Workplace saboteurs seek sweet, expensive revenge

By ALISON HORWOOD

Bhopal, India, 1984. A contaminated gas tank at the Union Carbide plant results in the release of 40,000 tonnes of toxic fumes, killing an estimated 8000 people.

California, 1987. All 43 occupants of a Pacific Southwest airplane are killed after a gunman bursts into the cockpit with a .44 Magnum pistol.

Puerto Rico, New Year's Eve, 1986. A fire rips through the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel, killing 97 in 12 minutes.

All these incidents are linked. The carnage is the result of workplace sabotage, where workers intentionally fight back, often because they believe they have been treated unfairly by their company or supervisors.

Overseas studies suggest that up to 75 per cent of employees have engaged in counter-productive behaviour of some sort: sabotage, theft, computer fraud, embezzlement or vandalism.

It all represents huge direct and indirect costs to companies.

The United States economy is estimated to lose US$5 billion to US$6 billion ($11 billion to $13 billion) yearly as workers react to real or perceived abuse by employers.

New Zealand's sabotage bill could conservatively run into the tens of millions of dollars in damage to company property, reputation, products or services.

Yet the issue of workplace sabotage is only now receiving academic attention in this country.

Mark van Zon, a lecturer in organisational behaviour at the Auckland University department of management and employment relations, wrote a thesis last year on sabotage for his master of commerce degree, and is now researching for his doctorate.

He says everyone has heard the horror stories involving smashed machinery, deliberate defective production and the infamous spanner in the works.

The original thinking on sabotage was of frustrated workers venting their anger in response to what they saw as excessive production and management demands, says van Zon.

But his interviews with 50 employees in the hospitality and manufacturing industries revealed forms of sabotage far more subversive and clandestine.

In many case the saboteurs felt justified because of the way they had been treated by supervisors.

Whereas bullying involves a spontaneous lashing out, sabotage often involves the careful planning of how an individual or organisation can be damaged, says van Zon.

"The saboteur is saying 'How can I get revenge?' or 'What can I do to really damage this company'?"

During his interviews, Mr nte van Zon heard a repeated story of employees who had been blown up by their managers, retaliated by yelling back, then of their own accord took 30 minutes off to cool down.

"Completely voluntary absenteeism," he says.

"They were annoyed at the way they had been treated and felt they deserved the time off."

Another common story was an employee who had been reprimanded by a boss, and in response let a substandard product through the checking line.

None of van Zon's employees told him of violence towards people or products, but he says that is hard to judge because the criminal aspect often means sabotage is not reported, or is hushed up by the company.

He asked employees how much sabotage they saw around them.

Theft and dishonesty were frequent, he was told.

Work slowdowns - intentionally slacking off - were occasional, chaos was infrequent and destruction very infrequent.

Van Zon said it was surprising to see that several specific forms of illegitimate organisational activity - such as pulling a sickie, or doing private work on company time with company tools - were not seen to constitute sabotage at all.

The key, he says, is that workers believe many of the actions are justifiable if managers have upset them.

Destruction was viewed as unjustifiable because it involved criminal activity, but if workers perceived seriously bad treatment by management, destruction would then be justified.

Slacking off was seen as justified if managers overworked their employees.

Horsing around was regarded as legitimate because workers liked to play sometimes.

He says an unpopular supervisor may be responsible for more than angry employees.

"My research suggests that treating your employees badly - in particular, poor communication - is likely to have an impact on their justification of sabotage.

"Abusive and intimidating putdowns," he says, "will give rise to feelings of hostility, and while this may not in itself directly lead to sabotage, it will change an employee's attitude toward the action of sabotage.

"This change in attitude could, while not actually precipitating the event in itself, lead up to it."

He says a sense of injustice is a very powerful emotion.

If employees cannot see any legitimate means to settle a grievance, they will take it out in any way they can.

"I see the saboteur as a disgruntled but intelligent individual who will outwardly display a normal pattern of behaviour," says van Zon.

"But on the inside, they can't wait to even the score, which involves taking it out on the organisation."

His advice to managers is to make grievance avenues seem sincere to those who are likely to use them.

Listen to employees and make sure there is an adequate system for them to express concerns.

If managers suspect or detect sabotage, they need to take the time to investigate hostile relationships. Imposing sanctions on sabotage-type behaviour can drive it further underground.

Prevention is the answer, says van Zon.

Once sabotage occurs, the damage commercially, and to staff morale, can be devastating.