Malicious compliance (also known as malicious obedience) is the behavior of strictly following all orders, laws, and rules to the letter; ignoring things that go without saying and doing things only by the book, reducing efficiency. This usually involves going to work on time, leaving on time, and completing lawfully ordained yet unnecessary and usually ignored safety checks. Malicious compliance is a common method by unions when they can not strike and puts emphasis on the unpaid work laborers do for their companies. A form of passive-aggressive behavior, [1] 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, in contrast to civil disobedience. [2] [3]
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". [1]
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. [1] 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. [1]
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. [1]
Some perceive malicious compliance as a tool for effecting change, such as social change, [4] or meeting goals, such as production quotas, even at the expense of efficiency and the organization. [5]
Other motivations include office politics, jealousy, revenge on a supervisor, [1] [6] and simply "sticking it to" an organization one is unhappy with. [3]
Some possible examples of malicious compliance include:
Malicious compliance is common in production situations in which employees and middle management are measured based on meeting certain quotas or performance projections. Examples include:
It has been theorised that managers might avoid malicious compliance by not making excessive, contradictory, or incomprehensible demands of employees as well as clarifying policies. [11]