>I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can.
Can you give me some examples of how you would fight?
Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?
Doesn't apply, everybody knows what's going on already.
> Comply in a maximally obstructive way.
Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against.
> Comply just enough to not get fired but not as much as someone who may be more inclined to please their boss.
Doesn't apply, you can't half-fire the specified people, or give just a little bit of money to the people you've been instructed not to fund. You can comply, or not, and it's not going to be any kind of secret which way you chose.
If you want to go out in a blaze of glory and leave the building a day later than you otherwise would, with less dignity, go for it.
> Enlist other opposition and find ways to multiply your obstructive compliance into other departments.
> Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against.
"Obstructive" in this scenario results in the organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.
I see your point, but I think you are missing their point.
They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.
It's hard to "maliciously comply" or be obstructive to someone giving you 55% less budget. They just... give you less money. That's it.
I guess you could slow down the firing process for a bit? That would be a minor obstruction for a short period of time. Then what?
Anyways, "how-to" guides on malicious compliance probably don't tackle situations where an external team, acting on behalf of the president, come into your workplace with unparalleled authority to do whatever they please.
Congress is the body that decides budget, not the President. Convince Congress and you will win budget, and legislative directives to accomplish specific tasks. Putting a man on the moon required Congress.
People are now routinely absolving GOP Congress critters, when they are the actual decision makers.
By back briefing them about all the impacts on their district/State, the stocks the own, the donors they will alienate, the attack material it provides their opponents, and conversely the opportunity to seize national prominence and respect of mega corps, science believers and donors.
None of the other points achives win in some kind of fight. They are just turning you into a bitter looser that will be set aside one way or the other - and who still has to do unethical ornillegal things in the process.
The other Trump malingerers are giving adept examples of how to ape compliance while going completely against the law. Complying with the law in contravention of DOGE wishes should be simple in comparison.
If you're in a hierarchical structure and someone higher up gives you an ultimatum, your choices are: comply, resist and face consequences, or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it. None of those are cost-free.
"Fighting" isn't about magic moves that keep everything safe. It's about choosing when and how to accept the risks. Expecting a fight with no threat to your position is cowardice disguised as pragmatism.
>or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it.
I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive, incremental ways to undermine it" would be.
You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF director could have done that are subversive, incremental ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the president?
In labor circles, the "subversive, incremental ways" are known as "work to rule".
You simply do as you're told. Orders are never completely without ambiguity, and the person giving the order has less direct experience with the subject than the person receiving the order. There's wiggle room.
Concrete example: The order is "Do X". The person charged with executing it actually understands that the consequences will be that Y and Z (which the person giving the order cares about) will actually be on fire if you do X.
In a functioning relationship, you speak up and say "Happy to do X, but here's what'll happen, maybe we should consider a different way to achieve your goals". If you're going the subversive route, you say "Sure thing. I'll get right on X. I'll overdeliver on it". Then you do X, and nudge it towards maximally bad impact on Y/Z.
Followed by "Oh, who could've foreseen! Y and Z are in ruins! What would you like me to do, boss?"
Mire things down in bureaucracy. Try and make everything take substantially longer than it should. Throw up hurdles in the face of progress. "Forget" to do important steps in the process so that you have to re-do work. Implement things on the face of it that are correct, but that don't achieve the same result, etc.
I think 4 year olds know how to do that. Follow the exact letter of what they say, but doing everything else outside the bounds of "do this" the way you want to.
I.e. "It's time for bed" means "I'm going to continue to play, just in my bed."
"Go to sleep" means "Pretend to sleep for 5 minutes, then go back to playing." When confronted, say that you woke up after 5 minutes.
What they said is "you get less money" and "fire half the people". One of those you can literally not do anything about. I'm not sure how to fire people but do it in the way is the way "I want to".
If you are a Reddit user r/MaliciousCompliance is full of stories* of people follow orders to the most exacting and absurd extent. Most of them are peon-level folks so I am not sure how those actions would map to a person in a position of real power.
*fact vs embellished fact vs straight fiction is always questionable on Reddit.
I do really enjoy that subreddit, but as you alluded to, I can't think of any stories that would be applicable to the NSF director & president (even if taking them all at face value rather than as writing exercises).
Keep in mind we are talking about real people. These people are supporting themselves (and likely families). Making thousands more people, above and beyond the mandated amount, lose their employment is not a good outcome. It isn't some management game on steam where we can make decisions like that without second thought.
Don't do it. Perhaps obfuscate and delay as much as possible that you are not actually doing it. Perhaps get fired. Then go to court for wrongful termination (this would depend on the order being unlawful)?
You can't "not do" getting a budget cut. They just give you less money.
I'm also not sure how to just... not fire people. Sure, you can delay it a week or two. Okay. Then what? Get fired for non-compliance? That seems about as effective of a tactic as quitting is.
It would slow down the operation of the organization. In this case, it's counterproductive to the director's aims. The director's goal is to maximize grant funding; a functional bureaucracy is essential for that goal. There is nothing the director can do to increase the funding, which is being cut by an external source. The legality of the funding cut is unclear, but the director has no agency in the outcome of a legal challenge.
It's a silly novelty website. Maybe this no longer happens, but for a period of time, browsers would present a warning that the website was insecure. The user would need to switch to https by updating the address. It was inconvenient.
Can you give me some examples of how you would fight?
Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?