Resistance or Deviance? A High-Tech Workplace During the Bursting of the Dot-Com Bubble

  • Andrea Hoplight Tapia
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 143)


Under certain circumstances, a critical orientation to the study of workplace deviance/resistance is necessary to understand ICT-enabled workplace culture and employee behavior. The critical orientation to workplace deviance characterizes acts in opposition to an organization with the potential to do harm as semi-organized, group resistance to organizational authority. The questions that drive this research are, does technology enable deviance? When does an act of social deviance become an act of resistance against domination? The answers depend on the perspective of the labeler. To discuss these, I offer the example of a case study of a small software development company called For the first few years of the existence of, the social control exerted on the employees increased yet there were no observable or discussed acts of employee retaliation. I argue that the social environment of the dot-com bubble allowed several myths to propagate widely and affect human behavior. As the market began to fail, and dot-corns began to close, the employees seemed to recognize their situation and enact deviant behavior, or resist. Most importantly, what I have learned from this work is that ICT work may lead to increased deviant or resistant behaviors and that ICT work may also provide a means to do increased deviant or resistant behavior.


Dot-com deviance resistance critical theory organizations workplace 


  1. Adler, P. Technology and the Future of Work, New York: Oxford Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R. E., and Lucero, M. A. “Beyond Resentment: Exploring Organizationally Targeted Insider Murder,” Journal of Management Inquiry (5), 1996, pp. 86–103.Google Scholar
  3. Avgerou, C. Information Systems and Global Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, J. R. “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly (38), 1993, pp. 408–37.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. “The Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance,” Journal of Applied Psychology (85), 2000, pp. 349–360.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. “The Past Present and Future of Workplace Deviance Research,” in J. Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Bensimon, H. “What to Do about Anger in the Workplace,” Training and Development, September 1997, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
  8. Block, F. Postindustrial Possibilities, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Burris, B. “Computerization of the Workplace,” Annual Review of Sociology (28), 1998, pp. 141–157.Google Scholar
  10. Burris, B., and Daday, G. “Technocratic Teamwork: Mitigating Polarization and Cultural Marginalization in an Engineering Firm,” in S. Vallas (Ed.), The Transformation of Work, New York: Elsevier, 2001, pp. 241–262.Google Scholar
  11. Buss, D. “Ways to Curtail Employee Theft,” Nation’s Business, April 1993, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
  12. Clegg, S. R. Modern Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. Colclough, G., and Tolbert III, C. M. Work in the Fast Lane: Flexibility, Divisions of Labor, and Inequality in High-Tech Industries, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. Dehler, G. E., and Welsh, M. A. “Problematizing Deviance in Contemporary Organizations: A Critical Perspective,” in R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, and J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1998, pp. 241–269.Google Scholar
  15. Feenberg, A. Critical Theory of Technology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. Fulk, J., and DeSanctis, G. “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms,” Organization Science (6:4), 1995, pp. 337–349.Google Scholar
  17. Goode, E. Deviant Behavior, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. Reengineering the Cooperation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: Harper Collins, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Heidegger, M. The Question Concerning Technology, New York: Harper and Row, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. Hirschhorn, L. Beyond Mechanization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. Hodson, R. “Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited,” American Sociological Review (61:5), 1996, pp. 719–738.Google Scholar
  22. Hodson, R. “Group Relations at Work: Co-worker Solidarity, Conflict, and Relations with Management,” Work and Occupations (24:4), 1997, pp. 426–452.Google Scholar
  23. Hodson, R. “Organizational Anomie and Worker Consent,” Work and Occupations (26:3), 1999, pp. 292–323.Google Scholar
  24. Hodson, R. “Worker Resistance: An Underdeveloped Concept in the Sociology of Work,” Economic and Industrial Democracy (16), 1995, pp. 79–110.Google Scholar
  25. Hollinger, R. “Acts Against the Workplace: Social Bonding and Employee Deviance,” Deviant Behavior (7), 1986, pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
  26. Hollinger, R., and Clark., J. “Employee Deviance: A Response to the Perceived Quality of the Workplace,” Work and Occupations (10), 1982, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
  27. Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Dialectic of Enlightenment, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, pp. 120–167.Google Scholar
  28. Keen, P. “Information Systems and Organizational Change,” Communications of the ACM (24:1), 1981, pp. 24–33.Google Scholar
  29. Liazos, A. “The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and ‘Perverts,’” in C. J. Curran and C. M. Renzettti (Eds.), Theories of Crime, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1994, pp. 372–395.Google Scholar
  30. Lim, V., Loo, G., and Teo, T. Perceived Injustice, Neutralization and Cyberloafing at the Workplace, Washington, DC: Academy of Management, 2001.Google Scholar
  31. Mackenzie, D., and Wajcman, J. The Social Shaping of Technology, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. Marakas, G. M., and Hornik, S. “Passive Resistance Misuse: Overt Support and Covert Recalcitrate in IS Implementation,” European Journal of Information Systems (5:3), 1996, pp. 208–220.Google Scholar
  33. Marcuse, H. “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,” in A. Arato and E. Gebhardt (Eds.), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, New York: Continuum, 1982.Google Scholar
  34. Markus, M. L. “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM (26:6), 1983, pp. 430–444.Google Scholar
  35. Mastrangelo, P., Everton, W., and Jolton, J. “Computer Misuse in the Workplace,” unpublished manuscript, University of Baltimore, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. Oakes, L., and Cooper, D. “Business Planning as Pedagogy: Language and Control in a Changing Institutional Field,” Administrative Science Quarterly (43:2), 1998, pp. 257–292.Google Scholar
  37. Orlikowski, W., and lacono, C. S. “Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems Research (12:2), 2001, pp. 1121–134.Google Scholar
  38. Perlow, L. “Boundary Control: The Social Ordering of Work and Family Time in a High Tech Corporation,” Administrative Science Quarterly (43), 1998, pp. 328–357.Google Scholar
  39. Perlow, L. A. “Time to Coordinate: Toward an Understanding of Work-Time Standards and Norms,” Work and Occupations (28:1), 2001, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
  40. Perlow, L. “Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time,” Administrative Science Quarterly (44), 1999, pp. 57–81.Google Scholar
  41. Piore, M., and Sabel, C. The Second Industrial Divide, New York: Basic Books, 1984.Google Scholar
  42. Prechel, H. “Economic Crisis and the Centralization of Control Over the Managerial Process,” American Sociological Review (59), 1994, pp. 723–745.Google Scholar
  43. Raelin, J. A. “An Analysis of Professional Deviance Within Organizations,” Human Relations (39), 1986, pp. 1103–1130.Google Scholar
  44. Sawyer, S., and Tapia, A. “The Computerization of Work: A Social Informatics Perspective,” in J. George (Ed.), Social Issues of Computing, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003, pp. 93–109.Google Scholar
  45. Sawyer, S.; Tapia, A.; Pesheck, L.; and Davenport, J. “Mobility and the First Responder,” Communications of the ACM (47:3), March 2004, pp. 62–65.Google Scholar
  46. Sewell, G. “The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-Based Industrial Work Through Electronic and Peer Surveillance,” Administrative Science Quarterly (43:2), 1998, pp. 397–428.Google Scholar
  47. Sewell, G., and Wilkinson, B. “Someone to Watch Over Me: Surveillance Discipline and Justin-Time Labor Process,” Sociology (26), 1992, pp. 271–289.Google Scholar
  48. Shields, M. A. “Reinventing Technology in Social Theory,” Current Perspectives in Social Theory (17), 1997, pp. 187–216.Google Scholar
  49. Slora, K., Joy, D., and Terris, W. “Personnel Selection to Control Employee Violence,” Journal of Business and Psychology (5:3), 1991, pp. 417–426.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, V. “The Fractured World of the Temporary Worker: Power, Participation, and Fragmentation in the Contemporary Workplace,” Social Problems (45:4), 1998, pp. 411–430.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, V. Managing in the Corporate Interest: Control and Resistance at an American Bank, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, V. “New Forms of Work Organization,” Annual Review of Sociology (23), 1997, pp. 315–339.Google Scholar
  53. Vallas, S. P. “Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility,” Sociological Theory (17:1), 1999, pp. 68–101.Google Scholar
  54. Vallas S. P., and Beck, J. P. “The Transformation of Work Revisited: The Limits of Flexibility in American Manufacturing,” Social Problems (43:3), 1996, pp. 339–361.Google Scholar
  55. Vardi, Y., and Wiener, Y. “Misbehavior in Organizations: A Motivational Framework,” Organization Science (7:2), 1996, pp. 152–165.Google Scholar
  56. Wastell, D. “Organizational Discourse as a Social Defense: Taming the Tiger of Electronic Government,” in E. Wynn, E. A. Whitley, M. D. Myers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology, 2002, pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
  57. “Researchers Launch Site to Collect Dot-Com Era “Blueprints,”” Webmergers. com, June 26, 2002 (available online at
  58. Wilson, M., and Howcroft, D. “The Role of Gender in User Resistance and IS Failure,” in R. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 453–471.Google Scholar
  59. Wiseman, R., and Bromiley, P. “Toward a Model of Risk in Declining Organizations: An Empirical Examination of Risk, Performance and Decline,” Organization Science (7:5), 1996, pp. 524–543.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Hoplight Tapia
    • 1
  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations