Comment by remram
1 day ago
This is not "malicious compliance", this is more like "pedantic enforcement".
"Malicious compliance" would be if the same team booked a 50min meeting then a 10min meeting in the same room.
1 day ago
This is not "malicious compliance", this is more like "pedantic enforcement".
"Malicious compliance" would be if the same team booked a 50min meeting then a 10min meeting in the same room.
It's a clickbait keyword. This wouldn't be a genre if all the stories were this tame.
If anything, the company saved money with optimizing meeting room capacity and the CEO's desire to give breaks was enforced.
The team pushing back against leaving at 50m was the only "malicious" party, and they weren't compliant.
I wouldn't even call it pedantic. I mean, they seem to be the only sane humans in the company. The most faulty is obviously Page, who made the decision that seemed nice and progressive, but was problematic because the subordinates cannot oppose stupid intrusions from above and ignore bad policies. 2nd faulty party is the author of the story, i.e. guys, who use the room when it isn't booked, i.e. after 50 minutes of the meeting. This is natural, of course, because indeed it always happens, it would happen if it was booked for 2 hours too. But the point is that they are in a booked room, and it isn't booked by them.
When I got to the bit about "I’d personally tell them that I wasn’t going to leave the room" that seemed crazy to me. I'm fully on the side of the 10 minute booking guys.
Ditto. I thought the punchline, i.e. the malicious compliance, will be booking 50 min and then booking 10 min more. Someone using an unreserved spot is that, booking a meeting.
Malicious compliance would involve reviewing the action items from the 50 minute meeting at the beginning of the 10 minute meeting
[flagged]