Software engineers face retaliation for reporting wrongdoing

A study conducted by the British software engineer and data scientist, Dr. Junade Ali, has exposed systematic ongoing bugs that affect software engineers and, by proxy, have the potential to affect computer systems used generally in the public sphere.

53 percent of software engineers surveyed by polling firm Survation say they suspect wrongdoing at work. Of those who speak up, 75% report facing retaliation the last time they reported wrongdoing to their employers.

This equates to ~145,000 active software engineers in the UK who experienced retaliation the last time they reported wrongdoing to their employers.

In cases where software engineers remained silent, the top two reasons were potential retaliation from management (59%) and potential retaliation from colleagues (44%).

As engineers feel unsafe speaking up, the study also found that the “industry standard” metrics used to evaluate software teams are flawed.

While Google’s DORA team has continued to use metrics that prioritize speed (and volume) to measure software teams’ delivery performance, a nationally representative poll of UK adults ranked “getting the latest features as quickly as possible” least important to them, when they use computer systems (22%).

Of the 10 different dimensions measured, the public was most likely to “highly” agree that data security (62%), data accuracy (55%) and ensuring that there are no serious errors (55 %), meant something to them. Out of 8 dimensions, software engineers were least likely to “highly” agree that “delivering work quickly” was most important to their job (33%); instead, being able to provide for their families (52%), provide work that is highly reliable (51%) and ensuring their work kept data secure (47%) came out on top.

Additionally, while recent frameworks have focused on the use of surveys within team settings.

In addition to the risk of retaliation for speaking up, 1 in 6 software engineers feel unable to express ideas or concerns, speak up with questions, or admit mistakes without fear of negative consequences.

READ MORE  Ramay spends twenty years developing digital software for the Quran

Nearly 1 in 4 software engineers said they were unable to take calculated risks without fear of negative consequences. Previous research identified in the study has also shown that “those with the lowest programming skills” are most likely to be most over-optimistic in evaluating software delivery performance in large projects. With 44% of those who did not report wrongdoing citing fear of retaliation from colleagues as a reason, the study highlights the need to ensure that subjective employee feedback mechanisms are not used as a tool for retaliation.

Commenting on these results, Dr. Junade Ali CEng FIET, lead researcher of the study: “Recent developments show the fundamental importance of software engineers being free to raise the alarm when they become aware of potential wrongdoing; unfortunately, our research has highlighted that software engineers are not adequately protected when they need to that.

“From software engineers facing mass retaliation for speaking out and banned gagging clauses still in use, to ‘industry standard’ software development metrics that don’t take into account the public’s appetite for risk; this study has highlighted systematic and profound problems with societal impact, given how integrated computers are in all of our lives.

“Our investigation has shown a tendency for issues to be swept under the rug until they reach boiling point rather than being dealt with, this is neither compassionate nor honest for those involved.”

Some companies have also attempted to circumvent public interest laws by having employees agree to severance clauses stating that they know of no reason to make protected disclosures. Such protected disclosures may include matters related to crime, failure to comply with legal obligations, obstruction of justice, health and safety hazards, or environmental damage.

Despite these bail-out clauses being banned by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2016, the investigation found they continued to be used in a financial institution – as evidenced by a settlement agreement between Worldpay and current BT CEO , Philip Jansen.

READ MORE  Join forces for success: Bluefort and Sysco Software partnership unleashes the power of seamless subscription management

The agreement lists automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure as a “special claim” settled under the agreement, and in return for signing the agreement, Jansen was paid £251,282 in severance pay, of which the first £30,000 was tax-free. over a £20,000 plus VAT contribution towards legal fees, £3,700 plus VAT in outplacement consultancy services and £100 for accepting post-termination restrictions.

Commenting on the settlement agreement between Worldpay and Philip Jansen, Professor Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the University of Exeter, said: “If the clause is in breach of the FCA rules, this is a serious matter which I would expect them to to investigate, identify the responsible senior persons and take appropriate measures.

“Any solicitor beyond their remit and involved in drafting such a clause would, I believe, be expected to advise their clients that such clauses were inappropriate under the FCA rules.”

Recommended reading

In relation to the Worldpay settlement agreement, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said: “It is not clear that any solicitors were involved in this matter. The FCA as Worldpay’s regulator will investigate this matter and if they believed that any solicitors were involved in drafting agreements, who break our rules, they would refer them to us through our agreed channels.”

“We were made aware in 2018 that lawyers could potentially forget their legal obligations when drafting settlement agreements and including NDAs that did not comply with the law. This led us to issue a warning in 2018 that we updated in 2020 to ensure that the profession did not breach its obligations. After all, lawyers should uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.”