Define Insubordination
In an organization that has a hierarchical structure, the need for lower levels to follow the direction of upper levels is fundamental to the organization's operation. The concept expects followers to implement direction given and decisions to be made by higher levels. Thus, when a member does not follow directions given, it becomes a serious matter. "Insubordination" is the term for someone intentionally disobeying an organization's direction from a higher level. However, today's organizations also have to allow for disobedience when it is ethical to do so or if following a direction would be illegal under state or federal law.
Other People Are Reading
-
History
-
Insubordination is an old concept in the military world, dating back to when the first armies were created. It was defined as willful disobedience toward a superior officer. The idea in response was simple: There was one leader, and everyone in the army had to follow that leader's direction. Not to do so threatened the organization of the army. As a result, punishment was severe: Usually a first offense carried as a penalty the risk of death.
Mutiny on the High Seas
-
An extreme case of insubordination involved conspiracy of more than one member in the military. This condition was referred to as mutiny, since it involved conspiracy of a few to many individuals. The act of mutiny became most famous with tales of naval rebellions, where the entire crew would turn on a few unlucky ship's commanders. Punishment for mutiny, if offenders were caught, was death by hanging; the sentence had to be severe enough to scare sailors into not rebelling at sea against a captain and a few naval officers in command.
-
Private Organizations
-
Twentieth-century business originally took its organizational paradigms from the military. Again, the top-down approach of direction and implementation was not questioned; those intentionally disobeying instructions were punished or fired.
However, the business world in terms of organizational behavior has changed tremendously. Employment insubordination is a very fluid ambiguous term now. In many cases, difference of opinion and strategy are encouraged to develop new ideas and avoid stamping out creativity, which is the edge needed to be competitive in business. Companies like Google would not exist today if people still strictly followed thechain of command in business as they do in the military---it stifles creativity. True insubordination is best identified via a documented pattern of intentional disobedience through progressive discipline. This includes meetings, counseling, training, warnings in writing and finally termination.
Protection for the Innocent
-
An aspect of allowed insubordination also developed over time in modern business: This is the case of the whistleblower.
Business is generally assumed to be competitive in a free market system, but it is also expected to follow the rules of law (both internally and externally). However, when a business management chooses to act irresponsibly or illegally, employees are expected to identify the infraction to a responsible authority. Doing so, however, can technically expose the disclosing individual to a charge of insubordination from their employer. Individuals voicing concern have been punished by managers who didn't want their illegal behavior made public to others. As a result, case law and government laws have been put in place to punish employees who retaliate against whistleblowers.
Ongoing Protection for Whistleblowers
-
Over time, given the pressure from government, many companies have instituted their own internal code of conduct to protect their employees who have to be "insubordinate" to identify problems. These protections are most common in areas of equal employment opportunity, finance and fiduciary duties, bribes and corruption, waste and fraud, and anything criminal in nature. In doing so, companies have found being proactive is far cheaper in subsequent litigation cost that letting a bad behavior get worse and then being sued by a fired employee and/or the government.
Conclusion
-
Insubordination may seem like a clear-cut concept in theory, but in practice organizations have to look at every case to make sure there's not a good reason for an employee's aberrant behavior. Doing so will protect the organization and its members, separating the actual insubordinate people from those trying to help the organization.
-
