Tone from the Top Matters

Foreword

Victor Munro, Executive Director, Canadian Insider Risk Management Centre of Excellence (CInRM CoE)

The outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election raises profound questions about insider risk management and the integrity of democratic institutions. The re-election of Donald Trump to the highest office in the United States (U.S.) underscores the influence of leadership on organizational and societal values. This situation presents critical challenges for both public and private sectors, as the "tone from the top" has been proven to shape the behaviours and decisions of individuals in positions of trust. In light of this, insider risk practitioners must grapple with the potential for an erosion of ethical standards, increased rationalization of misconduct, and the heightened difficulty of enforcing accountability in environments influenced by questionable leadership. The consequences extend beyond national borders, with potential implications for international alliances, information-sharing frameworks, and global trust in democratic processes.

The Canadian Insider Risk Management Centre of Excellence encourages diverse opinions concerning the mitigation of insider threats and the fostering of critical discourse. Points-of-view (POV) represent the perspectives of our contributors and may not be representative of the CInRM CoE.

Tone from the Top Matters

Supt. Denis Desnoyers (retired), Associate Instructor, CInRM CoE

Anyone with even the slightest awareness of world events can not avoid what is happening to our neighbours to the South. Those events prompted me to write the following Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail which they printed in their Saturday November 16th, 2024 edition. It read as follows:

The great thing about being retired after more than 34 years of sitting in the saddle, is that I get to have an informed opinion. Witch hunts and righteous indignation have been the shields Donald Trump used to notable effect. While I try to maintain the detached objectivity of an outsider, I cannot help taking exception to Trump’s claims.

Having built and overseen more than my fair share of fraud and corruption cases, I am keenly aware of the challenges involved in bringing a case before the court, let alone one which results in a conviction. For starters, everyone needs to recognize and play by the rules, while remaining in their respective lanes. The premise is quite simple - elected politicians make the laws, law enforcement enforce the laws, the court render verdicts, and corrections carry out sentences. Obviously, additional checks and balances exist within each of those lanes.

Once evidence is fully gathered, a prosecutor must be convinced the case is solid enough to lay charges. Then, and only then, that evidence must satisfy a judge or jury of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Speaking from experience, fraud and corruption cases often take two or more years to investigate, particularly if the cases are sensitive and complex. Thus, years of training and experience are required to develop the requisite skill set to lead these types of cases. However, not everyone wants to work these cases as a wrong step can quickly result in an abrupt end to an otherwise promising career. Faced with these challenges, picking cases to work on is paramount. Like most modern law enforcement agencies, the RCMP do their best to be intelligence—led. In this context, they dedicate resources where they will have the greatest deterrent impact with a reasonable expectation of successful conviction.

Keeping that in mind, what are we to make of Donald Trump’s behaviour? As president, he implored his followers to travel to Washington on January 6th, 2020, and “fight like hell”. In his words, it was “going to be wild”. From all appearances, his ‘disciples’ did go wild and fought like hell. As a result, many people were injured and even a few died. Front-line staff protecting the Capital could not have anticipated the threat originating from within, notably from their own Commander-in-Chief.

While the nexus of criminality clearly played out on international television broadcasts, it would have been next-to-impossible for US authorities not to take notice. Impeachment hearings, civil actions and criminal investigations ensued. While some people were held accountable, others rallied to Donald Trump’s endless stream of spin. In fact, so many Americans rallied to his side that he is now President-elect Trump. It is particularly noteworthy that in the interim, he was criminally convicted for trying to cover-up by paying hush money as well as being found culpable in a civil sexual assault case.

Trump has repeatedly stated he will go after all those who opposed him and pardon those who supported him. Having witnessed Trump’s previous presidency, there is every reason to believe his public statements and ‘threats’ of action will hold true. By way of example, Trump singled out Jack Smith for ‘special treatment’. Smith is a federal prosecutor who was working outside of the U.S. on January 6th and was selected because of his skill set and impartiality. He is a man who was virtually plucked out of obscurity and returned to the US to lead an investigation into Trump’s alleged criminal actions. This included Trump’s alleged misappropriation of top-secret files while in office and keeping them in his Mar-a-Lago home despite the government’s repeated efforts to have them returned. Heaven knows if malicious foreign powers succeeded in obtaining the contents of those classified materials from the unsecured location (supposedly, a washroom in Mar-a-Lago). To date, from all appearances it appears Jack Smith did his job with aplomb.

Jack Smith is not the only person singled out. New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan Justice Arthur Engoron, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and others were simply doing their job within their jurisdictions. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, were also doing their job as voices of opposition - a core function of political discourse in a democracy. That said, they are now certain to face Donald Trump’s retribution. In the event it is not direct retribution, they most certainly will face ongoing aggression from Trump’s extremist followers. Further to this, Trump has indicated that he intends to slash the public service, including the Department of Justice and the FBI. While these are important considerations in the effort to balance budgets, they are most concerning when done through a lens of retribution.

Tone from the top is a concept I frequently encountered in my career in Canada. Whether I investigated cases involving workers, middle-management, government or business leaders; the tone from the top was always reflected in the organization’s culture and in the values of its employees. If there was a bad apple in an ethical, well-run workplace, the case quickly came together aided by clear policies, cooperative witnesses and a mutual interest to get to the truth of the matter. Conversely, when the tone from the top was less than ethical; when rule breaking was ignored or worse, part of the norm, it was near impossible to build cases. In short, the tone from the top, influences the choices individuals make. They are more apt to rationalize an ill-advised course of action when presented with an opportunity within the workplace because they are following ‘less-than-desirable’ behaviour demonstrated by superiors. As such, the ‘domino effect’ takes root and instances multiply.

Now that the ultimate tone from the top has been set by the world’s most powerful man, who is left to fight the good fight? What checks and balances remain? The American people have elected politicians for the next four years. Law enforcement, the type who pursue serious fraud and corruption cases, must certainly be disheartened.

In the lead up to the election, the US Supreme court ruled the presidents are to some extent, immune – suggesting that they exist above the law. It has been reported public trust in the U.S. Supreme court, whose appointments have devolved into a partisan exercise dominated by conservative justices, is at an all time low. One judge appears to be in a conflict of interest by accepting several noted benefits and whose wife was active in the Republican cause. Further, a flag associated to January 6th protesters, flew at the residence of another conservative judge, with an American flag hung upside down. In high office, the perception of impartiality is as important as impartiality itself. Moreover, with the pardons handed out during Trump’s last Presidency and the pardons promised to his supporters for this upcoming term, faith in the Department of Correction’s ability to carry out sentences is shaken.

When all else fails, we should at least be able to count on the fourth pillar of democracy: the media. Sadly, there are no guarantees there. Between the dilutionary effect of social media and Donald Trump’s continuous condemnation of mainstream media as fake, news agencies face unprecedented challenges just to remain afloat. In particular, newspaper companies continue to trend downwards as their subscriber base dwindles.

Where President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address stated “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” appealed to Americans’ better angels, Trump’s dialogue has been with the lowest denominator of human flaws. In Haiti and Afghanistan, clear links exist between high office holders and violent gangs and their war lords. Somewhat similarly, Trump and his inner circle’s words have an exaggerated influence on his more extreme followers. There have been several examples where Trump verbally assailed an opponent, who was ‘coincidently’ then subject to either a violent attack or at minimum, hostility by Trump supporters.

One thing is clear, the stage is set for considerable change in the United States, and by extension, the world. Some of the changes might turn out to be good. Who knows? Maybe somewhere in all the chaos, the voices of the downtrodden, disenfranchised poor who voted for Trump, will finally be heard. With Donald Trump’s affinity for indignation and grifting, a more likely outcome would be a continuation of the anarchy affectively sustained since 2016.

With a convicted felon as its leader, the United States’ influence in the world must be in question. Will the remaining partners of the Five Eyes (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) be as willing to freely share critical military intelligence if Trump is going to treat it with absolute disregard? Will other democracies look to the US for leadership if its president’s overarching priority is America First?

For all of Trump’s talk of rooting out the nefarious machinations of the deep state, I believe the real insider risk lies with those who feel empowered to follow his lead. Like a million grains of sand on a beach, people will follow Trump’s endless waves of self- absorption. People in positions of trust will mirror Trump’s inclination for defiance from within and rule breaking. Regrettably, as has been proven time and again - the tone from the top will inevitably trickle down.