If a supervisor asked you to do something unsafe that went against policy, what would you do?

Leer en español
Ler em português

All of us, at some point or another, are asked to break the rules at work.

It may be a small action, like rounding up or down in an accounts ledger, or a small inaction, like looking the other way while others do so. It may be a one-time request, like when one of us was asked to alter some documentation on a patient in a hospital we worked for. Or it may be a norm, like when we were encouraged by the nursing staff at the same hospital to sign in for other employees who were absent. It may be no big thing: hey, rules are made to be broken, right? Or it may be a big thing: think Volkswagen, Enron, and WorldCom.

When asked to break the rules at work, most of us experience conflict. Particularly if we are new to a job, low on the totem pole, highly dependent on the position, or wishing to make a good impression, we face a tough choice. Do we go along to get along or do we resist? How we address such disputes can have serious consequences for our organization and ourselves.

The standard advice on conflict management suggests we try to find win-win solutions whenever possible. But these tactics fall flat when faced with disputes of an ethical, moral, or legal nature. Like when your superiors…

• Are cheats or crooks;
• Harass you or others;
• Put workers or consumers unnecessarily at risk for injury;
• Block all opportunities for fair recourse to express grievances;
• Encourage illegal or immoral activities, or;
• Cover up wrongdoing or ask you to do so.

How might an ethical but job-dependent employee respond to these disputes effectively?

We recommend an approach we call principled rebellion. This is an active and deliberate choice to rebel at work incrementally and strategically to minimize harm with maximum integrity. It entails learning how to say no, systematically and sequentially, by slowly turning up the heat on those in charge. Here are some tactics, gleaned from the literature on political activism, presented in sequence from low to high heat.

1. I’m concerned about you. The first step should be to appeal to the self-interest of those in charge. It’s possible they are unaware of the implications of what they are suggesting. So exploring their requests, framing them in terms of the potential costs and implications for them, is a good way to test the waters. This also signals your discomfort and gives them a way to quietly withdraw their demands without losing face.
2. Appeal to their better angels. Most of us like to believe that we are essentially decent people. We hate the dissonance we feel when we become aware that our behavior is inconsistent with our best selves. Emphasizing what seems fair and decent, particularly if those in charge are caught up in their more banal intentions, can help to increase their dissonance.
3. Just say no. If 1 and 2 don’t work, then it is best to quietly refuse. If what you are being asked to do is sufficiently unethical, immoral, or illegal, then your sincere refusal may be enough to worry or intimidate them into backing off and reconsidering their demands.
4. Just say no louder. When this doesn’t work, it’s time to turn the volume up by bringing in others. This can mean speaking with friends and colleagues and getting their advice and support. If this is not possible without putting them in jeopardy 
then it might be time to blow the whistle inside. This could entail speaking to your supervisor, or if the dispute involves her or him, speaking to that person’s superiors, an ombudsman, or someone in human resources.
5. Broadcast no. When tactics 1–4 don’t work, it is time to consider blowing the whistle outside. This is big and is likely to have serious consequences for you and others. Researchers have found that whistle-blowers are more likely to be effective if they: have high credibility within the organization, forgo anonymity and identify themselves at the outset of the proceedings, if the organization is not highly dependent on the wrongs being enacted, and if the evidence of the wrongdoing is convincing and clearly illegal.
6. Increase your numbers. Another tactic is to change the power dynamic at work by gathering allies. This might mean organizing several people from a department to go to a manager together to express concerns, or something as massive as when workers from Walmart organized labor demonstrations and strikes in twenty-eight stores across twelve states to protest the company’s retaliation against workers who spoke out.
7. Oppress the oppressors with their own ideals. Saul Alinsky once wrote, “Since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations.” He cites examples of entire neighborhoods showing up at local banks accused of discriminatory lending practices to open savings accounts with one dollar and then returning to the back of the line to close the same account. This is now active noncooperation, which may very well backfire unless a full strategy has been developed and is implemented carefully.
8. Take power. If all else fails, it may be time for direct legal action. This tactic, obviously, is the most costly. But it should always be considered a last-stand BATNA; a backup plan should all else fail.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to 
the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
 himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Principled rebellion is a strategy for being rationally and systematically unreasonable at work when absolutely necessary.

If you believe working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful, we recommend that you bring the conditions to your employer's attention, if possible.

You may file a complaint with OSHA concerning a hazardous working condition at any time. However, you should not leave the worksite merely because you have filed a complaint. If the condition clearly presents a risk of death or serious physical harm, there is not sufficient time for OSHA to inspect, and, where possible, you have brought the condition to the attention of your employer, you may have a legal right to refuse to work in a situation in which you would be exposed to the hazard. (OSHA cannot enforce union contracts that give employees the right to refuse to work.)

Your right to refuse to do a task is protected if all of the following conditions are met:

• Where possible, you have asked the employer to eliminate the danger, and the employer failed to do so; and
• You refused to work in "good faith." This means that you must genuinely believe that an imminent danger exists; and
• A reasonable person would agree that there is a real danger of death or serious injury; and
• There isn't enough time, due to the urgency of the hazard, to get it corrected through regular enforcement channels, such as requesting an OSHA inspection.

You should take the following steps:

• Ask your employer to correct the hazard, or to assign other work;
• Tell your employer that you won't perform the work unless and until the hazard is corrected; and
• Remain at the worksite until ordered to leave by your employer.

If your employer retaliates against you for refusing to perform the dangerous work, contact OSHA immediately. Complaints of retaliation must be made to OSHA within 30 days of the alleged reprisal. To contact OSHA call 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) and ask to be connected to your closest area office. No form is required to file a discrimination complaint, but you must call OSHA.

See the relevant regulation.