The silent sabotage in organisations

Dr Newton Demba

IN any organisation, the relationship between the board of directors and management is essential to driving success.

However, there are instances when the execution of board decisions becomes obstructed, not by overt opposition, but through a subtler and indirect form of resistance: passive resistance.

Unlike open defiance, passive resistance manifests through subtle actions or inactions that delay or derail the implementation of strategic initiatives.

While these behaviours are often non-confrontational, making them harder to detect, they can have a significant and long-lasting impact on organisational efficiency and the effectiveness of the board’s oversight.

Passive resistance is particularly dangerous because it can go unnoticed or be misinterpreted, which makes it more challenging to address in a timely manner.

Over time, however, its cumulative effects can undermine trust, disrupt critical initiatives and prevent the organisation from meeting its strategic objectives.

Therefore, understanding passive resistance is crucial for leaders who aim to foster a healthy, productive relationship between management and the board.

Forms of passive resistance in management

Instead of direct confrontation, passive resistance manifests through tactics like delayed action, superficial compliance, selective execution of board directives, withholding information and creating bureaucratic hurdles. This complex form of resistance requires a comprehensive understanding of organisational dynamics, leadership psychology and power structures to effectively recognise and mitigate its impact.

1. Delayed action

One of the most pervasive and damaging forms of passive resistance is procrastination. Management may intentionally delay the implementation of board-approved initiatives, strategic projects, or new policies, causing unnecessary stagnation. These delays can take various forms, such as failing to allocate resources promptly, postponing meetings, or not prioritising critical tasks. While the delays are not overtly confrontational, they prevent the board’s directives from being fully realised. The impact is often particularly detrimental when initiatives are time-sensitive, such as market-driven changes, regulatory compliance or strategic pivots. In these cases, delayed action can result in missed opportunities, erosion of competitive advantage, and, in extreme cases, the failure of the organisation to meet its growth objectives.

2. Token compliance

Another form of passive resistance is token compliance, where management outwardly appears to be following board directives but only meets the minimal requirements without fully committing to the initiative. This often manifests as performing the most basic actions necessary to give the illusion of compliance, without genuine effort to achieve the desired outcome. For example, a management team may submit reports or presentations that technically fulfill a request but lack the depth or quality needed to make meaningful progress. Token compliance often results in poor execution, reduced accountability and, ultimately, the failure to meet strategic goals. It can also demotivate employees who may notice that superficial actions are being prioritised over substantive change, leading to disengagement across the organisation.

3. Selective execution

Selective execution is a more deliberate form of passive resistance where management chooses to prioritise certain initiatives that align with their own interests, values, or departmental objectives, while deprioritising or entirely ignoring other board decisions. This selective adherence undermines the overall coherence of the organisation’s strategy, as it creates an environment where certain initiatives receive attention while others are sidelined or forgotten. Management may justify these choices as strategic, even though they conflict with the broader organisational vision set by the board. The consequences of selective execution are far-reaching: it fragments the organisation’s focus, weakens strategic alignment, and undermines the board’s authority. The result is a disjointed approach to achieving organizational objectives, where management’s decisions become increasingly disconnected from the board’s intended direction.

4. Withholding information

Withholding or delaying the sharing of critical information is another insidious form of passive resistance. When management fails to provide the board with timely, accurate or complete data, the board’s ability to make informed decisions is severely compromised. This could involve delaying reports, providing incomplete analysis, or selectively disclosing information that paints an overly positive picture of progress. The impact of withholding information is profound, as it leads to uninformed decisions, misjudgments in strategic planning, and ultimately, a breakdown in trust between management and the board. In the worst cases, this can lead to strategic missteps, where initiatives that were deemed vital by the board falter due to lack of understanding or clarity on operational realities.

5. Creating bureaucratic hurdles

Another common tactic in passive resistance is the introduction of unnecessary bureaucratic processes designed to slow down or obstruct the execution of the board’s decisions. These bureaucratic hurdles can take many forms, including excessive paperwork, cumbersome approval procedures, redundant meetings, or the creation of additional layers of administrative red tape. Though these actions may seem trivial or inconsequential on the surface, they accumulate over time, creating significant inefficiencies that can cripple organisational progress. Bureaucratic barriers can lead to delays in decision-making, a decline in employee morale, and a reduction in overall productivity, all of which serve to hinder the successful execution of key initiatives. When management introduces such hurdles, it can effectively derail the board’s plans, creating a bottleneck that requires significant resources to resolve.

Root causes of passive resistance

Passive resistance within management is often fueled by a variety of underlying factors, including cognitive dissonance, where management perceives the board’s decisions as inconsistent with their own beliefs or experience, resulting in reluctance to fully endorse or implement them. This resistance can also stem from a desire to maintain control over decision-making, especially when management believes that it has a better understanding of the company’s needs than the board does. Another critical factor is lack of expertise or organisational capability to implement new strategies or innovations, especially when the board’s decisions involve complex technological or operational shifts that require specific skills or resources that the management team may not possess. Furthermore, deeply ingrained cultural issues — such as organisational resistance to change, entrenched workflows, or a tradition of decentralised decision-making — can contribute to passive resistance, as management may struggle to align their actions with the board’s directives due to institutional inertia. Lastly, a lack of trust in the board’s strategic vision or decision-making process can also be a driving force, particularly when management perceives the board’s strategies as either disconnected from operational realities or misaligned with market conditions.

Addressing passive resistance

Addressing passive resistance requires proactive measures and open communication between the board and management. First and foremost, both parties need to ensure alignment on the organisation’s long-term goals and strategy. Regular meetings and open discussions about the challenges faced by management can foster mutual understanding and help the board make more informed decisions. When management feels heard and understood, they are more likely to support and act on board decisions.

Additionally, setting clear expectations and establishing accountability structures can help mitigate passive resistance. Clearly defined roles, transparent communication and performance metrics can ensure that both the board and management are working towards the same objectives. Management should also be encouraged to be open about potential obstacles and concerns, allowing the board to address issues early on before they escalate.

Lastly, fostering a culture of trust and collaboration is key to reducing passive resistance. When both management and the board work together as partners rather than adversaries, they can overcome challenges more effectively and work towards shared success. Leadership development and team-building exercises can help strengthen relationships and ensure that both parties are invested in the company’s future.

Conclusion

Passive resistance, though subtle, can have a significant impact on an organisation’s ability to implement board directives and achieve long-term goals. Unlike overt opposition, passive resistance is difficult to detect but just as harmful, leading to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and strained relationships between the board and management. By recognising the signs of passive resistance and addressing the underlying causes — such as misalignment, lack of trust or a desire for control — organisations can foster a more collaborative and effective governance structure. Ultimately, open communication, clear expectations, and a shared commitment to the company’s strategic vision are essential for overcoming passive resistance and ensuring organisational success.

Dr Newton Demba is a management consultant, non-executive director and adjunct lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe in the Faculty of Business Management Sciences and Economics. He writes in his personal capacity. For feedback, please contact: [email protected] or +263784166296.