Tactics Used to Retaliate Against Whistleblowers and Cover Up Evidence of Wrongdoing

(Previously published here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tactics-used-retaliate-against-whistleblowers-cover-up-nelson-twdpc/)

I. Tactics of whistleblower retaliation:

1) Marginalizing: Physically isolating whistleblowers, stripping them of their duties, and/or giving them menial tasks (Garrick. 2018, p. 40; Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 26); Gjøvik, 2023).

2) Double-binding (the converse of #1): Setting whistleblowers up for failure or psychological or physical injury by overloading them with unmanageable work while failing to provide necessary support and then “accus[ing] them of failing or finding some fault with what they did” (Garrick, 2018, p. 46) and firing them (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 26; Gjøvik, 2023).

3) Subjecting whistleblowers to disparate treatment in pay, benefits, privileges, and discipline: Depriving whistleblowers of equitable pay or benefits offered other workers and mistreating them via the tactics on this list, baiting them until they lash back, and then firing them when they finally do. (Ahern, interviewed by Oransky, 2018; Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 22).

4) Gaslighting: Minimizing or trivializing whistleblowers’ concerns about misconduct and retaliation, inappropriately questioning their memory or perception of documented events (Garrick, 2018, p. 35), and responding to whistleblower complaints with “willful blindness to evidence and stonewalling” (Ahern, interviewed by Oransky, 2018). This tactic is “associated with bullies, sociopaths, narcissists, and emotional abusers who want to deflect their own wrongdoing and belittle or degrade the intelligence of their victims” (Garrick, 2018, p. 35).

5) Accusing: This technique may involve “developing counter accusations of insubordination, misuse of funds, or unauthorized use of vacation/sick leave to discredit the whistleblower or to justify causation for termination” (Garrick, 2018, p. 48). It may also include manufacturing personal or professional problems (Garrick, 2018, p. 48; Gjøvik, 2023), creating a false record of misconduct against whistleblowers and misrepresenting as “problem employees” those with a previous “history of sterling performance evaluations” (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 22). Smears “of alleged misconduct similar to what the whistleblower is exposing are not uncommon” (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 20).

6) Devaluing: Managers may be “dismissive of whistleblowers’ work products or ideas as inferior in front of others (eye-rolling, watch-checking, talking over them)” (Garrick, 2018, p. 40), minimize whistleblowers’ contributions/accomplishments or credit them to someone else, apply higher standards than are applied to others, and/or give whistleblowers unjustifiably downgraded performance evaluations after they report wrongdoing (Garrick, 2018, p. 43; Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 22).

7) Shunning: Ostracizing whistleblowers by excluding them from meetings and decisions that impact their work, sending the message to others that “this person is ‘not important’ or ‘tainted’ and to stay away from them” (Garrick, 2018, p. 41). Other staff members become afraid to associate with whistleblowers, who “report being labelled as troublemakers, complainers, disgruntled, disloyal, tainted or otherwise painted in a bad light to ruin their reputation among their peers or other managers” (Garrick, 2018, p. 42).

8) Mobbing: Creating a ‘mob mentality’ that involves “spreading rumors, humiliation in front of others, and dismissiveness of the employee who blew the whistle” and “incentivizes others to ‘gang up on’ the whistleblower” (Garrick, 2018, p. 37). This behavior “heightens the sense of self-preservation of an expanding pool of co-workers who can be pressed into being co-conspirators or hostile to the whistleblower without knowing all the facts of the case” (Garrick, 2018, p. 37).

9) Blackballing/Blacklisting: Paralyzing or destroying whistleblowers’ careers by depriving them of fair credit for their work, denying them promotions for which they are well-qualified, giving them bad references, or blacklisting them (Garrick, 2018, p. 47; Devine & Maassarani, 2011, pp. 28-30). Garrick (2018, p. 47) notes that “it can be difficult for the whistleblower to leave the office or the organization that perpetrated the wrongdoing since the whistleblower’s reputation has already been harmed by previous devaluing tactics,” and once whistleblowers have been fired, they may not be able to continue working in their profession “because future hiring managers will question the exiting circumstances of previous employment” (Garrick, 2018, p. 43).

10) Gagging whistleblowers by threatening to fire them or sue them for defamation, violating non-disclosure agreements, or “misappropriating company property/proprietary information” presented as evidence of wrongdoing (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, pp. 31-32).

11) Forcing whistleblowers to quit (constructive discharge/dismissal): Creating such a hostile work environment that whistleblowers are forced to resign, a situation termed “constructive discharge” or “constructive dismissal” in employment law (Garrick, 2018, p. 44).

12) Firing whistleblowers, eliminating their jobs, or laying them off even as others are being hired (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 27).

13) Deliberately injuring or killing whistleblowers (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, pp. 26-27; Garrick, 2018, p. 51; Gjøvik, 2023)

II. Tactics used to cover up both corporate misconduct and whistleblower retaliation:

1) Preventing the development of a written record of reports of company misconduct by insisting on keeping such reports oral (Devine & Massarani, 2011, p. 38)

2) Falsifying whistleblowers’ employment records to deny benefits or justify adverse actions (V.A. whistleblower Westervelt mentioned by Ahern, interviewed by Oransky, 2018)

3) Destroying electronic and hard copies of any documents referencing company misconduct (Devine & Massarani, 2011, p. 38)

4) Separating expertise from authority, ensuring that corporate loyalists, not whistleblowers with industry-specific expertise, make all important decisions (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 33)

5) Institutionalizing conflicts of interest by putting the business leaders committing misconduct in charge of investigating whistleblowers’ reports of this misconduct (Devine & Maassarani, 2011, p. 34)

References:

Ahern, K. (2018). Institutional betrayal and gaslighting: Why whistle-blowers are so traumatized. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 32(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000306

Devine, T., Maassarani, T. F., & Government Accountability Project. (2011). The corporate whistleblower's survival guide: a handbook for committing the truth. Berrett-Koehler.

Garrick, J. (2018). Whistleblowers of America peer support mentor training manual.

Gjøvik, A. (2023, April 30). Whistleblowers are the conscience of society, yet suffer gravely for trying to hold the rich and powerful accountable for their sins. LLRX (Law and Technology Resources for Legal Professionals). https://www.llrx.com/2023/04/whistleblowers-are-the-conscience-of-society/

Oransky, I. (2018, July 30). How institutions gaslight whistleblowers—and what can be done. Retraction Watch). https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/30/how-institutions-gaslight-whistleblowers-and-what-can-be-done/