Norwegian law regulates and prohibits retaliation against whistle-blowers, but there is no conviction so far where a court passes a prison sentence because of such crime. Rather, victims of retaliation have to sue their employer for compensation if they suffer retaliation in the form of job loss or other consequences. This article starts by briefly reviewing literature on retaliation against whistle-blowers. Next, we distinguish between retaliation as concrete, individualized measures and retaliation as a coherent process over time. The process may start with ignorance, move into rejection, and finally sanctions. This article continues by presenting the case of two whistle-blowers in a Norwegian municipality who have experienced retaliation. Then, we apply incident-based and process-based retaliation measures by comparing classifications in groups and stages. This case study is a result of critical, provocative, and confrontational action research.
BDO. (2016). Rapport til kontrollutvalget. Undersøkelse om kjøp av helsetjenester i Grimstad kommune (Report to the control committee. Review of health services procurement in Grimstad municipality). Auditing firm BDO, Oslo, Norway.
2.
BergP. Y. (2018, March10). Politikere i omstridt personalundersøkelse [Politicians in controversial personnel survey]. Local Norwegian newspaper. Agderposten, pp. 10–11.
3.
BjørkeloB.EinarsenS.NielsenM. B.MatthiesenS. B. (2011). Silence is golden? Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 206–238.
4.
BjørkeloB.MatthiesenS. B. (2011). Preventing and dealing with retaliation against whistleblowers. In LewisD.VandekerckhoveW. (Eds.), Whistleblowing and democratic values, international. London, England: Whistleblowing Research Network. Retrieved June 12, 2018, fromhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998293
5.
BjørkeloB.RybergW.MatthiesenS. B.EinarsenS. (2008). When you talk and talk and nobody listens: A mixed method case study of whistleblowing and its consequences. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 18–40.
6.
DurcikovaA.LeeA. S.BrownS. A. (2018). Making rigorous research relevant: Innovating statistical action research. MIS Quarterly, 42, 241–263.
7.
EinarsenS. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379–401.
8.
EriksenB. (2018, February to June). Emails concerning retaliation actions and retaliation processes. Bergen, Norway: Attorney Birthe Eriksen.
9.
GottschalkP. (2017). Silence is golden? The case of two whistleblowers in a Norwegian municipality. Journal of International Doctoral Research, 6, 6–27.
10.
KarlsenK. (2018, February1). Holvik fikk ikke være med på arbeidsmiljøseminar [Holvik was not allowed to participate at seminar concerned with the working environment]. Llocal Norwegian newspaper. Grimstad Adressetidende, p. 14.
LevinM. (2017). Aksjonsforskning som forskning—epistemologiske og metodiske utfordringer [In Norwegian] [Action research as research—Epistemological and methodical challenges]. In GjøtterudH.HusebøJ.Steen-OlsenStjernstrøm (Eds.), Aksjonsforskning i Norge: Teoretisk og empirisk mangfold [Action Research in Norway: Theoretical and Empirical Plurality] (chapter 1, pp. 27–44). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
13.
MeehanJ.TouboulicA.WalkerH. (2016). Time to get real: The case for critical action research in purchasing and supply management. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 22, 255–257.
14.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.ViswesvaranC. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 266–297.
15.
MphoB. (2017). Whistleblowing: What do contemporary ethical theories say?Studies in Business and Economics, 12, 19–28.
16.
NOU. (2018). Varsling—verdier og vern. Varslingsutvalets utredning om varsling i arbeidslivet [Whistleblowing—Values and protection. Notification committee’s inquiry into labor alerting]. Norges Offentlige Utredninger nr. 6 (Official Norwegian Reports No. 6), Oslo, Norway.
17.
RamM.EdwardsP.JonesT.KiselinchevA.MuchenjeL. (2015). Getting your hands dirty: Critical action research in a state agency. Work, Employment and Society, 29, 462–478.
18.
RehgM. T.MiceliM. P.NearJ. P.Van ScotterJ. R. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relations. Organization Science, 19, 221–240.
19.
RothschildJ.MietheT. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to control information about organization corruption. Work & Occupation, 26, 107–128.
20.
SchwenckeE. (2017). Kritisk utopisk aksjonsforskning (CUAR) og utfordringer i deltakende prosesser [In Norwegian] [Critical utopical action research (CUAR) and challenges. in participating processes]. In GjøtterudHiimHusebøJensenSteen-OlsenStjernstrømS (Eds.), Aksjonsforskning i Norge: Teoretisk og empirisk mangfold [Action Research in Norway: Theoretical and Empirical Plurality] (chapter 16, pp. 357–378). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
21.
SkivenesM.TrygstadS. C. (2016). Whistleblowing in local government: An empirical study of contact patterns and whistleblowing in 20 Norwegian municipalities. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39, 264–289.
