Malicious compliance (also known as malicious obedience) is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result. It usually implies following an order in such a way that ignores or otherwise undermines the order's intent, but follows it to the letter. [1] [2] A form of passive-aggressive behavior, [3] it is often associated with poor management-labor relationships, micromanagement, a generalized lack of confidence in leadership, and resistance to changes perceived as pointless, duplicative, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable. It is common in organizations with top-down management structures lacking morale, leadership or mutual trust. In U.S. law, this practice has been theorized as a form of uncivil obedience. [4] [5]
Managers can avoid this by not making excessive, contradictory, or incomprehensible demands of employees as well as clarifying policies. [6]
Malicious compliance was common in the Soviet Union's command economy; examples are used in the studies of behavior, management, and economics to hypothetically show differences between the Soviet command economy and a free market. [7][ unreliable source?]
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of malicious compliance. Among those ventured, a principle characteristic includes establishing 'malice' as a behavior "always meant in some way to damage, humiliate or threaten the established power structure, regardless of what level that may be". [3]
Fundamental to establishing malice is whether there is any financial or other remunerative incentive in acting contrary to good practice, as well as the likelihood of penalties and their severity for non-compliance, both of which mitigate the charge.
Another fundamental characteristic is that the malicious action can be taken without overt risk, as one is complying to the letter of a directive. [3] Nevertheless, repercussions may follow, often indirectly, whether from the supervisor, co-workers possibly burdened by the consequences of malicious obedience, or others higher in the management structure. [3]
The definition becomes grey when countering motivations are introduced, such as complying with what may be construed as a wrong-headed directive with the intention of drawing attention to the consequence, as to highlight an inefficient procedure or the managerial inadequacies of a superior. [3]
Some perceive malicious compliance as a tool for effecting change, such as social change, [8] or meeting goals, such as production quotas, even at the expense of efficiency and the organization. [9]
Other motivations include office politics, jealousy, revenge on a supervisor, [3] [10] and simply "sticking it to" an organization one is unhappy with. [5]
Some possible examples of malicious compliance include:
Malicious compliance is when your boss tells you to do something and you do it even though you know it's not going to have the desired result.
Malicious compliance (also known as malicious obedience) is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result. It usually implies following an order in such a way that ignores or otherwise undermines the order's intent, but follows it to the letter. [1] [2] A form of passive-aggressive behavior, [3] it is often associated with poor management-labor relationships, micromanagement, a generalized lack of confidence in leadership, and resistance to changes perceived as pointless, duplicative, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable. It is common in organizations with top-down management structures lacking morale, leadership or mutual trust. In U.S. law, this practice has been theorized as a form of uncivil obedience. [4] [5]
Managers can avoid this by not making excessive, contradictory, or incomprehensible demands of employees as well as clarifying policies. [6]
Malicious compliance was common in the Soviet Union's command economy; examples are used in the studies of behavior, management, and economics to hypothetically show differences between the Soviet command economy and a free market. [7][ unreliable source?]
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of malicious compliance. Among those ventured, a principle characteristic includes establishing 'malice' as a behavior "always meant in some way to damage, humiliate or threaten the established power structure, regardless of what level that may be". [3]
Fundamental to establishing malice is whether there is any financial or other remunerative incentive in acting contrary to good practice, as well as the likelihood of penalties and their severity for non-compliance, both of which mitigate the charge.
Another fundamental characteristic is that the malicious action can be taken without overt risk, as one is complying to the letter of a directive. [3] Nevertheless, repercussions may follow, often indirectly, whether from the supervisor, co-workers possibly burdened by the consequences of malicious obedience, or others higher in the management structure. [3]
The definition becomes grey when countering motivations are introduced, such as complying with what may be construed as a wrong-headed directive with the intention of drawing attention to the consequence, as to highlight an inefficient procedure or the managerial inadequacies of a superior. [3]
Some perceive malicious compliance as a tool for effecting change, such as social change, [8] or meeting goals, such as production quotas, even at the expense of efficiency and the organization. [9]
Other motivations include office politics, jealousy, revenge on a supervisor, [3] [10] and simply "sticking it to" an organization one is unhappy with. [5]
Some possible examples of malicious compliance include:
Malicious compliance is when your boss tells you to do something and you do it even though you know it's not going to have the desired result.