Breaking the “Purity Rule”: Industrial Sabotage and the Symbolic Process

Abstract

In the past little has been written on the subject of industrial sabotage. Even the broader consideration of “resistance” of which sabotage could be considered part has been little attempted outside the glamorous subject of strikes. Taylor and Walton adopt an approach derived from the social psychology of deviance, relying on verbal accounts, press reports or hearsay for their data. Their emphasis is on rendering the act meaningful. Brown adopts a perspective which extends their definition of sabotage from deliberate damage to the machine, product or work environment to include deliberate bad workmanship and the withholding of effort. Consequently, he views it as an additional mechanism for negotiating terms and condition of employment, and is concerned with its effectiveness as a strategy.

Citation

Linstead, S. (1985), "Breaking the “Purity Rule”: Industrial Sabotage and the Symbolic Process", Personnel Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055518