University of Technology, Sydney
> Individual Essay 2
Employee resistance in the workplace is only every destructive and it should be
eliminated by management. Discuss.
Word Count: 3,295
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305
MAY 18, 2009
This essay will show that employee resistance is not always unfounded: that it is often based on
legitimate reason, is expressed in the most succinct and effective manner possible and can, with
proper management, positively affect the organization. Resistance proves to be both responsive
and targeted, allowing for the gathering and communication of problems with the organization
and possible improvements. Whilst resistance can cause decreasing production in the extreme
short term, the net benefit from increased innovation, communication and morality outweigh
these costs.
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Introduction:
According to Taylor, the “awkward, inefficient, or ill-directed movements of men” caused
the inefficiencies of production (Taylor, 1911, p. 1). This thought crystallises the managerial
zeitgeist from the industrial revolution until the mid twentieth century; the employee a set of
“hands” (Water-Foot Mill, 1851), with all dissent being counter-productive. In turn, this
demonises resistance in a simplistic manner, without factoring in potential for resistance as
constructive, rather than destructive. Modern management theory has criticised the
simplicity of the classical treatment of resistance, stating that it can be beneficial to
organisations if harnessed properly.
This essay will discuss resistance triply:

Section 1 will analyse the reasons for, and methods of resistance in the workplace
(Milgram, 1974; Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

Section 2 will discuss the negative and positive effects of resistance (Taylor, 1911;
Milgram, 1974; Deming, 1982; Rudge, 1990).

Section 3 will analyses several managerial practices regarding resistance (Rudge,
1990; Mydans, 2009).
Through the above, this essay will show that resistance is not necessarily destructive, and
that, at times, it is inappropriate for management to eliminate dissent.
2/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Section 1: Why and how employees resist
Employee resistance is contra to the persistent management theory of unitarism: the belief in
organizations being wholly unchallenged. However, it is clearly representative of the
problem of agency: the employer requires the greatest labour for the least pay; the employee
wants the least work for the greatest pay. In order to bridge this gap, management is required
to apply certain pressures, in the form of management techniques, to increase employee
productivity without sacrificing economy. These artificial pressures include quotas, scrutiny1
and commission as well the institutionalised corporate culture and ethic, with these pressures
stimulating resistance. This section will analyse two key frames of resistance analysis, a
causal analysis posed by Milgram (1974) and a functional analysis posed by Waddell and
Sohal (1998), as well as classifying them by their mode of expression and magnitude.
These pressures, when analysed individually, allow for a causational flow from management
to employee to resistance. However, this analysis would be simplistic, since it does not
account for external pressures, or the factors working to stop an employee from resisting.
Milgram (1974, pp. 132-164) suggests analysis through a balanced flow chart; involving the
inputs of Binding Factors and Antecedent Conditions in creating the Agentic State2, an
equilibrium threatened by the Strain of obedience (see Figure 1).
It is important, here, to define each keyword: a task made easier by applying them to a
case study, such as McIlvanney’s “The Prisoner” (1989), a short story about a prisoner,
McQueen, rebelling against the prison and authority.
Antecedent conditions are those historical factors which allow the “agent” to be
bound to authority: in this case, McQueen’s upbringing in a familial organisation, his
(societally) engrained sense of deference to uniform (the prison guards), and others. Binding
factors are those on which current obedience is reliant: in “The Prisoner”, the fear of
punishment, respect for the Warden, (especially his consistent authority) and the want for
freedom (which only the Warden/the authority can grant). However, in this case, the “strain”
accumulated by consistent obedience dwarfed the antecedent and binding conditions, which
Especially in the Taylorist frame, which works on “observable operational modes and ‘standard’ work rates”,
not to mention being largely enforceable through scrutiny alone (Peaucelle, 2000, p. 455).
2
A dissociative ethical state with almost complete obedience
1
3/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Start
Primary Conditions for Obedience
Antecedent
Conditions (A)
Binding Factors (B)
The Agentic Cycle
Agentic State
Obedient Action
A+B>C
Strain (C)
Consequence
A+B<C
Dissent
A+B<C
Breaking the Agentic Cycle
Resolution of
Strain
A+B<<C
Disobedience
End
Figure 1 - Obedience and Disobedience in the Agentic Cycle (Based on Milgram, 1974, p 154)
4/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
lead first to dissent, and then to complete, calculated disobedience.
The “strain” is unlike binding and antecedent conditions, since it “shows not the
power of authority, but its weakness” (Milgram, 1974, p. 154): for McQueen, it is a building
sense of purposelessness and lack of control caused by intense micromanagement and intense
deprecation. These, in turn, outweigh McQueen’s proclivity to obedience (antecedent
conditions), his respect for the warden, and his fear of punishment (binding factors).
Milgram then suggests that the “Agentic state” of obedience is shattered, and that a
“resolution of strain” (Milgram, 1974, p. 157) is required. He suggests many forms of
resistance that serve this purpose, including, most importantly, dissent3 and disobedience4. In
the case of McQueen, it is clear that direct dissent, as well as disobedience occurs, as shown
in the extract below.
“McQueen. You were obviously unhappy throughout the Christmas meal.
Officer Roberts warned you three times ... and what did you do? At the end of the
meal ... You jumped on to the table and danced through all the other empty
plates ...” (McIlvanney, 1989, p. 59)
The act of resistance is overt and apparently simplistic. However, as a physical act of
self-humiliation and destruction, it served to vent the “strain” of obedience by exaggerating
the humiliation that is required by the organization, as well as individuating the prisoner. In
turn, this prisoner broke the binding factor of the Warder’s authority. Finally, in this case,
McQueen, through resistance, was able to negate hierarchy, and speak to the Warder on equal
terms, allowing for better communication.
Milgram allows for a causal analysis of resistance, deconstructing the factors that
allow for obedience and require resistance.
Weddell & Sohal (1998) analyse resistance by its prospective function. Strategic Direction
(2002) surmises this theory succinctly: with rational, non-rational, political and managerial
functions served by resistance (Strategic Direction, 2002, p. 21). Again, a proper explanation
of this theory requires its application.
3
4
Resistance within the allowable frame of the organisation
Entirely resisting authority either through inaction or direct conflict
5/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
This theory states that resistance occurs for a purpose, and is not solely a reaction to
pressures. Rational resistance seeks to highlight a flaw or offer a suggestion in an
organisation. Non-rational resistance is a product of binding conditions: an unwillingness to
change away from the familiar. Political resistance attempts to “score points” against equals
or superiors. Finally, management resistance attempts to highlight flaws in the managerial
process or status quo (Strategic Direction, 2002, p. 21).
In the case of McQueen, it is clear that he has reason to be dissatisfied. Weddell &
Sohal (1998, pp. 434-435) posit that dissatisfaction is not reason enough for true resistance,
but would only cause dissent. McQueen’s actions, however, are purposeful, with rational,
political and management goals. His resistance is functional and calculated:
“‘You ate the pudding. You ate everything. And then you made your protest.
Why?’...
‘Ah was hungry, sur,’” (McIlvanney, 1989, p. 65)
Unlike an uncalculated and reactive resistance, this was delayed and planned. Here,
resistance is a rational critique of management, suggesting that, not only are conditions bad,
there is a communications flaw that traces back to management. McIlvanney accentuates this
with a blatant criticism the lack of communication between the prisoners and the
management, between whom there are no accessible direct speech channels or intermediaries
“‘you said it yerself, sur. Ye can’t complain to the waiter, can ye?’” (McIlvanney, 1989, p.
64).
A functional analysis of McQueen’s actions highlights that resistance is not
reactionary, but, rather, often planned.
Thus far, this essay has analysed the causal and functional reasons for resistance in the
workforce. However, the method of resistance is also quite important. The dominant factors
in classifying resistance are its compliance with the organisation’s ethical, social and legal
frames and its effect in creating new spheres of influence. To analyse the medium of
employee resistance, three case studies must be analysed: McIlvanney’s story (1989),
Rosen’s critique of corporate culture through the corporate Christmas party (1988) and an
analysis of the English slaughtermen (Akroyd & Crowdy, 1990).
6/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
In “The Prisoner” (McIlvanney, 1989), there are two forms of resistance, one overt
and the other covert: the original ruckus in the Christmas dining hall and the following
conversation with the Governor. The first form of rebellion is explicitly anti-establishment,
deliberately subverting organizational rules. However, this facilitates his discussion with the
Warder, a legitimate for of resistance, where he expresses his dissatisfaction to the highest
authority in the organisation.
In Rosen’s analysis of the corporate Christmas party (1988), there is a sterling
example of institutionalised dissent, creating a “steam valve effect”5. Here, Rosen quotes
Turner (1974) in stating that hierarchy “is all that holds people apart, defines their
differences, and constrains their actions” (Turner, 1974, p. 54), implying that the organization
is well aware of the Strain caused by their hierarchy. To counter this, management allows the
employees to subvert social order in the organised and institutionalised form of Christmas
party skits.
This is in contrast to the case of the English slaughtermen (Akroyd & Crowdy, 1990),
whereby resistance is in response to sub-normal working conditions, as well as the societally
stigmatised nature of their work. Here, whilst their actions6 are morally repugnant and
illegal, they are within the organisational framework7. This creates a sense of camaraderie,
which solidifies the group as a separate organization, creating a group power rivalling the
organization: “the spontaneous formation ... of occupational cultures” with a “strong internal
hierarchy” (Akroyd & Crowdy, 1990, pp. 4, 6). Thus, the English slaughterman are
dissenting, creating a new group-power.
Thus, a classification of resistance through its methods is applicable: whether it is
dissent (within the organisational frame) or disobedience, and whether it is individual or en
mass.
Section 1 has elicited four central points. Firstly, that resistance reflects the health of
management and the concerns of the employee. Secondly, that resistance can be functional; a
5
In Figure 1, this effect is as an institutionalized Dissent, allowing for expression of Strain within the
organisational framework, relieving Strain and returning the subject to the Agentic Cycle.
6
Throwing guts across the room, filling workmate’s shoes with blood, etc. (Akroyd & Crowdy, 1990, pp. 5-8)
7
“[Management allowed for] a distinctly occupational, not organisational, culture” (Akroyd & Crowdy, 1990, p.
4)
7/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
form of communication between the employee and management reflecting concerns, fears or
internal politics. Thirdly, that when resistance occurs, it happens first through the allowable
frame (dissent), and, in the extreme, outside the regulation of the organization (disobedience).
Finally, that resistance can be individual, or (as a greater threat to management) derive its
power from the pack mentality and numerical advantage of groups.
8/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Section 2: The effects of resistance
The dilemma for management arises not in the cause or motivation for resistance, but in its
effects. Classical management theory, represented by “Fordism8”, stipulates a Unitarist
approach to management, that is, the requirement for complete solidarity within
organisations. In deriving this, the Unitarists highlight the negative effects of resistance.
However, contemporary management theorists move away from “Fordism”, towards
“Toyotism”9 (Peaucelle, 2000): requiring the acceptance of resistance as inevitable,
manageable and possibly beneficial. It is critical to discuss positive and negative effects of
resistance on an organisation.
The theories of Taylor (1911), Milgram (1974) and Ackoff (1994) provide a frame for the
analysis of the negative effects of resistance. Taylor’s analysis is superficial, regarding
resistance as a reduction in productivity. Milgram’s analysis develops this, uncovering the
decrease in the obedience subsequent. Finally, Ackoff suggests that resistance increases the
organization’s proclivity towards management (“power over” (Ackoff, 1994, p. 112)), over
leadership (“power to” (Ackoff, 1994, p. 112)).
Fundamentally, Taylor’s theory of scientific management requires the detailed
micromanagement of every stage of the production process. He derives productivity from
this, requiring absolute efficiency in each process (Taylor, 1911, pp. 1-3). Hereby, any
resistance (i.e. the “ill directed movements of men” (Taylor, 1911, p. 1)) subverts this
absolute and scientific efficiency, creating a large opportunity cost for resistance that
traditional managers have avoided.
Milgram puts forth an additional form of inefficiency, supported both by theory
(figure 1) and by experiment (Appendix 1: Table 1, [Experiment 1, 6, 15, and 17]). Here,
resistance compromises the worker’s Binding Factors of respect for the authority of the
manager, fear of repercussions of resistance and fear of change (of authority, of the status
quo, etc.). This, in turn, reduces the forces against resistance and increases the worker’s
chance of resisting. This theory supported by Milgram’s experiments, whereby the
8
The production theory involving the segmentation of the production process into deskilled, repetitive tasks on a
production line
9
Like Fordism but with the increased incentive for expression by allowing each level of production to offer
innovation.
9/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
percentage of subjects being completely obedient drops significantly in response to dissent
(from 65% in Experiment 1 to 10% in Experiment 1710), contradictions or changing
management. Thus, Milgram shows that resistance breeds more resistance, escalating the
problems described above.
Finally, Ackoff suggests that there are two primary forms of direction, “power over”
being management based and “power to” being leadership based, the first more widespread,
but less effective (Ackoff, 1994, p. 115). However, Ackoff also suggests that resistance
breeds increased domination, in turn increasing the amount of resistance in a vicious cycle of
ineffective management. Thus, whereby Ackoff does not suggest that quashing resistance is
optimal, he suggests that resistance disrupts dominative workplace equilibrii.
In summary, the extent of the Unitarist argument is Taylor’s opportunity cost, with
Milgram and Ackoff both accounting for the accelerating nature of resistance’s ill effects.
However, it is critical to note that the loss of non-financial assets (i.e. public standing,
goodwill (Rothschild & Miethe, 1994)) through overt external resistance, such as industrial
action, is also quite substantial.
Whilst the above shows absolute and measureable costs associated with resistance, this essay
will show that the positive effects of resistance outweigh them. These positive externalities
of resistance include the “innovation effect” (Deming, 1982; Rudge, 1990), increasing
communication (Rudge, 1990) the “steam valve effect” (Milgram, 1974), and its flow on
effects (Sievers, 2006; Bakan, 2004) and the increased production associated with
“volunteerism” (Milgram, 1974).
In modern industry, unlike classical production, directors generally hire managers not
from the ranks of workers but from university and other managerial positions. As such,
workers are often more skilled in their field than their managers (Rudge, 1990, pp. 194-196,
251-255). Therefore, since workers are more skilled, it can no longer be the role of the
manager to enforce a static production system. Rather, as Deming and Johnston suggest, it is
the role of the manager to regulate inefficient production, set productivity and quality goals
(Deming, 1982, pp. 3, 11-18) and “teach people to solve problems by [by example]” (Spear,
See Appendix 1: Milgram’s Experiments for an analysis of how Milgram derived these percentages, as well
as a copy of all tables referred to above.
10
10/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
2001, p. 3). If motivated properly, innovation is a product of resistance to current workforce
practice.
“engineers and chemists became innovative, creative. ... They modified the
chemical content of the material used for the coating and found how to use less
and less” (Deming, 1982, p. 11)
Deming’s analysis of the Nashua Corporation, above, highlights the effectiveness of
resistance in production, showing that resistance can have the positive externality of
increased efficiency.
In congruence, Rudge stipulates that within most organisational structures,
communication is adjacently linear vertically11. Rudge models this as the “wheel” of
organizational communication (see figure 2). In this model, the only form of multi-level
communication is unilateral communication from the top level of the hierarchy. Rudge then
states that resistance allows for complete multi-level communication (Rudge, 1990, pp. 210231). Furthermore, as Section 1 has shown, resistance is hardly arbitrary, and the information
communicated could be invaluable.
Figure 212: Wheel of Organizational Communication (Rudge, 1990, p. 216)
Whereas Milgram predicted that resistance would lead to more resistance, his model
also shows the positive effects of resistance as a “steam valve”, releasing pressure and angst
in the organization in a relatively harmless manner. As shown in Figure 1 and the Rosen’s
11
i.e. that a level of management only talks to the level above and below it, and not the others on the same level
of hierarchy
12
In this figure, lines represent communication channels.
11/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
analysis of the Christmas Party discussed above, low-level resistance (dissent) does not lead
to the breaking of the Agentic Cycle, but rather to the reduction of Strain.
Furthermore, the conditions of the Agentic State – unquestioning obedience and moral
disassociation – are not always synchronised with the best interests of the organisation.
Sievers and Bakan (2006, p. 104; 2004, pp. 23-27) suggest that an organization is
uncontrolled13, psychotic and psychopathic14. By breaking out of the Agentic Cycle, an
employee is able to evaluate the actions of the organization externally (Milgram, 1974, pp.
179-190 Epilogue). This corresponds with the “management principles” of Toyota, as
highlighted below.
“Principle 14: Become a learning organization through relentless reflection
(hansei) and continuous improvement (kaizen).” (Brown, 2004, p. 5)
Toyota has attributed much of its productive successes to this “resistance” based
production, whereby employees are encouraged to reflect on the production process and the
organisation from an external viewpoint (Brown, 2004, pp. 2-3). Furthermore, the employee
is able to evaluate his own ideas allowing for strong decisions, without “looking up and
looking around” (Jackall, 1988, pp. 75-76)15.
Finally, Deming’s asserts that freedom of resistance leads to increased volunteerism
(Deming, 1982, p. 3). Milgram describes this effect:
“[In this case] the principle sanctions for disobedience come from within the
person... [they are] not dependent upon coercion, but ... [on] the individual’
sense of commitment to his role. In this sense, there is an internalised basis for
his obedience, not merely an external one”.
(Milgram, 1974, p. 141)
Therefore, resistance has several positive effects on the organization: innovation,
communication, reduced Strain, increasing morality and volunteered, rather than enforced
work ethic.
Or, rather, controlled by “psychotic anxieties ... [and] unconscious fantasies” (Sievers, 2006, p. 104)
As an “irresponsible ... manipulative ... grandiose” which “lacks empathy ... demonstrates anti-social
tendencies ... refuses to accept responsibilities for its own actions ... [is] unable to feel remorse ... [and] relates to
others only superficially” (Bakan, 2004, pp. 23-27, Chapter 2)
15
Judging decisions against the cohort rather than against their merit
13
14
12/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
This section has shown that there are many positive and negative effects of resistance.
However, the considerable increases in productivity available through resistance outweighs
the negative effects, especially since they can be controlled by allowing for official (formal)
channels for dissent rather than allowing for “informal routine forms of resistance [which
are]... less visible” (Prasad & Prasad, 2000, pp. 1, 2) and more difficult to control.
13/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Section 3: Crushing Resistance or Harnessing Resistance
The ways to deal with organisational resistance can be subdivided (Rudge, 1990, pp. 1617)16:
Table 1
Charismatic
(C)
Judgemental
Character of
Intuition
Classical (X)
Control
Process
Traditional
(A)
Strength of
tradition
Degree of
consciousness
Purpose of
Design
Nonreflective
Preserving
status quo
Unpredictable
Calculated
Giving effect
to intuition
Maximising
efficiency
Specific
Standards set
by top
Management
Human
Relations (Y)
Individual
sense of
responsibility;
answerability
to peers
Articulation of
feelings
Maximising
happiness
Systemic (Z)
Conscientiousness
of expert; threat of
non-survival
Highly conscious
Maximising
relevance
Table 1 shows different management theories’ response to resistance. The first three (A, C
and X) have inflexible purposes and controlling processes, in essence disallowing resistance.
As such, they are non-reflexive, unpredictable and immoral (calculated rather than
empathetic) (A, C and X respectively). However, the last two theories (Y and Z) employ
volunteerism and respect to reduce negative feelings within the organization, and have
relatively selfless purposes. Furthermore, these two theories allow for formal dissent within
the organisation, leading to increased happiness and productivity (Rudge, 1990, pp. 211-231).
Discouraging resistance is much more difficult, considering its resilience.
“[the resistance] was induced ... by an emotionally charged consern to preserve
... self-identity” (Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington, 2001)
Management has to contend with the irrationality of dissent, a target much less visible
or tangible than the reasons for their resistance. This difficulty in crushing dissent is
consistent with the cases of revolution and insurgency. Take the example of Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, the revolutionary acting in Burma and Thailand (Mydans, 2009). Here, Burmese
officials crushed Kyi’s rebellion without thought for its purpose, message or what it was
16
See Table 1, below
14/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
protesting. As such, more than a decade after the original revolt, the result is that she is still
in the public eye.
“They are trying their best to put her out of the minds of the people... [They are
having] the reverse effect” (Mydans, 2009, p. 1)
By ignoring her plight and crushing resistance ruthlessly, they extend her power and
increase their political losses.
Harnessing resistance has positive effects. Conversely, summarily crushing resistance
increases the power of those who resist by antagonising their peers. Furthermore, crushing
resistance is, as Burma has shown us, nigh on impossible. Misquoting Star Trek’s fictional
species the Borg, resistance to resistance is, somewhat, futile (Roddenberry, 1990).
15/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Conclusion:
This essay was in response to the statement, “employee resistance in the workplace is only
ever destructive and should be eliminated by managers”. This proves to be false. Section 1
discussed the fact that resistance is not baseless. Here, the reasons for dissent and the
methods of resistance prove informative. Section 2 revealed that employee resistance is not
only destructive. Whilst there were a few negative effects, they are controllable via offering
official means for resistance. Finally, Section 3 evaluated differing management techniques,
showing that those which embraced resistance were often more productive, as well as more
open and moral. Furthermore, it highlighted the difficulty in eliminating resistance at all: if
this were the goal of management, it would hardly be achievable.
Therefore, resistance is not always negative. In fact, it is mostly positive.
Furthermore, management should not, and could not crush it.
16/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Appendix 1: the Milgram experiments
In 1974, Stanley Milgram “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View”, in which the
extent of human obedience to Authority was to be tested. In this experiment, the subject was
to follow the orders of a “scientist” (really an actor); these were to read word pairs to the
second subject (really an actor), and, if required, shock the second subject as punishment.
Furthermore, each shock required greater and greater voltages, with subsequent shocks
eliciting responses of pain from the fake subject, escalating to complaints of heart pain and a
subsequent refusal to participate. The obedience of the subject measured by the level that
he/she was willing to shock the other subject, with the full level, 30, eliciting absolute
obedience.
Whilst many variations on this experiment were undertaken, there are a few especially
relevant to this assignment. Experiment 1 was the classic experiment described above.
Experiment 2 added voice feedback. Experiment 3 added eye contact. In Experiment 6, a
second “scientist” replaced the first half way through the experiment. In Experiment 15, the
“scientists” (in this case, there were more than one) contradicted each other during the
experiment. In Experiment 17, the two actors joined the subject, pretending to be peers, and,
in turn, rebelling during the course of the experiment. The results of the above experiments
shown in Appendix 1, Table 1, below:
Appendix 1: Table 1
<2017 >2018 =3019
Percentage Obedient20
5
35
26
65.0%
Experiment 02: Voice Feedback (p. 35)
10
30
25
62.5%
Experiment 03: Proximity (eye contact) (p. 35)
20
20
16
40.0%
Experiment 06: Change of Personnel (p. 60)
16
24
20
50.0%
Experiment 15: Contradictory Commands (p.
20
0
0
0.0%
31
9
4
10.0%
Experiment 01: Remote (p. 35)
95)
Experiment 17: Two Peers Rebel (p. 119)
Indicating the number of subjects who “disobeyed” before Level 20, Extreme Intensity Shock, 300 Volts
Indicating the number of subjects who “disobeyed” after Level 20, Extreme Intensity Shock, 300 Volts
19
Indicating the number of subjects who did not disobey, and continues through Level 30, “XXX”: i.e. death
implied, 450 Volts
20
Indicating the percentage of subjects who reached Level 30, being summarily obedient
17
18
17/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
From the results of this series of experiments, Milgram was able to deduce the
Agentic theory of Obedience (see Figure 1). Milgram suggests that, in Obedience, there are
two primary requirements, Antecedent Conditions and Binding Factors. Together, these
create the Agentic State, a state of almost total obedience, with moral responsibilities
delegated, the employee becoming an “agent” to the organisation. Here, the employee is
required to do the Obedient Action, which has Consequences. These Consequences,
alongside other forces, produce Strain. If the Strain produced by the action is lesser than the
Antecedent Conditions and Binding Factors acting on the subject, the subject returns to the
Agentic State, whereby the Agentic Cycle repeats. If the Strain is greater than the Binding
Factors and Antecedent Conditions, a Resolution of Strain is required. If Strain is slightly
greater, Dissent occurs, resisting the organisation within the “rules” of organizational ethics
and procedure, returning the subject to the Agentic cycle. However, if Strain is much greater
than the primary requirements, complete Disobedience occurs, breaking this cycle (Milgram,
1974, pp. 132-164).
18/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009
Bibliography

Ackoff, R. L. (1994). The Democratic Corporation - A Radical Prescription for
Recreating Corporate America and Rediscovering Success. New York, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Akroyd, S., & Crowdy, P. (1990). Can culture be managed? Working with "raw"
material: the case of the english slaughtermen. Personnel Review , 19 (5), 3-12.

Bakan, J. (2004). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
London: Constable.

Brown, L. M. (2004). A Review of J.K. Liker's "The Toyota Way". Business Book
Review , 21 (12).

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: Massachussets Institute
of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2001). Power, Control and Resistance
in 'The Factory that Time Forgot'. Journal of Management Studies , 38 (8), 10531079.

Jackall, R. (1988). Looking up and looking around. In R. Jackall, Moral mazes: the
world of corporate managers (pp. 75-100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McIlvanney, W. (1989). The Prisoner. In W. McIlvanney, Walking Wounded (pp. 5767).

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,
Inc.

Mydans, S. (2009, May 15). After Years of Isolation, a Dissident Still Torments Her
Tormentors. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from New York Times: Asia Pacific - News
Analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/world/asia/16myanmar.html?_r=1

Peaucelle, J.-L. (2000). From Taylorism to post-Taylorism. Journal of Organizational
Change Management , 13 (5), 452-467.
19/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305
Individual Essay 2: Option 4 2009

Prasad, P., & Prasad, A. (2000). Stretching the Iron Cage: The Constitution and
Implications of Routine Workplace Resistance. Organizational Science , 11 (4), 387403.

Roddenberry, G. (Director). (1990). The Best of Both Worlds - Star Trek: The Next
Generation, Episode 74 [Motion Picture].

Rosen, M. (1988). You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses' expense. Journal of
Management Studies , 25 (5), 463-480.

Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. c. (1994). Whistleblowing as Resistance in Modern Work
Organization. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord, Resistance and power in
organizations (pp. 235-271). Routledge.

Rudge, P. F. (1990). Order and Disorder in Organisations. Kambah: Pirie Printers.

Sievers, B. (2006). The Psychotic Organization: A Socio-Analytic Perspective.
Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization , 104-120.

Spear, S. (2001, November 26). How Toyota Turns Workers Into Problem Solvers.
(S. J. Johnston, Interviewer) Harvard Business School: Working Knowlege.

Strategic Direction. (2002). Resistance to change: enemy or ally? Strategic Direction ,
18 (6), 21-23.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper
Brothers.

Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change
management. Management Decision , 36 (8), 543-528.

Water-Foot Mill. (1851). Rules to be observed by the hands employed in this mill.
Near Haslingden.
20/20
Johanan (Yochi) Ottensooser
10873305