This chapter has provided a review of the various dimensions on which the outcomes of public interest whistleblowing can be measured. It has also provided new insights into the ways in which different types of outcomes interact. For example, substantive outcomes have a strong relationship with whistleblower satisfaction. Satisfaction could have a strong relationship with treatment by management; and treatment by management clearly has a strong relationship with the messages about the wisdom of reporting that whistleblowers are likely to transmit elsewhere through the organisation.

The findings of this chapter suggest a number of lessons for public sector whistleblowers and managers. First, when the outcome of whistleblowing is known, it is often likely to involve a finding that wrongdoing has occurred. Second, many such findings will not be accompanied by change within organisations, or at least the change seen as desirable by whistleblowers. Third, this contradiction is a deep source of potential frustration for many whistleblowers, given their frequently strong beliefs in the need for effective action commensurate with the truth of their allegations. Fourth, this frustration is likely to involve negative changes in whistleblowers’ relationships with others in their organisations. Fifth, most whistleblowers nevertheless do not suffer direct reprisals or bad treatment at the hands of others, even if their overall experience is stressful, negative or causes problems in other ways. Sixth, those who do suffer reprisals suffer from actions that are difficult to prove, certainly to any criminal threshold. These are more likely to result from the actions of managers than from colleagues or co-workers.

The lessons for managers begin with the fact that they need to be recognised as very significant players in producing better or worse outcomes. As the first port of call for most whistleblowers (see also Chapter 4), they are in crucial positions to shape the outcomes of whistleblowing. Managers need to be aware that outcomes are more important than processes for most whistleblowers. The outcomes of an initial investigation of a wrongdoing report are also only rarely likely to be improved by later investigations. The treatment of whistleblowers by managers has important effects on whether or not whistleblowers view the outcome of their reporting of wrongdoing in positive or negative terms. While some organisations are clearly having success in preventing or containing whistleblower mistreatment, others are clearly struggling. Finally, any assumptions by managers that little can be done to protect whistleblowers or prevent workplace problems associated with reporting appear to be seriously misplaced and likely to only contribute to adverse results. All of these points suggest that public sector organisations need to pay careful attention to the training of managers and the development of more effective systems for the handling of wrongdoing reports.