No Author Journal Title CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV CHAPTER V

1 Kate Kenny, Business Mental Health Resources Question: Theory: Variable: Research: Conclusion:
Marianna Ethics as a Weapon: What form does power Whistleblowing is now Twenty-two whistleblowers People reported negative The aim of this article was
Fotaki, Whistleblower take in situations of globally accepted as an in the USA, also a impacts to their well-being to investigate dynamics of
Stacey Retaliation and retaliation against effective instrument for psychiatrist and resulting from organizational power in whistleblower
Scriver Normative whistleblowers? battling corruption. Their psychoanalyst with direct retaliation, often in terms of retaliation, particularly in
Violence clear importance for society experience of working with a sense of self that was falling relation to exclusion and
notwithstanding, whistleblowers. apart. A common retaliation stigmatization, as it is
Resources Objective: whistleblowers can often find in whistleblowing cases performed via mental
Intra- and Inter-psychic themselves the target of involves either being illness. The findings from
affective and ambivalent retaliation with their Measurement: dismissed, or being pressured the study’s empirical data
attachments to organizations. - to resign after having spoken drawing on a recent, in-
organizations influence ‘Whistleblower retaliation’ is up. These whistleblowers depth exploration of
the use of normative an organizing concept in the describe the various ways in whistleblowers experiences
violence in cases of literature that encompasses Sample: which they were actively demonstrate how and why
whistleblower research on methods by We began with ‘cold positioned in relation to they are caught in a ‘double
retaliation. which whistleblowers are reading’ of the transcribed mental health discourses, by jeopardy.’ On the one
published for disclosure. data by Researcher 3 who their organizations. They felt hand, whistleblowers are
Types of retaliation can range has broad knowledge of that the aim was to connect retaliated against because
from job loss to demotion whistleblowing but who them to mental health issues of their disclosures, which
and decreased quality of was not involved in data and thus to discredit their harms their mental health
working conditions. collection. The aim was to claim. This was made more and well-being, and they
allow commonly expressed complex still by the perceived are then seen as unreliable
concepts and themes to stigma relating to mental and untrustworthy outcasts
Hypothesis: emerge. These included health. because of the suffering
- self-perceptions, support that the wrongdoing
systems, personal qualities organizations inflicted upon
and impacts, with mental them in the first place.
health as a subtheme of the On the other hand, they
latter. The next stage rely on the mental health
involved delving deeper discourse to draw attention
into the theme of ‘mental to their plight and to
health’ in the context of defend the validity of their
exclusion and ostracization claims. However, by
by examining the data framing their
pertaining to this. postdisclosure experience
in terms of the existing
discourses on mental
health, whistleblowers are
made unwittingly complicit
in their own subjectification
/ oppression by retaliating
organizations.
The overall result can be a
diverting of attention away
from serious wrongdoing
and onto the individual,
despite whistleblowers’
disclosures representing
one of our most important
bulwarks against
organizational wrongdoing.
 Suggestion:
-

Limitation:
However, by framing their
postdisclosure experience
in terms of the existing
discourses on mental
health, whistleblowers are
made unwittingly complicit
in their own
subjectification/oppression
by retaliating organizations.
The overall result can be a
diverting of attention away
from serious wrongdoing
and onto the individual,
despite whistleblowers’
disclosures representing
one of our most important
bulwarks against
organizational wrongdoing.
Academic research can
further exacerbate this
problem. Yet as the
performative power of
discourses is indeterminate
and unstable, researchers
working closely with
whistleblowers have the
potential to disrupt and
overturn these from within.

2 Heungsik Business External Resouces Question: Theory: Variable: Research: Conclusion:

Park, Brita Ethics Whistleblowers’ How the bullying of Many studies have 72 External Korean Frequency and distress of External whistleblowers are
Bjørkelo, Experiences of external whistleblowers’ documented the extent to whistleblowers bullying by colleagues was exposed to higher levels of
John Workplace was influenced by factors which whistleblowers the highest for the action retaliation than internal
Blenkinsopp Bullying by such as the support they suffer from hostile behavior Measurement: “being ignored or excluded” whistleblower (see, e.g.,
Superiors and received from (retaliation) in the workplace This study used the and “having insulting or Dworkin and Baucus 1998),
Colleagues government after disclosing wrongdoing, Negative Acts offensive remarks made and our data suggest they
or NGOs? with workplace bullying Questionnaire-Revised about your person, your may also be exposed to
potentially a systematic and (NAQ-R), with slight attitude or your private life” higher levels of workplace
enduring form of retaliation. modifications, to measure respectively, but the lowest bullying (see also Bjørkelo
Resouces Objective: Bullying behavior that frequency and distress of on the action of “threats of 2013). However, less has
Relevant whistleblowers suffer may be bullying suffered by violence or physical abuse or been known about the
literature on workplace unique in being retaliation- external whistleblowers actual abuse”. nature of workplace
bullying and related, that is at the in the workplace. bullying, as perceived by
whistleblowers’ opposite end of ‘predatory Participants were Respondents reported the external whistleblowers.
experiences of negative bullying’ directed at presented with the 24 most support from family Despite the limitations
or retaliatory actions and employees that did not do items and asked to members (m = 4.14), acknowledged above, this
developed anything to deserve it. There indicate: “Over the last 6 study adds practical
three hypotheses, which is strong evidence that
revealed that external external whistleblowers (i.e.,
whistleblowers those who blow
experienced work- the whistle to recipients
related bullying by outside of the organization)
superiors and social suffer
relation-related and the greatest level of
person-related bullying retaliation but the extent to
by which this retaliation takes
colleagues more the form of workplace
frequently, and found it bullying has not been widely
more distressing, than studied.
other types of workplace
bullying.
Hypothesis:
Jackson et al. (2010) found
whistleblowers suffered an
exceptionally severe
breakdown in working
relationships, including
hostile responses,
marginalization, and
exclusion in most interactions
with other employees in the
workplace. Dworkin and
Baucus (1998) reported that
although external
whistleblowers “are more
effective in eliciting change”
they suffer more “extensive
retaliation than internal
whistleblower”. Bjørkelo and
Matthiesen (2011,p. 135)
documented that
whistleblowing and bullying
are related, and there is
preliminary support for
interpreting whistleblowing
as a risk factor for later
exposure to bullying. In a
whistleblowing situation,
superiors’ bullying may
potentially initiate other
people’s bullying behaviors
towards whistleblowers, as
their role and asymmetrical
position of power “allows”
colleagues to engage in
bullying, rather than
discouraging them from
attacking whistleblowers
months since you were followed by colleagues’ information to the
identified as a person who understanding literature about damages
disclosed wrongdoing of the whistleblower’s that whistleblowers suffer
within the organization, reasons for acting, support after exposing wrongdoing
how often did each event from NGOs, and finally by exploring bullying
happen to you?” as well as support from government. behavior by superiors and
to “How distressed did you colleagues and the severity
feel as a result of the event perceived by
at your workplace?” whistleblowers and the
Participants were asked to impact on bullying by
rate items for bullying colleagues of superiors’
frequency on a 5-point bullying and support for
scale: 5 = almost every day; whistleblowers from inside
4 = one to three times per and outside organizations.
week; 3 = one to three We found that bullying by
times per month; 2 = one to superiors had a close link to
three times for 6 months; 1 bullying by colleagues.
= never, and for distress Colleagues’ understanding
from bullying on a 5-point of the whistleblower’s
scale (4 = extremely reasons for acting had a
distressed to 0 = not at all significant effect on
distressed). lowering frequency of
bullying by colleagues while
Sample: government and NGO
First, we compiled a list of support were insignificant.
whistleblowers that
disclosed wrongdoing in the
workplace to the media or Suggestion:
authorities outside the -
organization using the
databases of major daily
newspapers covering the
period 1992–2013. Next, Limitation:
we traced addresses or -
contact numbers through
multiple sources: former
colleagues and friends, civic
groups advocating
whistleblower protection,
social networks on which
whistleblowers share their
experiences, and articles
from newspapers and
magazines that featured
stories about the
whistleblowers. We
screened out those who did
meet this criterion through
a simple initial question
“Did you quit your job
shortly before or after
blowing the whistle?”