Malicious Compliance

I appreciate the interesting comments and suggestions in response to my last post on different levels of felt accountability.  Readers may recall that I proposed -- from best to worst - that a team or organization can be characterized as having people who feel everything from authorship. mutual obligation, indifference, and mutual contempt.  I have especially been thinking about this comment from Justdriven, which builds on a prior comments by AnnieL:

"Regarding your first question, I think AnneL may have identified a fifth category between mutual obligation and indifference which would be fear driven box checking. This would be the case where individuals follow procedures out of a fear of retribution rather than an endorsement of said procedures. This would seem to be what the pilot experienced. This stage would be a slippery slope that takes you from mutual obligation to indifference and then contempt."

I am taken with "fear driven box-checking" as it seems to be both a symptom and a cause, where people who feel powerless have no ability -- and thus no obligation -- to help make things go well because the system makes it impossible regardless of how good their intentions might be.  This comment also got me thinking about how, in some systems, people can zoom past indifference and move to mutual contempt by following the rules exactly as a way to fight back against a bad system or boss -- especially when there are bad standing rules or orders for a given challenge.   "Working to rule" is a classic labor slow down tactic, and there is some sweet revenge and irony when you get back at company or person  that you don't like by following their instructions to the letter. 

More broadly, I have been interested in the notion of "malicious compliance" for a long time.  In Chapter 6 of Good Boss, Bad Boss I wrote about how it is sometimes used to get back at a bad or incompetent boss, or in the example below, by bosses to shield their people from a lousy boss up the chain of command:

I know bosses who employ the opposite strategy to undermine and drive out incompetent superiors. One called it “malicious compliance,” following idiotic orders from on high exactly to the letter, thereby assuring the work would suck. This is a risky strategy, of course, but I once had a detailed conversation with a manager at an electronics firm whose team built an ugly and cumbersome product prototype. After it was savaged by the CEO, the manager carefully explained (and documented) that his team had done exactly as the VP of Engineering ordered, and although he voiced early and adamant objections to the VP, he gave up because “it was like talking to a brick wall.” So this manager and his team decided ‘Let’s give him exactly what he wants, so we just said “yes sir” and followed his lousy orders precisely.’ The VP of engineering lost his job as a result. Again, this is a dangerous and destructive strategy, and I would advise any boss to only use it as a last resort.

I would be curious to hear of other examples of malicious compliance -- and if you have any ideas of how to create conditions so it won't happen. Its is one of this sick but fascinating elements of organizational life.

Comments

[Ccz1]

I don't know if in English this translation makes any sense: zealous strike

In Portuguese is "greve de zelo". Performing a zealous strike is something that fascinates me. People decide to comply with procedures very rigorously and the outcome is a disaster. Not because people are cheating but because it is nonsense to follow a procedure religiously when the context is always changing and requiring a human touch

[Bobsutton]

Paula from Australia asked me to post this interesting comment. She could not do it as she was at work, and her system wouldn't let her:

In the discussion I think there is one thing that is assumed – that is, that processes, procedures and policies guiding workplace activity and behaviour exist. Certainly, the fear driven box-checking exists (been there, done that in a role a few years ago), but there also exists a type of ‘somebody syndrome’ – somebody didn’t tell me what I should do, so therefore I won’t do anything until they do. I think perhaps the United people might fall into this category – it would be interesting to know if the appropriate guidance exists, is clear and unambiguous and is easily accessible for the United people to follow to achieve the correct outcome (which may or may not be palatable for travellers).

I’ve often noticed that when nothing exists to guide people in the workplace, they either (a) make it up, hope for the best, and then attempt to make it a process, procedure or policy so that the same does not happen again; or (b) decide somebody will tell them what to do but in the meantime don’t do anything (and generally assume a helplessness mode of operating).

[Svittitow]

When you are at the bottom of the feeding chain, I don't know if I would consider it malicious as much as self-protective. I was taught that in that situation, simply do what they say and document everything. If you do not do what they say, they can discipline or fire you. If you don't document, there is no way to prove it was not your own misguided decision. It's a last resort, but sometimes it's the only way to protect yourself.

[Kelly Hall]

Malicious Compliance was common when I was in the Navy, lo those many years ago. It was typiclly applied when being micro-managed by an incompetent superior.

The happiest day of my life was the day I was released from 8 years of service to the Navy. I worked for so many asshole bosses, all I really wanted was the freedom to simply leave a bad work environment without being threatened with time in the brig.

[Paul Williams]

Hi Bob,

I'm really taken with this post, and the content is really important to me right now.

You see, I'm about to engage in this "malicious compliance".

I'm a 15 year veteran of the software development industry. My employer is about to engage in a new project to create some new software. I have an idea how this should work.

The company is systematically ignoring or undermining my research and recommendations.

My boss isn't to blame here; my internal customers are really distorting what I'm supposed to be doing in order to advance their agenda.

My internal customers are salespeople, and are selling to the execs what they think should happen.

I'm a great technologist, not a great salesman. I have a hard time refuting such skillfully persuasive (yet inaccurate and distorted) information, especially since I don't have physical access to the folks who are making the decisions -- I'm not invited to meetings, nor am I consulted.

I am simply decided upon (read the same as "shat upon").

So, to paraphrase a good friend of mine: "You want it bad(ly), you get it bad".

So, to try to round this out with a positive note: How to avoid this?

In my case this is driven by a feeling that my expertise, which is considerable, is being ignored or even maliciously twisted. Engage people, seek advise, be inclusive and above all, listen when your experts are telling you that something is wrong.