'Employee resistance in the workplace is only ever destructive and it should be eliminated by management. Discuss.'
Introduction
To label employee resistance in the workplace as always being destructive is far too simplistic due to the intricate nature of the subject, which can take form in many different ways. Academics such as Pushkala and Anshuman Prasad, as well as Joyce Rothschild and Terrance D. Miethe describe the different elements of resistance within organisations and the reasons for which they occur, many of which are a result of a poor working relationship between management and its employees. Through such a discussion it becomes quite evident that even if management would like to eliminate employee resistance in the workplace altogether, due to its sometimes indirect nature it is a result that is unachievable. This essay will discuss these issues in two sections.
Section One will focus on the writings of Rothschild and Miethe (1994), which address the unsettling aspect of dangerous workplaces and the effects of 'whistleblowing' in such cases. Through an illustrative example involving a female employee in a rubber belt manufacturing company, this section will provide a strong argument for the need for employee resistance, particularly in situations where management are acting in illegal or inhumane ways.
Section Two addresses the issue of 'eliminating employee resistance'. Prasad and Prasad (2000), develops the idea of 'routine resistance', an indirect and often undetectable method of resistance in the workplace. Through analysis of a case study involving a medium-sized Health Maintenance Organisation (HMO) in America, a discussion of the various implications of employee resistance in the workplace will be established.
Section One: Whistleblowing- Standing up for what's right
The statement 'employee resistance in the workplace is only ever destructive' is extremely generalised and flawed, and this is evident for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, to assume that all employee resistance is destructive is a one-dimensional way for management to look at the subject. To truly understand that it is not always destructive requires an analysis into the reasons why such resistance arises. Through such observation, it becomes clear that employee resistance in the workplace comes about for a number of reasons, depending on the individual. In saying this, the grounds for which such tension occurs may differ between companies and individuals, however the basis for all disputes all comes down to the shared problem of the unhappy employee. Due to the way corporations are organised, there is normally a considerable difference between the views of employees and management. Management has to make decisions every day in order to build and evolve the business, with the result not always pleasing every stakeholder. Cost-cutting procedures and other methods to improve efficiency can lead to the loss of or change in employees' jobs which can cause great tension within the workplace. History shows that businesses who truly understand the needs of their employees are the most successful as they are able to get the most out of each individual worker. As Peters and Waterman (1982) propose, companies that 'turn the average Joe and the average Jane into winners' are able to 'achieve extraordinary results through ordinary people.' Unfortunately, this is not the case for most companies, and as a result, employee resistance arises. To say that this resistance is destructive is ignorant; for as successful corporations know, if such discomfort is looked into and solved by management, there can be significantly positive outcomes for the corporation as a whole. For as Rosen (1988) describes it, employee resistance in the workplace is 'an important form of communication'.
Secondly, at the end of the day, management isn't always right. In fact, many companies have acted in illegal and unethical ways over the years, relying on the obedience and compliance of the employee to support their decisions. Joyce Rothschild and Terance D. Miethe (1994) explain how resistance in the workplace can at times be necessary for the overall safety of the employees. Their work, Resistance and Power in Organisations (1994) describes the story of Anne, a 37 year old woman hired in late 1990 as a casting operator for a company that made rubber belts. She was extremely grateful to be employed, and within two months she was promoted to train other staff. In hindsight it was clear that such a promotion was merely a managerial tool used to encourage employee obedience (Rothschild and Miethe 1994). After a short period of time, Anne began to experience painful physical symptoms including burning in the nose and mouth, headaches and bone pain. Upon realising that information was missing from chemical drums, she told her manager that she was going to send for it. The manager agreed, however she was dismissed the next day. Anne refused to accept this treatment and contacted other (ill) ex-employees, as well as the local university. Through her resistance to accept such treatment by the company she found out that the company was using 100x the legal exposure to chemicals. As a result of her short period of work at the factory, Anne rapidly developed tumors in her mouth, liver damage, softening skull, and irreversible lung damage.
'I felt so completely victimized by the company. I had been such a trusting person. When they hired me, I thought they had picked me because they could see that I was an intelligent and responsible person. Now I know that when they picked me they were picking out a person to murder.' Anne (in Rothschild and Miethe 1994:263)
Following her dismissal, Anne went public and stood up against the inhumane practices of the factory she was once employed with. This concept of speaking out to the public and becoming a 'political agent of change' is a direct form of resistance known as 'whistleblowing'. It is clear through this example that employees cannot merely accept the actions of management, as it can potentially have serious adverse effects on their health. In this case, Anne saw herself as protecting her fellow colleagues, which is far from being destructive. In fact, this example highlights that employee resistance can actually have the complete opposite effect, not only being productive but also life-saving in extreme circumstances such as Anne's. Furthermore, academic writers such as Bakan (2004) and Morgan (2006) describe the corporation as having 'psychopath qualities', such as a lack of responsibility for its own actions, a lack of empathy and being manipulative. In cases where employees are being manipulated by corporations, resistance through 'whistleblowing' should be more readily encouraged as it is constructive in creating a healthier working environment.
Thirdly, as established, employee resistance normally occurs as a result of an unhappy working environment. For management to label resistance as being 'destructive' is a narrow minded opinion and a clear sign of their blatant insecurity of their power. If we relate to power as our independent possession ' our 'right to manage', for instance - then others seeking to exercise any power can only be read as a diminishment of our position (Knights and Roberts 1982).
'Our central argument is that both management and staff typically act on the basis of a false understanding of the nature of power. Power is typically treated as if it were an individual possession, rather than as a relationship between people. Consequently, managers ignore or attempt to deny their ultimate dependence on staff, and use their power coercively. Staff respond with various counter coercive strategies. The result is a series of vicious circles which seriously undermine the productive potential of the relationship between management and staff.' (Knights and Roberts 1982: 47)
Knights and Roberts illustrate that this view of employee resistance only ever being 'destructive' has developed from issues with management being able to exert and control their power. As mentioned, it is the companies that work alongside their employees to get the most out of their workers that are the most successful. In such cases, management will recognise that employee resistance means that something within the work place is not working and they will look to rectify this. In this way, employee resistance is not destructive at all, but rather constructive as it allows the company to work alongside its employees and as a result, getting the most out of the 'average Joe or Jane' (Peters and Waterman 1982).
Section Two: Stretching the Iron Cage- Resistance in its Different Forms
While it has been established in Section One that employee resistance is certainly not always destructive, this section will bring light to the fact that even if management wanted to eliminate resistance altogether, it is a result that is extremely difficult to achieve.
Organisational scholars regularly refer to the systems of organisational control metaphorically as 'tightening the iron cage' (Prasad and Prasad, 2000). This concept alludes to the fact that management's role has historically been to set boundaries within the workplace, which at times can often feel as a 'cage' for the employees. In instances where the workers feel that their health, wellbeing or even just their comfort within the workplace is being jeopardised, many will instinctively develop a 'resistance' to management. While typically this can involve 'formal modes' of resistance such as worker protests, strikes or boycotts (Edwards and Scullion 1982, Friedman 1977), Prasad and Prasad highlight the concept of 'routine resistance', as developed by Scott (1985). This form of employee resistance is considered to be 'less visible' and considered an 'indirect' form of opposition within the workplace. Examples of such resistance include simple matters such as working slower, interrupting presentations with questions or even dress styles (Prasad and Prasad, 2000). Using the example of dress styles to illustrate how attempting to completely eliminate employee resistance is futile, Gottfried (1994) examines the issue of female service workers dressing abnormally. While under study he was informed by the workers that they were in fact dressing in such a way to express resistance to problems within the workplace, they explained that management were not in a position to argue with them. If the issue was brought up, the women could dispute that their dress code violations were simply mere reflections of personal aesthetic preference, resulting in an awkward confrontation for management (Gottfried, 1994). In this instance, management are not in a position to assume that the workers are dressing in such a way on purpose, as questioning could be offensive to the female employee. This exemplifies the fact that not all resistance within the workplace is controllable, let alone able to be eliminated.
Unfortunately, as modern companies strive to become more efficient, changes to the workplace can often result in the loss of jobs for many employees. A major cause of this is the 'computerisation' of many tasks performed manually by employees. Prasad and Prasad (2000) researched a medium-sized Health Maintenance Organisation in America, which undertook the process of replacing many workplace tasks with computer operations. Upon close study it was clear that the decision to go 'online' did not agree with the preferences of the physicians, receptionists and triage nurses. In response to this, the workers took actions of 'routine resistance' to highlight their discomfort with the new situation. Examples of such indirect and undetectable methods of resistance included:
'Carelessly leaving half-empty coffee mugs and Pepsi cans close to keyboards, where they were frequently knocked over by someone else. Other acts of ''careful carelessness'' included ''forgetting'' to turn the computer terminals off at night, sticking pieces of chewing gum on the terminals, ''forgetting'' to save important information on the new database, misfiling certain pieces of information, and washing the computer screen with a strong household cleaner (Ajax) in order to get rid of a smudge.' (Prasad and Prasad 2000: 397)
As Prasad and Prasad's studies highlight, employee resistance is not only inconvenient for management but it can also be quite costly. Hence, the argument that employee resistance must be eliminated may be a fair statement, however due to its sometimes indirect nature; the task of looking to completely remove all forms of resistance is not a practical one. Instead, in order to turn employee resistance from being 'destructive' to 'constructive', management within corporations needs to act responsibly by finding out what causes these problems and then by working with the employees to fix it.
Interestingly, Prasad and Prasad (2000) describes the results of one method of trying to eliminate employee resistance; where management merely turns a blind eye to various incidents within the workplace in order to try to improve the situation. In the case of the HMO, management attempted to promote stability within the workplace by ignoring unpunctuality, minor errors in appointment sheets and allowing more flexible work schedules (Prasad and Prasad, 2000). As a result of this form of management, the problems within the staff were not fixed and this reached a pinnacle when computer equipment was completely destroyed by a plumbing leakage. By brushing off the incident as an 'accident', management in the HMO did not eliminate the resistance at all, but simply continued to avoid acting in any sort of resourceful manner.
In summary, employee resistance cannot simply be 'eliminated'. Rather, the underlying problems causing such resistance can be addressed and fixed instead. By fixing the issues that make employees unhappy, management will produce a healthier workplace. In this way it is clear that employee resistance in the workplace should never be shunned or considered 'destructive', but instead individual feedback must be embraced in order to move forward as a successful corporation.
Conclusion
This essay argues that employee resistance is not a destructive concept, but a natural result of ineffective management and an unhealthy working environment. It is clear that the companies that not only embrace employees' opinions but are proactive in fixing any problems within the work place are the most successful.
Section One focused on arguing that employee resistance is not in fact destructive, but can rather be constructive if taken seriously by management. This point was extended to a discussion of the negative consequences of merely accepting orders within the workplace. As highlighted in the work of Rothschild and Miethe (1994), a failure to question management in peculiar circumstances can potentially have hazardous impacts on one's health.
Section Two highlighted that to simply state that employee resistance within the workplace must be 'eliminated' is a situation that is rarely achievable due to its often indirect nature. While it is true that it should be 'eliminated', this can only be achieved through fixing the problems causing discomfort in the working environment. As Prasad and Prasad (2000) explain, ineffective management of such a situation by simply 'turning a blind eye' as was the case in the Health Maintenance Organisation is completely hopeless.
