A new study shows that female whistleblowers face more retaliation than their male counterparts.
Employees who witness unethical behavior at work are reluctant to speak up because they fear retaliation. Now new research suggests that when it comes to blowing the whistle, women may face more retaliation than their male counterparts. However, a slight reframing of the message can reduce the chances of retaliation for both men and women.
New research published in the Academy of Management found that men in powerful positions in organizations are less likely to face retaliation when they speak up and point out moral infractions. But this benefit of power doesn’t apply to women. Women of all levels face retaliation when they blow the whistle at work.
In one experiment, the researchers had participants complete a team project via group chat. During the project, the experimenters had a fake participant named Kevin or Kate raise a moral objection related to the task the group was completing. The study’s lead author Tim Kundro, a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says the objections raised weren’t necessarily illegal or unethical but typically fell into “a moral gray zone.”
The objections from the fictional female participant named Kate (worded identically to those from Kevin) faced retaliation, even when Kate was said to have power in her organization. In contrast, a powerful position helped protect Kevin from facing retaliation when the objection came from him.
“You are a petulant little child. You need to grow up and get a grip,” one participant wrote in response to a concern raised by Kate in the experiment. The researchers believe that women face more retaliation because, in raising moral objections, they aren’t adhering to gender stereotypes. Even though the whistleblowers may feel they are working toward a greater good, others perceive them as putting their own interests first. And women aren’t expected to put their interests first. When women deviate from expectations of how they are expected to behave, they can face backlash and retaliation at work.
Reframing The Objection Helps Eliminate Retaliation
Kundro says the onus should not be on women to alter their behavior to avoid this retaliation. “The onus is on organizations to remove the bias and systematically eliminate this issue,” he says. Nonetheless, the researchers found that if they slightly altered the objection, they could reduce the likelihood of retaliation. When the researchers reframed the moral objections in terms of the benefits to the organization, the retaliation was reduced for both men and women.
In reframing the objection, the participants communicated how they were concerned, not about themselves, but about their organization. They expressed concern about negative consequences that may ensue for the company if the objectionable behavior continued. They added phrases like “because it might come back to hurt the company,” “this could potentially cause issues for the organization and its members” and “to protect the organization and its members.” Study author Nancy Rothbard, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, explained in a press release, “the key is that you are raising the moral objection in a way that makes clear that your intent is prosocial and on behalf of the organization, rather than your own agenda.”
Experts have advised women to implement similar strategies to appear less aggressive and self-interested while negotiating. And Hillary Clinton’s polling team suggested her presidential campaign reframe her ambition in terms of “a desire to serve others” so her ambition would not be perceived as self-interest. Hopefully, soon women will not have to adopt these hacks to fit in at work. But, as long as women are expected to behave consistently with outdated stereotypes, understanding how to reframe messages can preserve the messages’ effectiveness while reducing the backlash.
