Stressful Impact on Families of Whistleblowers

Brian K. Richardson

Whistleblowing is dangerous decision-making. That’s no secret. What might be news to some people is how death threats, which do happen, not only impact the person coming forward to communicate concerns and fears, they too adversely affect families in powerful ways.

“Organizational whistleblowers routinely encounter retaliation such as job loss, ostracism, intimidation and death threats which can impact their ‘master status’ or core identity,” according to a recent study.

The research, “Death Threats Don't Just Affect You. They Affect Your Family: Investigating the Impact of Whistleblowing on Family Identity,” was conducted and authored by Brian K. Richardson, a professor of communications studies at the University of North Texas.

"Thirty one individuals, including 15 whistleblowers and 16 family members of whistleblowers, were interviewed for this study,” the summary reads. “Data analysis revealed three family identities emerged from whistleblowing experiences: affirmed families, wounded families, and fragmented families.”

Richardson talks to Communication Intelligence about the inspiration and commitment for pursuing this topic and angle.

“I’ve conducted studies on whistleblowers and their experiences in past research projects. One constant refrain in my interviews with whistleblowers were mentions about how the process had affected their families,” he says. “To that point, no one had systematically examined how a whistleblower’s particular experiences might affect their family members.”

He elaborates to further detail how families naturally get included in the punishments for whistleblowing.

“There is a concept called ‘spillover,’ which describes how experiences from our work can spill over into our personal lives and vice versa,” Richardson says. “Using that as a framework, I was curious about how whistleblowing experiences might spill over into the whistleblower’s personal relationships.”

Clearly important work and there were findings that stood out to him.

“I was surprised by how much the whistleblowing experience has affected some families. In some cases, the whistleblowing caused conflict within marriages and was linked to divorce in one situation,” Richardson says. “In other families, the whistleblowing significantly impacted relationships between whistleblowers and their parents and whistleblowers and their children.”

He witnessed powerful emotion during the course of his work.

“Some of my interviews with the whistleblowers were tough to get through as several participants broke down and struggled to discuss how traumatic the experience had been,” Richardson remembers. “That said, many families survived the whistleblowing experience and have turned the page on that chapter.”

He observed how certain decisions and practices influenced families reactions and responses.

“I noted various communication practices may have played a role in how families navigated this challenging time,” Richardson says, going on to explain, “When families were adaptable in how much they discussed the whistleblowing and when they negotiated how much social support to provide the whistleblowers, they seemed to manage the process more effectively.”

At the same time, “Too much talk about the case can emotionally flood the family and consume all of their interactions.”

Yet going silent on the reality isn’t the answer, he learned.

“No discussion of the case at all can place all of the burden on just the whistleblower. It’s too much to be handled alone.” Richardson says, leading him to a conclusion. “The recommendation based upon my study would be for families to openly and regularly discuss how much they should talk about the experience.”

In the course of the research, the unexpected did arise.

“I was a bit surprised about the extent some family members experienced long-term trauma even when they weren’t the ones who blew the whistle,” Richardson says.

“I recently learned of the term generational trauma, which describes how trauma can be passed within families from one generation to the next, for example, in the families of Holocaust survivors,” he explains, adding that, “Some families in my study seemed to have carried the trauma from the whistleblower to their children, such that the children were still dealing with the psychological toll of the experience years later.”

In short, “This finding indicates just how jolting this experience can be for whistleblowers and their families,” Richardson points out.  

As mentioned earlier, family identities resulted from the experiences.

“The three family identities that emerged in the study were labeled affirmed, wounded and fragmented,” Richardson details, going on to detail them:

“The affirmed families seemed to have managed the whistleblowing experience in ways that allowed them to stay true to who they were. Even when the experience was traumatic at times they were able to eventually overcome it and turn the page on what was likely a difficult chapter in their family history.

“The wounded families were very traumatized by the experience and still struggled to make sense of it. Family members had different takes on the experience and often disagreed on what it meant for them. Some also had regrets about whether and how much they had supported the whistleblower.

“For example, one wife of a whistleblower still feels bad years later that she did not offer her husband the types of support he obviously needed during this stressful time.

“Finally, fragmented families were fundamentally — and negatively —transformed by the whistleblowing experience. This transformation included divorce, estrangement from children and shifting the balance of power in the family.

“In one case, the husband of a whistleblower did not support her, even mocking her in front of others for speaking out against wrongdoing. Without her husband’s support during this trying time, the marriage eventually failed,” Richardson says.

Richardson formed conclusions from the stories and data and he talks about the good that can come from what the research revealed.

“Awareness of what whistleblowers risk to do the right thing is important and my study shines light on how whistleblowing can have deleterious effects on families,” he says. “It also includes advice about how families can use communication to manage or alleviate some of these problematic outcomes.”

At the same time, he adds, “awareness is not always enough.”

Richardson explains what should be obvious yet isn’t practiced.

“What whistleblowers really need is support from others and I hope this research encourages people to support whistleblowers, for example, by following their cases, contributing to their legal funds and signing petitions in their support, as appropriate for each respective case,” he says.

Richardson tells a story of what could be on the table for discussion to deter egregious reactions to whistleblowing.

“One participant in my study is an attorney. She suggested we need to document how families are affected by organizational retaliation against whistleblowers,” he recalls. “She added that in cases where family members are traumatized, they should be able to join lawsuits for damages against the company.”

His viewpoint on that lawyer’s idea or assertion?

“I would not be surprised if this argument did not gain traction considering how trauma can be transmitted from one family member to another.”