[jstummbillig]

Probably not.

Some people will certainly regard you as a red flag (which is good, because you will not want to work for those) but others will hold you in higher regard or even first get to know of you because of what you did and the publicity surrounding that.

Since job interviews are so much about standing out from all other candidates, having done something outstanding seems like an excellent way to increase your chances of getting a job.

You don't have to be liked by many. You just have to really click with a few. Being meh for everyone is when the job search gets really hard.

[tw1010]

Some might hold you in higher regard, but probably that won't help you much in the interview process. Raw skill is what you'll lean on most of the work day, that's what they'll primarily judge you on. If they have two potential hires with equal skill but one has that on her resume, they'll go with the safer one. (I like Susan, I'm just trying to reason if being a whistleblower truly is benefit or not.) Most (thriving) employers are raw capitalists by selection pressure. Taking on extra risk by letting red flags pass through is not something top teir startups can afford.

[jstummbillig]

"Whistleblower" is not a trait that some humans possess and that you have to begrudgingly deal with or be acutely aware of. No one is manically looking for things to blow a whistle on. They do it in response to (perceived) injustice and overwhelming opposition.

When you hire a former whistleblower you can simply be the judge of that. Do you think this person acted reasonably when they blew said whistle? If the answer is yes, I can not think of a reason why you would not want an independent, courageous and critical thinker/doer working for you, specially if it's a startup.

At least that is what everyone keeps asking for in their job offers.

[decebalus1]

> If the answer is yes, I can not think of a reason why you would not want an independent, courageous and critical thinker/doer working for you, specially if it's a startup.

Risk and trust. I wholeheartedly support whistleblowers and the principle behind it BUT I also understand why a former whistleblower may get rejected because of that. It's all about risk and trust.

Sure, that person was completely in the right and independent, courageous, etc.. but why should I take on the risk that going forward that person would be enabled to decrease the threshold of what is whistleblowing material or have a change of heart wrt to ethics/politics and then going ahead to disclose something which can cause the company financial harm. An example would be the nowadays popular contracts with the government.

Colleagues may have a trust issue with this person. Considering that people may take something the wrong way or misunderstand a comment, etc.., why would I want to interact with someone who can harm my career or make me famous for the wrong reasons? Ever had a colleague which when entering a room everyone became silent? Yeah, that.

Most writings I came across from former whistleblowers acknowledge the fact that it's often career suicide. It's not right, but it's the hard truth. Which makes whistleblowing more admirable IMHO.

[yitianjian]

Also depends on the level you're at. At lower and pure IC levels, sure, but at higher levels hiring C-suite/VP/Director+ is also about changing vision and sending a message. So I can see why having something (that's just controversial and not a pure negative) can be a plus.