Talk:Malicious compliance

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 March 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled

This article is a pleasant surprise. It's good to see that Wikipeida is making progress in organization theory-related topics.

To anyone interested, here's my tangent: Someone should start a page Wikipedia:Malicious compliance describing some of the harmful effects this practice has here on Wikipeidia (the exploitation of Wikipedia processes and policies by POV-pushers to wear down resistance from other editors). 172 | Talk 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little late for this, but that sounds a lot like wp:Gaming the system. AlexWangombe (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't a more appropriate example of malicious compliance be found than CNN's pre-war propaganda against Iraq? The example cited was genuine compliance, not malicious.75.90.18.246 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there aren't any more appropriate examples because the concept itself is flawed - it seems to imply that, in order to NOT be malicious, you have to be ever-ready to disobey a boss's direct order because YOU think it might be more harmful and less helpful than the BOSS thinks it might be. <sarcasm>In general, bosses LOVE this attitude, and large corporations love it more.</sarcasm>140.160.105.111 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in many cases (especially in higher-paying jobs - or rather, ones that can not be automated easily) that implication would be correct, although it is usually best to advise the boss and attempt to get the order rescinded or altered first. For instance, there's been much written about how one duty of US soldiers is to disobey unlawful orders. Granted, bosses in general hate that attitude, but what is an employee to do when the order that comes down will clearly have negative apparently-unintended consequences (for example, due to particulars the employee is aware of that the boss might not be), and the boss is unwilling to consider any alternatives the employee might suggest (or worse, the boss appears likely to punish the employee for suggesting alternatives or mentioning said anticipated consequences)? Winged Cat (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways to interpret maliciuous compliance. It's not really about obeying or disobeying a direct order. The whole idea is that you are obeying it by the letter or by intent, as pointed out in the article as well. So by looking at intentions, then malicious compliance is the disobeying of orders, not the other way around.

For example, I heard stories of technicians at factories (from my electrical engineering students who worked part-time), who dislike the engineers (the white-collars) and will often do exactly what's written in the documentation (be it an assembly instruction or measurement instruction etc), in such a way that the outcome is not what was intended. They have enough experience to know when to correct slight mistakes in the original document (the engineer is still unexperienced), or when to fill in gaps that the engineer didn't think were important, but they choose not to.

It would be really nice if actual detailed stories could be put here. I'm quite sure the thing exists but it's always kind of stories you just hear or you experience but can't write down... Hoemaco (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does this match up with Malicious obedience? --MakerJayPer (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage ?

Wikipedia calling "work to rule" a form of sabotage is the kind of opinion that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Doing exactly what management asks as opposed to what you had been doing, which had been actually breaking the rules, is not sabotage but instead stopping to extend a favor to management. A favor they just didn't know they had. This is what happens when management squanders the good will of its employees 72.53.96.54 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments, I have removed the word. --IO Device (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This got added back, with weasel words. Nobody calls work-to-rule "malicious compliance", or vice-versa. They aren't synonyms or colloquially equated, this is just a lazy slippery-slope argument intended to demonize labor action participants. --2601:140:8000:A739:9889:956C:8217:BA86 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was never removed. User:IO Device removed the word sabotage, not work-to-rule. I've removed the sentence altogether on the grounds that it was unsourced. Some people might consider all forms of industrial action to be malicious, but it is POV for Wikipedia to say so. Participants in industrial action are trying to persuade their company to take some action or other, they are not trying to damage it. SpinningSpark 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

It would be nice to see a few examples. Be it incidents of usage in the real-world or from some fictional work. To have something more concrete and tangible to relate to. -- Frap (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it

Unless you're in the military, such compliance will only come back to bite you later. Your boss will not be happy once the negative events occur. Say no, and do the right thing, not the compliant thing. --IO Device (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of Wikipedia articles are not a forum for discussion, nor is Wikipedia in the business of giving advice. That said, some businesses are run more dictatorially than others. Many a hotel housekeeper, for example, would be called a troublemaker and escorted off the property for doing as you suggest. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should serve as a hint of what is missing and needs to be covered in the article. The advice is not the point. As a general comment, the more you make, the more are the chances that such compliance will come back to bite you, not your boss. --IO Device (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hints are not that useful in the writing of Wikipedia articles. Please be explicit about the changes you would like to see (or better still, show specific changes you would like to make) in the article. Reliable sources are needed for general statements such as "risk is correlated with salary." __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Letter and spirit of the law

The Malicious compliance article is almost a WP:DICDEF. It is a subject we should have on WP, but it should merged into another article, probably Letter and spirit of the law. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. Article Malicious compliance is more than as a dictionary entry. It can be expanded and does not need to be merged. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Examples

Three new examples have appeared since June 2020,^[1]^[2]^[3] all of them are uncited; the only cited example is the original fireman example from before the new ones were added. Other examples from reputable sources—in accordance with WP:OR—should be located, and used instead. (The fireman example can stay, of course) --JRubsWell (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

delete this

this page should be deleted

it's horrifying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:8200:2EC0:F83E:3448:22AB:F1FD (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical terminology

I am only speculating, but I'll bet there's some labor-side literature that disputes the characterization of 'malicious' in regard to most of these behaviors. If it exists, it should be included for balance. 76.69.9.59 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is just commonly known under the term "malicious compliance" that's why it's called that way. It is a way to criticize superiors oftentimes. Nakonana (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is generally wrong

The page begins: "Malicious compliance ... 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." In fact, malicious compliance happens mostly because those complying disagree with their orders. To say that they know there will be negative consequences implies that malicious compliance is always justified. In most cases, it is only an expression of disagreement, based on the failure of management to justify their rationale and listen to objections; and failure of staff to accept their role in adopting their boss's vision. AllenRazdow (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=961803046

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=968781083

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=973546150

[1]

[2]

[3]