Talk:Malicious compliance

message: 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)
replies: text: Per your comments, I have removed the word. --IO Device (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sabotage ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Don't do it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Letter and spirit of the law]] 

message: Three new examples have appeared since June 2020,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=961803046https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=968781083https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malicious_compliance&diff=prev&oldid=973546150 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)
thread_title:  Original Research Examples 

message: 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)
thread_title:  delete this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critical terminology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence is generally wrong