequently disadvantaged in various ways
in their employment at the ministry. Martin Matthews, chief executive of the ministry at the
time of Harrison’s offending, was subsequently appointed New Zealand’s Auditor-General,
responsible for auditing all public entities in the country. Matthews asked for a parliamentary
inquiry into allegations about his handling of these issues but resigned before it was concluded.
This case raises questions about the adequacy of whistleblowing legislation and policies and
the importance of organisational culture and leadership in creating and maintaining a cultural
environment that supports ethical behaviour and protects staff who try to flag what they believe
is inappropriate behaviour.
Case
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this case study, students should be able to:
• 1.
Examine the factors that shape employees’ ability and willingness to identify and report inappropriate
workplace behaviour by colleagues.
• 2.
Examine the ‘formal’ organisational-level factors that permit, encourage, and discourage such
reporting, such as policies, codes of conduct, and procedures.
• 3.
Examine the ‘informal’ organisational-level factors that permit, encourage, and discourage such
reporting, such as power and politics, culture, group dynamics, conformity, and leadership.
• 4.
Examine the wider systemic factors that permit, encourage, and discourage such reporting, such
as public sector governance legislation, as well as societal and cultural understandings (such as
attitudes towards appropriate responses to authority).
• 5.
Consider the inter-relationship between these levels to use these insights to develop action plans
for creating organisations where staff are morally attuned and empowered to speak up about
inappropriate behaviour at work.
Introduction
It is with great regret that I have tendered my resignation as Controller and Auditor-General. The issues and
speculation about how I handled matters in relation to the fraud committed on the Ministry of Transport during
my term as CEO have made it untenable for me to continue in this role.
…Until April 2016, when I received some concerning information, I regarded the staff member who
perpetrated this fraud as an able and high performing member of the leadership team. I believe I acted swiftly
and thoroughly to detect the fraud and bring her to justice when I became aware of her potential wrong-doing.
I wish that I had detected her criminal activity much earlier.
The information I received caused me to re-examine decisions I had made regarding matters previously
Page 3 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
raised with me in relation to some internal business procedures. I thought I had dealt with those appropriately,
with the knowledge and information I had at the time. She gave me explanations that I accepted. It turns out
I was wrong. I should have been more suspicious. The subsequent enquiries and investigations I initiated
revealed she had committed a major fraud against the ministry and the taxpayer.
I deeply regret and am sorry that I did not detect earlier her fraudulent actions. I feel as angry and aggrieved
as anyone about her stealing and breaches of trust. We are fortunate in New Zealand that this sort of
behaviour is not common place and certainly should not be tolerated.
I have resigned as Auditor-General because I understand the expectations associated with this role are high.
It is important to me, and to the office, that the public has complete confidence in the person holding the
position of Auditor-General.
Martin Matthews, 3 August, 2017
This press release was the final act in an extraordinary set of events in New Zealand’s public service.
Martin Matthews, the person with overall responsibility for auditing all of the country’s public entities and for
improving public trust in the sector, was unwittingly caught up in a major NZD 725,000 fraud at the ministry
he headed prior to becoming Auditor-General.
Matthews’ resignation, just nine months after his appointment, came ahead of the highly anticipated release
of a parliamentary report into his and the ministry’s handling of events surrounding the fraud and whether it
was appropriate for him to stay as Auditor-General.
At the time of his appointment as Auditor-General, Matthews’ handling of the fraud while Secretary of
Transport was described as ‘exemplary’ by politicians on the appointment panel. After he took up the
role, allegations emerged that whistleblowers had warned of repeated non-compliance, that these warnings
were ignored, and that the staff concerned were subsequently made redundant. It was important that the
person holding the position of Auditor-General demonstrated sound judgement and had a reputation beyond
question. Matthews, concerned about this, and believing his actions had been sound, asked for a review of
these matters and offered to stand aside while the report was completed, without pay (Small, 2017).
Even more intriguing, was that the fraudster, Joanne Harrison, was regarded by Matthews and many others
in the New Zealand public service as a star performer. She had led a programme of transformational change
at the ministry that had, during her term, recorded the highest level of staff engagement of any public sector
agency. Media reports also surfaced alleging a number of ministry staff had raised concerns about Harrison’s
non-compliant behaviour with Matthews and claimed he had failed to take proper action. It was further
alleged that several of those staff had been deliberately disadvantaged in their employment at the ministry for
attempting to blow the whistle regarding Harrison’s actions. There is no suggestion Matthews was aware of
these actions at the time.
Was Harrison a proverbial ‘bad apple’ who stole from the public purse? How and why did the Ministry of
Transport ignore the warning signs about her, enabling her fraud to continue? Why were those employees
who raised concerns not protected? The findings of the parliamentary report were expected to shed light on
these questions.
Harrison, the Inspirational Leader of the Ministry of Transport’s Change Journey
The Ministry of Transport is the New Zealand government’s principal transport advisor, providing policy advice
and support for Ministers to improve the performance of the country’s transport system. The government
invests about NZD 4 billion in the transport network each year; about 1.5% of New Zealand’s gross domestic
product. The ministry’s head office is located in the capital city Wellington (Ministry of Transport, 2017).
Joanne Harrison was employed by the ministry in 2011 as Manager of Change, People and Development.
Matthews was one of three people who interviewed her for the role. During the investigations that uncovered
her fraud, the ministry discovered it was her second attempt at joining the ministry, after an unsuccessful
Page 4 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
application in 2008. Her curriculum vitae did not mention her 2007 conviction for defrauding a previous
employer, a fact the ministry did not become aware of until April 2016. Prior to her appointment, the ministry
did not run a check for a criminal record, despite this being an established practice in the public sector. Even
had the ministry taken this precaution, it is unlikely this charge would have come to light due to a court-ordered
name suppression order and Harrison’s conviction under the name Joanne Sharp (Moir, 2017).
In 2013, Matthews promoted Harrison onto his senior leadership team, reporting directly to him. Her fixed
term role as General Manager of Organisational Development was to spearhead the ‘Shaping our Future
programme’, the ministry’s change program. It was anticipated that Harrison would ‘lead a “step change” in
the performance and capability of the ministry in delivering on its purpose’ (Ministry of Transport, n.d., a).
Two years later, in May 2015, the role became permanent, and Matthews had no hesitation in offering it to
Harrison.
Harrison received positive reviews during her time at the ministry, with two performance letters characterising
her as a high performer delivering organisational change. In 2012, a letter to Harrison from Matthews
personally thanked her for her ‘impressive efforts in designing and developing [the ministry’s] applied Policy
Advisor Development (a-PAD) programme’, which created a ‘minimum level qualification for those who
practise policy in the public sector’ (Ministry of Transport, n.d., b). In September 2014, Harrison received a
letter of thanks from Matthews for the ‘…significant contribution you have made to our success’ (Ministry of
Transport, n.d., b).
Matthews was particularly impressed that Harrison ‘brought a different level of creativity, innovation and drive
to how we think about change’. In 2013, Matthews launched a two year plan called Back to MoT’s Future,
which looked at what the ministry would be like in 2015. This change responded to challenges laid down for
Matthews after a Performance Improvement Review of the Ministry in 2013. Harrison suggested to Matthews
that he adopt the alter-ego of time-travelling Marty McFly from the well-known 1989 film Back to the Future 2,
which also involved travelling forward to 2015. This would involve Matthews dressing as McFly, the creation
of cardboard cut-outs of him in character, as well as posters and animated videos. Matthews believed ‘it was
quite an inspirational idea’ and ‘a major departure from usual change plans in the public sector’, although he
also acknowledged ‘some people thought I had lost my marbles’ (Hunt, 2017a).
Matthews’ and others’ high opinion of Harrison’s performance was also due to her success in motivating staff
and getting them to identify more strongly with the organisation. One of her initiatives to lift engagement was
the ‘caravan of love’ poster, featuring the iconic Kiwi vacation vehicle; it toured the ministry’s offices around
the country, adorned with notes from staff about why they loved working at the ministry. Accompanying the
caravan poster was a table and chairs and a beer fridge (Hunt, 2017b).
Staff engagement survey results showed steady improvements under Matthews, and in 2015, the ministry
achieved the highest staff engagement scores in the public sector (Hunt, 2017b). The most outstanding
results were obtained by the 19 staff in Harrison’s group. In September 2015, she received another letter of
thanks and a pay increase (Ministry of Transport, n.d. b).
Harrison, the Fraudster
Despite her glowing status in the eyes of her chief executive, other senior leaders, and staff close to her, there
was growing disquiet about Harrison’s cavalier attitude towards the ministry’s finance rules and procedures.
Questions first arose in October 2013, relating to a company Harrison had supposedly engaged to work on
the ‘Shaping our Future’ change programme. Between November 2012 and July 2014, the ministry paid NZD
227,000 to Sharp Design. All invoices had been approved by Harrison, yet there was no contract between
the ministry and the firm (a public sector requirement) and some questioning of the services being provided
(Deloitte, 2016).
When asked by the ministry’s Principal Solicitor for an explanation, Harrison replied:
…I did not know we had to do this [set up a contract] when we sent work out to be done, I thought that we
Page 5 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
only arranged this when folks were contracted to work inside here with us, so my apologies if anything has
been missed in the past. (Ministry of Transport, n.d., c)
The ministry’s Chief Legal Advisor informed Matthews of the issue in an email, including a copy of Harrison’s
response, and stated:
How can a senior person in any organisation credibly claim to be unaware of the need for a contract when
getting external providers to do work? I find it astounding… If general managers pay no regard to proper
process, what kind of an example does that set for the rest of the organisation?
Matthews asked him and the Finance Manager to remind the leadership team about the need to follow correct
processes.
In July 2014, some employees at the ministry became aware Victorian State fraud investigators were seeking
information about Harrison. Matthews was informed, and he raised the issue with Harrison and asked her to
contact them. She subsequently claimed she had and explained the inquiry related to her former executive
assistant who had misused her credit cards (Ministry of Transport, n.d., c), and Matthews was satisfied with
the explanation (Beatie, 2017).
Meanwhile, the annual compliance report prepared by the Principal Solicitor in August 2014 and presented
to the leadership team noted ongoing non-compliance in Harrison’s organisational development team around
contracting and the payment of invoices.
Around this time, an employee (referred to as ‘Employee A’ in the subsequent inquiry into the whistleblowing)
made a ‘protected disclosure’ of their concerns about Harrison. Under New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures
Act 2000, employees or former employees can make protected disclosures (sometimes called
‘whistleblowing’) about allegations of wrong-doing in the workplace that they reasonably believe are true or
likely to be true. The legislation is designed to protect them against disciplinary action from their employer.
The concerns raised about Harrison prompted Mathews to email her. In reply, Harrison blamed work
pressures, ‘oversights’ and ‘mistakes’ and promised ‘it will not happen in future’. On August 27, Matthews
declared he was ‘satisfied that, on the basis of the explanations given, no further enquiry or action is required
in relation to this matter’. However, five days later, he had a change of mind and directed an employee
(referred to as Employee B in the subsequent inquiry) to seek further clarification from Harrison (Ministry of
Transport, n.d., c).
In October 2014, Employee B emailed Harrison to outline the ‘ongoing problem’ that needed to be sorted out,
requesting answers and documents for the Ministry’s records for all the questions noted above. Harrison then
emailed Matthews asking him to close down Employee B’s questioning, arguing Employee B had sufficient
information already and implying the employee’s former role as a union delegate represented a possible
conflict of interest:
I will certainly not provide her with information about the investigation as I have real concerns around
confidentiality and her PSA status/history 1 ; the concerns extend to the whole legal team and not just
[Employee B]. (Ministry of Transport, n.d., c)
In December 2014, Matthews emailed Employee B saying he ‘would have preferred a higher level of
transparency to remove any doubt of suspicion.’ He stated that he had spoken with Harrison about the issues
raised and ‘she has apologised for the non-compliance, assured me of her future compliance and explained
to me her reasons for the secrecy’. Matthews then stated he had decided not to pursue the matter further,
because ‘to act without good cause…would have equally serious implications for the perceived trust and
confidence I have in one of my senior managers’ (Ministry of Transport, n.d., c).
A year later, in December 2015, the next annual compliance report found Harrison had not delivered on
her assurances that proper process would be followed. Harrison’s response was to send an email to the
Chief Legal Advisor, stating she ‘disagree[d] with the content and insinuation of the memo’. She blamed
Page 6 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
lack of personal training, despite having been in a senior leadership role with budget and procurement
responsibilities for more than two years.
The non-compliance issues relating to Harrison had been discussed at senior leadership meetings, so other
General Managers were aware of many of them. Nevertheless, on at least two occasions in 2014, Andrew
Jackson – who was Acting Chief Executive at the time – agreed to vary some contracts at Harrison’s request,
while acknowledging at the same time that it did not comply with agreed procedures. These requests related
to EJW Consulting and Mazarine Associates – two companies that subsequent fraud investigations would
reveal Harrison had begun using to perpetuate her fraud (Ministry of Transport, n.d., c; d).
The End of the Road for Harrison
Matters came to a head in April 2016, when Matthews was tipped off about Harrison having had a different
identity and a fraud conviction under that name for which she had permanent name suppression. This caused
Matthews to start making further enquiries about Harrison, including asking Audit New Zealand that was
conducting its interim audit to look more closely and report on Harrison’s non-compliance around procurement
and contracting. As a result of that report and other inquiries following the tip off, Matthews commissioned
two independent investigations into Harrison’s conduct, by Deloitte and by Peter Churchman QC, putting her
on special leave while these were carried out. As more allegations were uncovered, the terms of reference of
the Churchman investigation were extended twice.
Churchman found that ‘right from the point of her original application for a position, Joanne Harrison’s conduct
has been based on deception and deviousness’ (Churchman, 2016). The work that she claimed was done
by the three fictitious companies was either not done, or done by Harrison herself as part of her salaried
role, by someone on her team or by another provider. While her offenses were described by Peter Mersi,
Matthews’ replacement at the ministry, as ‘sophisticated, highly manipulative and planned over a five-year
period’ (Ministry of Transport, n.d., d), aspects were poorly executed. A search for the companies involved
showed that they were not listed in business directories. Both Mazarine Associates and EJW Consulting had
the same bank account number and postal address and either no, or very rudimentary, websites. All of the
emails from Sharp Design to Harrison were sent in the evening or on the weekend, from Harrison’s email
address (Deloitte, 2016).
Harrison’s misconduct extended to not declaring a conflict of interest with Patrick Sharp, her husband at the
time. She was instrumental in securing three paid roles for Mr Sharp, in which he received ministry funds
(Deloitte, 2016). In November 2016, Harrison pleaded guilty to three charges of dishonestly using a document
and was subsequently sentenced to three and a half years in jail. The court heard some of the stolen money
was used to pay off the mortgage on her home; as she had then transferred ownership to her husband, the
home could not be used to make reparation (Radio NZ, 2017).
The Aftermath
In the aftermath of Harrison’s fraud being discovered, attention focused on why it had been possible to
continue for so long. Peter Mersi commissioned two reviews into ministry processes: one into its contracting
and payment controls and the other into its employment screening practices, but these did not relate
specifically to Harrison.
In early March 2017, Opposition MP Sue Moroney pressed for an investigation of claims that former staff,
each with more than 20 years of service with the ministry, had been made redundant as a result of their efforts
to draw attention to Harrison’s non-compliance (McCulloch, 2017). Mersi did not believe an investigation into
the restructure was warranted, but State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes, who leads the organisation
responsible for providing oversight of New Zealand’s public sector, took a different view. Hughes appointed
former Deputy State Services Commissioner Sandi Beatie to investigate. She found four staff members –
three finance staff and one legal – who had raised concerns about dubious invoices and travel by Harrison
and were subsequently disadvantaged in their employment. Only Employee A made a formal protected
disclosure, but others had raised issues in the course of their work. Beatie found Employee A would ultimately
have been made redundant when an automated invoicing system was introduced but was exited months
Page 7 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
earlier than necessary, based on Harrison’s recommendation. Employee B was rightfully due an additional
payment that Harrison blocked, under the pretext of following a policy that did not exist and advice from the
Chief Executive that she did not obtain (Beatie, 2017).
Learning the Lessons
In light of the Harrison case, Beatie recommended processes related to employees making protected
disclosures be reviewed. While staff understood they could raise concerns, not all were clear about how
these would be treated. Some individuals described blowing the whistle as the ‘nuclear’ option and feared the
repercussions for doing so.
After receiving Beatie’s report, Peter Hughes said ‘it is vital that public servants can raise concerns about
suspected wrong-doing safely and without fear of punishment or reprisal’. He further noted that in terms of
wrong-doing ‘it probably won’t be an agency’s senior leaders, or the Serious Fraud Office, or the SSC,that
notices it. It will be other people within the agency who realise something isn’t adding up’. He apologised
to the four disadvantaged former staff, thanked them for their service and said they must be compensated
(Hughes, 2017).
The Officers of Parliament committee ordered a report by former high-ranking public servant Sir Maarten
Wevers into Matthews’ suitability to be Auditor-General following allegations about his handling of the fraud.
Matthews requested that the committee commission the review. The report was delivered in June 2017, and
Matthews was then given an opportunity to comment on its findings. Before the Committee completed its
inquiry, Matthews tendered his resignation. The MP in charge, David Carter, announced only a two-page
summary would be made public (Small, 2017). PSA national secretary Glenn Barclay was angry the full report
was withheld, saying the public needed reassurance the appointment of Matthews as Auditor-General had
been sound (Small, 2017).
Around the same time as the Beatie report came out, Griffith University released its Whistle While They
Work 2 survey of protected disclosure regimes in Australia, conducted in conjunction with New Zealand’s
Ombudsman and Victoria University of Wellington (Brown & Lawrence, 2017). It was the first survey to rank
whistleblowing processes across New Zealand and Australia. The New Zealand public sector fared relatively
poorly. Of the 10 Australian and New Zealand public sector jurisdictions that responded, New Zealand’s public
organisations – central and local – ranked near the bottom, at eighth. Current legislation was described as
‘weak, patchy and outdated’ (Cann, 2017).
While reviewing whistleblowing legislation and its processes was an important step, the events raised other
issues that were not well canvassed in the aftermath. Did Harrison’s role in organisational development and
change give her licence to flout the ministry’s rules? Had the inability of Matthews’ and others to see through
Harrison been influenced by her promoting him as a transformational Back to the Future leader and her
performance in other areas? Or were what appear now to be obvious warning signals only clear with the
benefits of hindsight? Harrison had produced exceptional staff engagement survey results, but was there a
dark side to the apparent cult-following by her staff?
Discussion Questions
• 1.
Why is the ability for employees to ‘blow the whistle’ important for the reputation of organisations?
Consider this in relation to the case.
• 2.
What aspects of the ministry’s culture made it more/less likely that staff concerns about Harrison
would be taken seriously?
• 3.
What actions would you take to develop a culture at the ministry that encourages and rewards
employees who speak up about inappropriate behaviour?
• 4.
What elements of Harrison’s leadership style characterise her as a transformational leader? Did this
Page 8 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
influence the likelihood of her offenses being uncovered?
• 5.
Harrison sought to encourage Matthews to adopt a transformational leadership style in implementing
change at the ministry. How might this have contributed to him not detecting her fraud earlier?
• 6.
Some of the events at the ministry took place against a background of planned change. Do you think
uncertainty created by the organisational change made it easier for Harrison to perpetuate her fraud?
Note
1. The PSA is the New Zealand Public Service Association, the union representing public servants.
Further Reading
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership/James McGregor Burns. New York: Harper & Row.
Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right when what you're told to do is wrong. Oakland, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Christian, M. S. , Garza, A. S. , & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of
its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
Garrad, L. , & Chamorro-Prezumic, T. (2016). The dark side of employee engagement. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/08/the-dark-side-of-high-employee-engagement
McKendall, M. (1993). The tyranny of change: Organizational development revisited. Journal of Business
Ethics, 12, 93–104.
Raelin, J. (2018). What are you afraid of? Collective leadership and its learning implications. Management
Learning, 49(1), 59–66.
Schein, E. , Schneier, I. , & Barker, C. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion. New York: Norton.
Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. London: Routledge.
Verhezen, P. (2010). Giving voice in a culture of silence. From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 187–206.
References
Beatie, S. (2017). Report of investigation into whistle blower treatment within the Ministry of Transport.
Retrieved from http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Report-of-investigation-into-whistle-blower-treatmentwithin-the-Ministry-of-Transport.pdf.
Brown, A. J. , & Lawrence, S. (2017). Strength of organisational whistleblowing processes: Analysis from
Australia and New Zealand. Further results of the Whistling While They Work 2 Project. Brisbane, Griffith
University.
Cann, G. (2017, July 4). Kiwi whistleblowers left vulnerable by ‘weak, patchy, and out-of-date’ legislation.
Retrieved
from
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94380278/kiwi-whistleblowers-left-vulnerable-by-weakpatchy-and-out-of-date-legislation
Churchman, P. (2016, July 6). Report of investigation into Joanne Harrison. Retrieved from
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/ee0186bf0b/Churchman-report-28-09-17.pdf
Deloitte. (2016). Ministry of Transport contracting and payments control review. Retrieved from
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/422b8930ca/Report-of-the-Deloitte-reviewinto-financial-controls.pdf
Hughes, P. (2017, August 2, updated 2017, September 7). The importance of speaking up. State Services
Commission CE Blog. Retrieved from http://www.ssc.govt.nz/node/10551
Hunt, T. (2017a, June 19). Former MoT boss Martin Matthews dressed up as Back to the Future’s Marty McFly
for staff presentation, at suggestion of fraudster Joanne Harrison. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/
dominion-post/news/93716470/former-ministry-of-transport-boss-martin-matthews-dressed-up-as-back-tothe-futures-marty-mcfly-for-staff-presentation-at-suggestion-of-fraudster-joanne-harrison
Hunt, T (2017b, July 20). Fraudster Joanne Harrison and the Ministry of Transport’s caravan of love. Retrieved
from https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/94917859
McCulloch, C. (2017, March 10). Call to investigate if fraudster forced out whistleblowers. Retrieved from
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/326267/call-to-investigate-if-fraudster-forced-out-whistleblowers
Ministry of Transport. (2017). Enabling New Zealanders to flourish: Annual report 2016/17. Retrieved from
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/68513e8a7d/Annual-Report-201617.pdf
Page 9 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
SAGE
© Debbie Gee and Todd Bridgman 2019
SAGE Business Cases
Ministry of Transport (n.d., a). Documents released by Ministry of Transport under Official Information Act.
Retrieved from http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/824e179b56/3-Employmentby-MOT.pdf
Ministry of Transport (n.d., b). Documents released by Ministry of Transport under Official Information Act.
Retrieved from http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/bfd8bc1602/2-Investigationand-dismissal.pdf
Ministry of Transport (n.d., c). Documents released by Ministry of Transport under Official Information Act.
Retrieved from http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/cc6a9700de/4-Contracts-andcompliance-issues.pdf
Ministry of Transport (n.d., d). Documents released by Ministry of Transport under Official Information Act.
Retrieved from http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About/Documents/c5de4eb663/Harrison-casedocuments.pdf
Moir, J. (2017, March 9). Transport Ministry boss: Worker who stole $725k was too ‘sophisticated’ to
be stopped. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/90239274/transport-ministry-boss-workerwho-stole-725k-was-too-sophisticated-to-be-stopped
Radio NZ. (2017, February 21). Former senior ministry official jailed for $723k fraud. Retrieved from
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325023/former-senior-ministry-official-jailed-for-%24723k-fraud
Small, V. (2017, August 4). Auditor-General resigns, saying his position is ‘untenable’. Retrieved from
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95411616/auditorgeneral-resigns-saying-his-position-untenable
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526496720
Page 10 of 10
Taken for a Ride: Fraud at the Ministry of Transport
Purchase answer to see full
attachment