Anarchic Worker Behavior as an Individual Activism

This study aimed to analyze the daily work routine in a restaurant in São Paulo, the results pointed toward the conceptualization of what is referred to as the anarchic behavior of the worker, relating to individual activism in response to social inequalities. To address the original research objectives, ethnography was adopted as the research strategy guided by an inductive approach. The fieldwork lasted ten months and generated 657 pages of field notes. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). The empirical evidence contributes to the academic debate on resistance, highlighting nuances that reflect the complexity of this discussion. Acts of misbehavior within the company — such as disengagement, rule-breaking, sabotage, workplace disruption, theft, and turnover — take on multiple dimensions: at times representing a degree of autonomy over work; at others, acts of opposition due to excessive demands; sometimes, reactions to organizational changes and uncertainty; and occasionally, exercises of autonomy in relation to the organization and the broader social context, resulting in a disposable logic in the employee–organization relationship. An important element in this debate is the issue of individual personality. The intention associated with a propensity to engage in oppositional acts—particularly in what we define as “anarchic behavior”. As presented, the concept of anarchic behavior is associated with the employee’s exercise of autonomy—whether in deciding whether to remain in the job or in using control over specific dimensions of organizational work to harm rivals or adversaries—while disregarding potential negative consequences (such as dismissal) if discovered. Anarchic behavior is tied to an instrumental relationship between the employee and the organization, evidenced by intentional disregard for the organization, functioning as a mechanism of activism. It is also important to recognize that not all oppositional actions are directed against the employer or the organization itself. Some are responses to the individual’s own disadvantaged social condition. In other words, the motivations for oppositional behavior extend beyond organizational boundaries and include the broader social context of marginalization. The contradictions and inequalities embedded in employees’ lives can influence misbehavior as a form of individual activism. From this perspective, misbehavior is unstable and unpredictable, taking the form of resistance that goes beyond organizational boundaries and opposition to management. It is influenced by individual, organizational, and social factors. In this sense, the consequences of widespread anarchic individual behavior can extend beyond the physical space of work.