Malicious Compliance

Jason Koebler writes for 404 Media about the rising popularity of the Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Koebler takes a cheekily sarcastic tone in his final paragraph.

It is impossible to say why this book is currently going viral at this moment in time and why it may feel particularly relevant to a workforce of millions of people who have suddenly been asked to agree to be “loyal” and work under the quasi leadership of the world’s richest man, have been asked to take a buyout that may or may not exist, have had their jobs repeatedly denigrated and threatened, have suddenly been required to return to office, have been prevented from spending money, have had to turn off critical functions that help people, and have been asked to destroy years worth of work and to rid their workplaces of DEI programs. Maybe it’s worth wondering why the most popular post in a subreddit for federal workers is titled “To my fellow Feds, especially veterans: we’re at war.”

Some of the recommendations from the decades-old manual fit with what would be described as “malicious compliance.” Tom Nichols dives into this tactic for The Atlantic (gift article). When someone in the Air Force removed references to the Tuskegee Airmen in a training course to comply with new anti-DEI orders from the executive branch, Senator Katie Britt took issue with the interpretation of the order.

Britt referred to this kind of action as “malicious compliance,” meaning a kind of opposition through aggressive and sometimes overly literal implementation of a command or policy. Rather than refuse to obey, the person or group engaging in malicious compliance takes a kind of “monkey’s paw” approach, implementing the directives as destructively as possible. (Every teenager who has loaded the dishwasher improperly on purpose, hoping never to be told to clear the table again, knows what malicious compliance means.)

Nichols makes the point that the very orders themselves are so vague and tinged with malice, that it’s hard to call an act like this into question. Interpretation of these hastily executed orders is challenging, at best, and it seems difficult to pin anything underhanded on someone if they seem to be overshooting the intent.