Published on: October 20, 2026 at 12:23 pm
Whistleblowers who follow the “if you see something, say something” rule after witnessing unethical conduct too often face retaliation, including termination. But leaders should encourage personnel to speak up internally so organizations can become aware of internal malfeasance and weed out bad actors who create reputational and legal risks.
When people speak up about ethical concerns at work, they are engaging in “moral objection,” wrote Academy of Management scholars Timothy Kundro of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Nancy Rothbard of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in “Does Power Protect Female Moral Objectors? How and When Moral Objectors’ Gender, Power, and Use of Organizational Frames Influence Perceived Self-Control and Experienced Retaliation.”
“Moral objection—taking action to oppose ethically questionable behavior or practices—is a critically important behavior in organizations,” they wrote. “Organizational scholars have called upon higher-power individuals to serve as moral objectors to combat unethical behavior at work because it is assumed they will face less retaliation.”
But their research found this assumption does not hold for women in higher-power positions.
Retaliation for moral objection not only damages whistleblowers’ careers, but also harms their organizations. The authors identified four steps that leaders can take to reduce retaliation for moral objection in ways that ultimately benefit their organizations:
Source: Shutterstock
1. Encourage all moral objectors, regardless of gender and structural power, to use an organizational frame when raising moral objections
“This will ensure that gendered outcomes are reduced and will increase the receptivity of moral objections from lower-powered individuals, as well,” they wrote.
Source: Shutterstock
2. Train employees at all levels to use organizational frames, and provide examples of how to frame common moral objections
Rothbard said that the key for professionals who witness unethical or illegal conduct is that they raise the moral objection in a way that makes clear that their intent is on behalf of the organization, rather than furthering their own agenda. “When you state the underlying reason why you’re engaging in the moral objection, a lot of the problematic effects that we saw in studies tended to go away,” Kundro said. “Instead of observers assuming that you lack self-control for speaking up about these issues or engaging in moral objection, they develop a more positive perception of you. “Regardless of gender, regardless of structural power, individuals who frame their moral objection as intending to benefit the organization and its members consistently were viewed as higher in self-control and consistently faced lower levels of retaliation than their counterparts, who use standard moral objection frames,” he said. “So, practically, we think it’s really important for organizations to make this the norm so as not to put the onus on women or those who are lower in power, but rather to ensure that all the moral objectors are using these types of frames.”
Source: Shutterstock
3. Help employees recognize their own biases and learn to reframe the moral objections they encounter
“Debiasing, although difficult, may be accomplished through formalized channels, such as holding a workshop that asks employees to engage in perspective-taking about why employees might want to engage in moral objection,” they wrote.
Source: Shutterstock
