Antecedents and Outcomes of Retaliation Against Whistleblowers: Gender Differences and Power Relationships

TLDR

Whistle‑blowing is an influence attempt that can succeed, fail, or provoke retaliation, and this study examines its antecedents and outcomes. The study tested whether women experience more retaliation than men by applying gender and power theories to data from military and civilian employees at a large U.S. base. Women were more likely to perceive retaliation, with gender differences in antecedents and outcomes revealed by structural equation modeling; for men, lack of support and low power predicted retaliation, while for women, lack of support, serious wrongdoing, and its direct impact on the whistleblower did, and retaliation harmed supervisor relationships for both and increased women’s future whistle‑blowing via external channels.

Abstract

Whistle-blowing represents an influence attempt in which organization member(s) try to persuade other members to cease wrongdoing; sometimes they fail; sometimes they succeed; sometimes they suffer reprisal. We investigated whether women experienced more retaliation than men, testing propositions derived from theories about gender differences and power variables, and using data from military and civilian employees of a large U.S. base. Being female was correlated with perceived retaliation. Results of structural equation modeling showed significant gender differences in antecedents and outcomes of retaliation. For men, lack of support from others and low whistleblower's power were significantly related to retaliation; for women, lack of support from others, serious wrongdoing, and the wrongdoing's direct effect on the whistleblower were significantly associated with retaliation. Retaliation in turn was negatively related to relationships with the supervisor for both men and women, and positively related to women's—but not men's—decisions to blow the whistle again, using external channels. We finish by discussing implications for theory and practice.