It’s all about the behavior.
While having coffee with a friend, we were discussing how people behave at work, and he said that he was accused of “malicious compliance.” I asked him to tell me what happened, and he gave the following account: As a young police officer he was asked by his sergeant why he didn’t complete as many field interview (FI) cards as the other officers. My friends response was, “I don’t know how many they do, but I don’t complete an FI card on every person I contact.” The sergeant then said, I want to see an increase in your “F.I.” cards. My friend then told me how he followed “exactly what the sergeant told him to do.” He said that every person he spoke to, he completed an FI card. The people he stopped for traffic; an FI card was completed along with a citation. Every person he contacted on calls; victims, witnesses, suspects, bystanders, anyone, he completed an FI card. In a matter of a few days, he had accumulated more than three hundred FI cards. At the end of the week, he went into the sergeant and turned in all of the FI cards. At first the sergeant responded with a positive reaction and was happy that the officer had followed his instruction. Then my friend told the sergeant, take a look at the dates and times, and see that all of these are also the people he contacted at calls and traffic stops, etc. (which actually defeats the purpose of the FI card and just creates more work for the clerical and statistics units). The sergeant then became angry and accused my friend of “malicious compliance.” My friend then asked me if I thought it was malicious compliance and I said, “Yes.” He then asked me to explain malicious compliance
So, what is malicious compliance, how do we recognize it, and what type of followership is associated with it?
In the book "S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling: Save the Relationship, Change the Behavior," the Behavior Motive Matrix categorizes behaviors based on the individual's awareness (conscious or subconscious) and intentionality (deficient or defiant) behind their actions. One of these combinations is the Conscious-Defiant.
Conscious-defiant behavior is described as a deliberate and aware choice to resist or oppose directives, often in a passive-aggressive or in a manner in which they are attempting to appear non-confrontational. Malicious compliance fits into this category as a form of conscious defiance because, although the employee complies with instructions, they do so in a dysfunctional, undermining, or retaliatory manner knowing that their actions will result in negative or undesirable consequences or outcomes.
What Drives Conscious-Defiant Behavior
Conscious-defiant behavior is driven by an individual's awareness of their actions and the probable consequences that will follow, yet they choose to act in a way that delicately challenges authority without directly violating orders. In the case of malicious compliance, the employee knowingly adheres to the specific instructions given by a supervisor but with the intention of highlighting the flaws in the directive, undermining the authority of the supervisor, or creating additional problems for the supervisor, which aligns with the definition of conscious defiance. The employee's compliance is not sincere, but rather a deliberate, covert form of resistance aimed at causing disruption or forcing a reevaluation of the rules, policies, and guidelines, or challenging the instructions or supervisor directives.
A "conscious-defiant" person's behavior, as described in S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling, does not represent a healthy form of followership when viewed through the lens of Robert Kelley's five followership styles. Specifically, conscious-defiant behavior aligns more closely with Kelley's concept of the "alienated follower" than the "exemplary follower."
Kelley's Five Followership Styles
Kelley (1988) defines five followership styles based on two key dimensions: independent, critical thinking and level of organizational engagement. These styles include:
Exemplary followers: High critical thinking and high engagement.
Alienated followers: High critical thinking but low engagement.
Conformist followers: Low critical thinking but high engagement.
Passive followers: Low critical thinking and low engagement.
Pragmatist followers: Moderate critical thinking and moderate engagement, often shifting between styles depending on the situation.
Why Conscious-Defiant Behavior Does Not Meet the Criteria for Exemplary Followership
An exemplary follower is someone who actively contributes to the organization's goals by using critical thinking to evaluate situations and participating fully in finding solutions, even when they disagree with leadership. Key characteristics of an exemplary follower include:
Critical Thinking: They assess directives and offer constructive feedback or alternatives when necessary.
High Engagement: They are proactive, engaged, and work toward the success of the team or organization, even when facing challenges.
A conscious-defiant follower may exhibit critical thinking in recognizing flaws in a directive or leadership decision, but they fail to engage constructively. Rather than contributing to solutions, they comply in a way that undermines the leader’s intent, often to highlight the flaw or expose inefficiencies. This passive-aggressive behavior disrupts progress and does not align with the constructive nature of exemplary followership.
Thus, while the conscious-defiant person may recognize flaws or problems (demonstrating critical thinking), their failure to engage positively with leadership and contribute to solutions makes them fall short of being an exemplary follower.
Conscious-Defiance is More Aligned with Alienated Followership
Kelley's alienated follower is characterized by high critical thinking but low organizational engagement, which mirrors the behavior of a conscious-defiant person. Alienated followers are often individuals who have been frustrated by leadership, organizational policies, or subjective experiences, causing them to disengage from active participation, even though they are capable of independent thought they may:
Question Leadership: Like the conscious-defiant individual, alienated followers are critical of leadership and may harbor resentment or frustration over past experiences.
Disengage: While they are capable of offering valuable insights, alienated followers often do not contribute positively. Instead, they choose to withdraw from constructive action, either through passive defiance or overt dissatisfaction.
Passively Resist: Instead of aligning themselves with the organization’s goals, alienated followers may engage in behaviors that subtly undermine authority. This could be in the form of malicious compliance—where they follow orders literally but with the intent to expose flaws.
In the case of conscious-defiant individuals, their behavior reflects the mindset of the alienated follower because they deliberately comply in ways that cause problems or highlight inefficiencies, rather than collaborating with leaders to find better solutions. Their critical thinking is not channeled into improving the organization but instead into a passive-aggressive form of resistance that diminishes overall team effectiveness.
A conscious-defiant person's behavior is not a healthy form of followership, as it lacks the proactive engagement and constructive problem-solving that defines an exemplary follower. Instead, this type of behavior aligns more closely with Kelley's alienated follower—someone who is critical of leadership but fails to contribute meaningfully to organizational success. The critical thinking component is present in both, but without the active engagement towards the organizational goals, the conscious-defiant follower undermines leadership rather than supporting or improving it.
How Conscious-Defiant Behavior Relates to Malicious Compliance
The Behavior Motive Matrix helps clarify that malicious compliance is a sophisticated form of defiance, where the individual balances between obeying the “letter of the law” while undermining its “spirit.” Because the person is aware (conscious) of their behavior and the possible consequences, and they choose to defy or resist the expectations. This behavior allows the individual to maintain an appearance of compliance while simultaneously expressing their disagreement or dissatisfaction in a way that subtly challenges authority.
Malicious compliance in a work setting refers to a situation where an employee deliberately follows the literal instructions or orders given by a supervisor or the organization, knowing that doing so will lead to undesirable or negative outcomes. The employee adheres strictly to the letter of the rule, policy, or directive without regard for the spirit or intent behind it. This often results in inefficiency, problems, or even damage, but technically, the employee feels they cannot be faulted because they complied with the instructions given. The conscious-defiant behavior can be seen in the key characteristics of malicious compliance.
Key Characteristics of Malicious Compliance:
There are four key characteristics to malicious compliance. Each of which uses a different approach to resistance.
Intent to Undermine or Highlight a Flaw: The employee typically knows that following the directive will lead to an unfavorable outcome, but they comply to expose a flaw in the policy, create an issue for the supervisor, or out of frustration. It's a passive-aggressive form of rebellion.
Literal Interpretation: Malicious compliance often involves the employee taking the instruction or rule extremely literally, sometimes ignoring common sense or usual practice to highlight the unworkability of the directive.
Following the Rule but Causing a Problem: The employee is technically doing what they were told, but they know that the outcome will cause problems. This may be to make a point, demonstrate the inefficiency of a process, or retaliate in a subtle way.
Passive-Aggressive Response: It's a non-confrontational form of resistance. Rather than outright refusing to follow the directive, the employee complies but in a way that knowingly creates problems.
Examples in the Workplace
To provide some additional context to malicious compliance, here are several examples from different industries:
Overtime Request Gone Wrong: A manager insists that employees must not work overtime under any circumstances, regardless of the present workload. An employee who usually continues to work until all critical tasks are complete, recognizing that the present workload can't be completed in regular hours, stops working as soon as their shift ends, leaving critically important tasks unfinished. In this scenario the employee followed the manager's instructions exactly, but the outcome disrupts operations overall.
Strict Adherence to Documentation Policies: A company mandates that every single step in a process must be documented, “…even for routine tasks that don’t typically require it.” An employee, frustrated by this, begins documenting every minor action in an exhaustive and time-consuming manner. As a result, the employee spends more time in documentation of “every single step in the task,” which causes actual productivity to plummet, but the employee is technically following the policy.
Safety Protocols: A warehouse manager insists that “…all employees wear safety goggles at all times, even when performing tasks where goggles are unnecessary or hinder visibility.” Employees follow the directive precisely, even in non-hazardous situations, resulting in delays or errors in work due to impaired visibility. They even wear their safety goggles during lunch when the warehouse manager is present. They followed the rule, but it now causes inefficiency and displays a huge sense of contempt for the specific manager and the protocol.
Reimbursement Policy: A company has a strict policy that expenses under $100 can only be reimbursed with upper management approval. An employee submits several receipts and reimbursement requests separately, each under $100, even though the employee could have been submitted together as a higher total. The extra paperwork and processing time cause more work and clog up the system, but the employee technically complied with the rule.
In each of these scenarios, the employee motivation, satisfaction and ultimately their performance was impacted negatively and the employee maliciously complied with the directive or policy as a form of resistance or defiance.
Why Employees Engage in Malicious Compliance:
Just like in the scenario that I discussed with my friend; he didn’t like to be told by a supervisor what he was supposed to be doing. So, he did, “exactly what the sergeant told him to do.” Then when he turned them in, he made it clear that he didn’t like being told how to do his job. This is just one of the reasons why employees engage in malicious compliance. A few other causes of malicious compliance may include:
Frustration with Management: Employees may feel that management is out of touch with the realities of day-to-day work or is being overly controlling. Malicious compliance is a way to make management realize the flaws in their policies.
Lack of Voice: If employees feel like their feedback is ignored, they might comply with unreasonable instructions to show management that the instructions don't work in practice.
Exposing Poor Policies: Sometimes employees engage in malicious compliance to demonstrate how impractical or counterproductive a policy or rule is, in hopes of getting it changed.
Retaliation: When employees feel mistreated or micromanaged, they may use malicious compliance as a subtle way of getting back at their supervisors or the organization without openly defying authority.
Possible Consequences of Malicious Compliance
Malicious compliance can have a variety of negative consequences in an organization, as it involves employees following instructions literally but with the intent to highlight flaws or cause disruptions. While the behavior itself may technically adhere to the letter of the law, the effects can be detrimental to productivity, relationships, and even the financial and legal standing of the company.
Decreased Productivity
Malicious compliance often leads to significant decreases in productivity because employees intentionally follow inefficient rules to the letter, knowing it will hinder workflow. When employees strictly follow procedures that are impractical or outdated, they can intentionally slow down processes or avoid finding faster, more effective solutions. This form of passive resistance can create bottlenecks, reduce overall efficiency, and prevent the timely completion of tasks.
For example, if an employee is instructed to follow every step in an unnecessary or convoluted process, they may do so despite knowing a more efficient method exists. By not deviating from the exact instructions given, the employee can slow down operations, negatively affecting both individual and team productivity (Kelley, 1988). This drop in productivity ultimately harms organizational outcomes, as it prevents teams from working optimally.
Damaged Relationships
Malicious compliance can strain relationships between employees and management, as it is often viewed as a challenge to authority. When employees deliberately follow orders in a way that exposes flaws or creates problems, it signals a lack of trust and cooperation. Managers may interpret malicious compliance as a sign of disrespect or passive rebellion, creating tension and reducing effective communication (Fuzie, 2017).
Over time, this behavior can erode the relationship between employees and leaders, leading to mistrust and even hostility. A work environment where malicious compliance becomes common can be toxic, as both management and employees may feel that they are working against each other rather than toward common goals. This tension can further decrease morale and engagement, deepening the divide between employees and leadership (Bies, 1987).
Exposing Organizational Weaknesses
One potential outcome of malicious compliance is that it can expose weaknesses or inefficiencies in organizational policies, leading to necessary changes. While this might be a positive long-term outcome, the short-term consequences can still be damaging. When employees engage in malicious compliance, they are often following poorly designed or outdated policies to the letter, which can reveal their inefficiencies or impracticalities.
As an example, strict adherence to inefficient policies can force management to recognize the flaws in their procedures, prompting them to revise or update the rules (Fuzie, 2017). While this may result in improved processes over time, the interim period can be costly in terms of time, productivity, and employee morale. Additionally, the adversarial nature of malicious compliance can slow the process of change, as managers may initially resist acknowledging the problem if they feel their authority is being challenged.
Legal or Financial Repercussions
In some cases, malicious compliance can have serious legal or financial repercussions for the organization. If employees follow directives that are dangerous, unsafe, or otherwise risky, they may expose the company to legal liabilities. For example, an employee might follow a safety policy that technically meets compliance standards but ignores the practical risks involved, leading to workplace accidents or violations of regulatory standards (Kelley, 1988).
In addition, malicious compliance can lead to financial losses if employees deliberately follow costly or inefficient procedures. This could result in wasted resources, higher operational costs, or missed opportunities to save money. For example, if a company has a rigid policy for procurement or spending, employees might follow these rules without seeking more cost-effective solutions, ultimately harming the company’s financial performance (Bies, 1987).
Malicious compliance can have far-reaching negative consequences, including decreased productivity, damaged relationships between employees and management, exposure of organizational weaknesses, and potential legal or financial repercussions. While it may occasionally lead to positive changes in policies, the costs are often too high, as it disrupts the cooperative environment necessary for a healthy and efficient workplace. Malicious compliance is a passive-aggressive form of resistance where an employee follows instructions to the letter, knowing the outcome will be problematic, in order to make a point, retaliate, or expose inefficiencies in policies or management directives.
Putting It All Together
Malicious compliance occurs when an employee (while acting in a conscious-defiant manner) follows instructions or policies to the letter, knowing that doing so will result in negative consequences. This behavior is a form of passive-aggressive defiance, where the individual adheres strictly to the rules but in a way that highlights inefficiencies or problems, rather than offering constructive feedback.
The act of malicious compliance leads to several detrimental outcomes, such as decreased motivation, satisfaction, performance, and productivity, as employees slow down workflows by following inefficient rules precisely. It also damages relationships between employees and management, as it often signals a lack of trust and creates tension within the workplace. This behavior undermines leadership by passively challenging authority, rather than engaging in healthy, solution-focused followership.
While malicious compliance can expose organizational weaknesses, leading to necessary changes in policy or procedures, this outcome often comes at a high cost. The adversarial nature of this behavior can create a toxic work environment, disrupt communication, and reduce overall morale. Additionally, malicious compliance can result in legal or financial repercussions for the organization if employees follow unsafe or costly directives without questioning them. For instance, adherence to flawed safety policies could lead to accidents or violations of regulatory standards, putting the organization at risk. Ultimately, malicious compliance is not a constructive form of followership and falls more in line with alienated followers who are critical of leadership but disengage from positive participation (Fuzie, 2017; Kelley, 1988).
References
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319.
Fuzie, C. (2017). S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling, Save the Relationship, Change the Behavior.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.
Comments