Monday, May 01, 2006

Malicious compliance

Submitted by Anonymous:

This is in response to the last "talk" by Michael R. Anastasio, President, LANS, LLC, and LANL Director Designate.

Clearly Dr. Anastasio is totally clueless about what happened at Rocky Flats with the gun-ho retired admirals came charging in to "save" that DOE facility and proclaimed "Zero Tolerance" for misdeeds:

Malicious compliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Malicious compliance is a phrase used to describe the behavior of a person who intentionally inflicts harm by strictly following the orders of management, knowing that compliance with the orders will cause a loss of some form resulting in damage to the manager’s business or reputation. In effect, this is a form of sabotage used to harm leadership.

By definition, this is true when the following conditions are present:

1. The superior gives erroneous or incomplete orders without knowing the consequences.

2. The subordinate has knowledge of something harmful to the job based on the orders given that the superior knows not.

3. The subordinate strictly follows the orders given to cause the loss.

While most businesses and institutions have policies against sabotage in the work place, this type of behavior is sometimes difficult to control. The origin of this behavior can often be traced back to various issues of jealousy, hatred, greed, retaliation, etc. In some instances, it is done for possible advancement, provided a management job is in jeopardy as a result of the loss.

A related form of malicious compliance is sometimes referred to as work-to-rule. In a work place, it is an action whereby employees work strictly according to the legal terms of their contract of employment or written procedures. In this situation, the strict adherence to the rules set forth by the written job procedures only allow the workers to do the minimum of amount of labor required and no more, resulting in decreased production. This assumes the written job procedure is inadequate to cover all aspects of a job function. This action is a minimal form of a labor strike.


The "honorable" admirals clearly were unaware of the fact that the plant infrastructure was "run into the ground" by Reagan's massive stockpile build-up and little or no budget provided to fix things up or even to maintain buildings, process equipment or gloveboxes!


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?