No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Understanding and responding to victimisation of whistleblowers
Abstract
Speaking out in the public interest-being a whistleblower- can be risky. Media reports and public inquiries into allegations of misconduct in the public and private sectors regularly recount the negative consequences that those who make reports in the public interest have experienced-despite the presence of legislation that seeks to prevent reprisals and retaliation for disclosing misconduct. Instances in which whistleblowers have lost employment and careers, suffered harassment and intimidation, and experienced threats or acts of violence continue to occur in Australia. This study sought to understand the nature of victimisation experienced by whistleblowers who had reported or attempted to report wrongdoing in their workplace. Information was obtained from in-depth interviews with 36 whistleblowers and 21 people who dealt with their reports in public and private sector organisations. The results confirm the nature of the harms that almost all whistleblowers experience as a consequence of reporting misconduct. The paper concludes by identifying ways in which whistleblowers could better be protected from victimisation and how the procedures and safeguards involved in the whistleblowing process could be strengthened.
... In a study by Dussuyer and Smith (2018), whistleblowers and directors who managed whistleblower disclosures were interviewed. ...
... These protections are especially important when considering that multiple whistleblowers interviewed in Dussuyer and Smith (2018) were insistent that they did not identify as victims, despite reporting that they had experienced harms once identified as having disclosed wrongdoing. Those who reject being labelled as a victim might be less likely to seek remedies for harms that they face. ...
Best practice principles exist for laws, regulations, and procedures aimed at the protection of those who report wrongdoing. The purpose of this paper is to examine selected legislation containing whistleblower protections that are relevant to those who disclose wrongdoing in British Columbia to determine how well they follow best practice principles. Several best practice principles were reflected in the legislation reviewed, and the introduction of the new Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) in British Columbia is a positive development in the protection of whistleblowers who are employees of the provincial government. However, not all best practice principles are enshrined in the laws examined here. For example, there are still types of whistleblowers that do not have adequate protections, such as private sector workers and those in the public sector who are not employed by a provincial ministry, government body, or office. In addition, though types of protected disclosures have been expanded under the PIDA, there are still some disclosures of wrongdoing that may remain unprotected, such as interference with freedom of information requests. Some issues were also found related to transparency of decisions made about investigations into disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal against whistleblowers, as well as about the accountability of government agencies in protecting whistleblowers. Therefore, some refinements and amendments to whistleblower laws and disclosure management procedures are needed to ensure that adequate protections are afforded to those who disclose wrongdoing in British Columbia.
Once whistleblower retaliation is understood as toxic, the impact and implications of that toxicity needs to be further understood. In reviewing all of the toxic tactics combined, they have a total psychosocial impact on an employee’s legal, financial, social, emotional, and physical well-being. The socioeconomic status of the whistleblower is destroyed, while they suffer prolonged exposure to a hostile environment and animus and become further occupationally impaired. The relationship between the psychosocial impacts reviewed within a whistleblowing framework, where grief, and a potentially morally injurious events (PMIE) demonstrates that the development of mental and physical disorders can be identified as such and codified in assessment tools. This interconnected relationship is demonstrated by the Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist©. Once identifiable as workplace traumatic stress and PTSD, restorative social justice can be achieved through clinical intervention and judicial proceedings that compensate whistleblowers for their permanently disabling pain and suffering damages. For organizations, there needs to be a newfound level of oversight, transparency, and accountability when perpetrators inside their walls cause intentional harm.KeywordsPsychosocial impactEthical dissonancePotentially morally injurious events (PMIE)GriefSocioeconomic statusAutoimmune disordersSubstance abusePTSD
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.