What the Google case reveals about the nature and impact of whistleblowing

The tricky business of whistleblowing has hit the headlines again following a senior Google employee’s claim that the tech giant made her redundant after reporting a colleague’s misconduct.

Victoria Woodhall told a London-based employment tribunal that she was subjected to a campaign of retaliation on informing her boss of the colleague’s behavior, which included sexual harassment. The colleague was later dismissed for gross misconduct following an internal investigation.

Google denies that Woodhall, former senior industry lead at its UK Sales and Agencies team, was made redundant due to her whistleblowing activity. Instead, it claims she became “paranoid” and that she lost her job as part of a regular business decision to close the department. The tribunal has yet to rule.

According to Dr Enya Doyle, Founder of harassment prevention consultancy Enya Doyle Consulting, this kind of whistleblowing scenario is quite a typical one in that it is based on wrongdoing, a systemic abuse of power or perception of such. But she adds:

What’s interesting about the Google situation, and it’s not common, is that it was brought by a senior person. When people bring cases, it’s generally junior colleagues who are paid under £30,000 ($41,470) per year, so it’s those at the bottom of the rung that have exhausted other avenues. You don’t often see a senior colleague reporting misconduct, but you do often see them as the ones being reported.

The dangers of ‘hero cultures’

The usual suspects for this reporting include senior leaders, senior managers, and high performers with big portfolios, who have either been at a given company for a long time or generate a lot of revenues. As Doyle says:

They’re usually said to be a ‘good laugh’ or just know they can get away it, and the companies don’t want to exit them because of who they are. They think they can side-move them out of people management or to a non-management position as they’re the best at X and hope it won’t happen again. But it tends to.

In other words, a key problem is an imbalance of institutional power. Doyle explains:

There’s a spectrum of things. It starts with jokes and comments, which no one calls out and HR isn’t told. If someone is senior to them, people just tend to laugh awkwardly and even if they feel uncomfortable, they’re unlikely to put their heads above the parapet. So, those doing it continue to push the limits of what’s reasonable. But it’s also a learned behavior. No one would walk into a company and start harassing others unless they continued to get the green light.

Helen Dallimore, a Director and Head of Training at workplace culture change consultancy Byrne Dean, agrees:

Things rarely come out of the blue. It’s usually culture and behavior that’s accepted or tolerated, which results in boundaries being pushed. What happens in the outside world can have an influence too.

A particular issue in the tech sector though, points out Doyle, is that organizations tend to have a “hero culture of individual brilliance”:

This makes people feel untouchable. They’re put on pedestals and then there’s surprise when they fall off them. But they have so much power and access to power that they feel they can do what they like as long as they continue to deliver.

How common is whistleblowing?

As to how many people actually take the step of blowing the whistle on wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior, it is difficult to tell, says Stephen Simpson, a Principal HR Strategy and Practice Editor at HR consultancy, Brightmine:

There’s no official, central whistleblowing body, so employees either have to go directly to their employer via internal reporting channels or, in the case of fraud, they can go to an external organization, such as the UK Serious Fraud Office [or US Department of Justice]. This means you don’t always get a clear picture of what’s happening as there’s no central place to gather figures, and most companies try to keep it internal, although high-profile cases often do come to light.

While UK whistleblowers must be able to show a ‘public interest’ argument to qualify for legal protection, US legislation sets a lower bar. It simply requires there is a ‘reasonable belief’ of serious and substantial wrongdoing.

But although, as Doyle points out, whistleblowing is a fairly uncommon practice, not least because all too many people are unaware of their rights or employer’s policies here, such activity does appear to be on the rise.

The latest figures from UK whistleblowing charity Protect, for instance, revealed that the number of cases it worked on in 2024 increased by 10% to 3,336 compared with the previous year. From 2022 to 2023, the number of cases had also risen by a hefty 23%.

Nonetheless, says Simpson:

Most employees see whistleblowing as a last resort, and organizations encourage concerns to be raised informally. If there’s a positive company culture, situations can be nipped in the bud, but sometimes people just don’t realise the great personal cost it can have as it’s often very stressful, especially if it’s someone you know.

The impact of whistleblowing

The most common reasons people give for not speaking out, according to Dallimore, are fear of retaliation and being required to tell senior managers what is going on. Others include not wanting to create a problem and concern about getting things wrong, particularly if intricate legislation is involved. She explains:

It’s high stakes. People worry it’ll have an impact on their career and that nothing will change anyway, even if they put themselves out there…People are also scared to be called a troublemaker or a snitch. These fears are deeply rooted.

But it also does not help that “senior leaders often close ranks”. The upshot of this, says Simpson, is that whistleblowers:

Pay the price for doing the right thing. Sometimes it’s not necessarily blatant. It can be subtle with people finding themselves gradually ostracized or not being given a promotion or the best opportunities or sales leads. It’s line managers who generally have the power to retaliate, but it does happen among colleagues too.

According to Whistleblowers of America’s global survey, there is often a negative impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing too. Many of those questioned described their whistleblowing experience as ‘traumatic’ and having long-standing emotional consequences, which include depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Nearly 46% even reported having suicidal ideas and thoughts.

About two in five, meanwhile, reported moving or relocating due to retaliation, which included discrimination and workplace abuse. Other common consequences included family discord and unemployment due to people being perceived as troublemakers.

As to why whistleblowers are willing to take such a difficult step given the personal challenges involved, Doyle says:

The main reason is for the greater good as they don’t want the same thing to happen to others. Most people prefer to keep their eyes on the road and carry on, but some people just feel they couldn’t live with themselves if they didn’t do something. So, they persist for a cause that’s bigger than them: they want their company or sector to change, and a major part of that is about institutional accountability.

In a follow-up article, I will explore what employers can do to ensure they get such activity right, particularly in an AI era.