Upward defiance in organizations: management lessons from the Battle of Blair Mountain

Abstract

Purpose -Based upon an analysis of 30 historic narrative accounts of mutinies, Coye, Murphy, and Spencer recently extended voice theory to clarify the ontological status of the concept of upward defiance. The purpose of this article is to extend the framework of Coye et al. and illustrate the process of escalation towards hostility to offer practicing managers guidance on appropriate steps to interrupt the extreme escalation of member resistance. Design/methodology/approach -The authors examined the significant historical insurrection within the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain. With the case of the Blair Mountain War, the historical record provides ample narrative data for a textual, interpretive, pseudo-ethnographical analysis. Findings -The examination of the Battle of Blair Mountain provides additional support for the upward organizational defiance framework proposed by Coye, Murphy, and Spencer. In addition, the authors have extended the theoretical upward defiance framework to account for the escalation of constructive to destructive forms of voice towards mutiny to reveal managerial actions and attitudes to mitigate follower defiance.Research limitations/implications -The common limitation to any historic case study is one of generalizability, although it often useful to accept the trade-off between limited generalizability and the potential discernment associated with the methodology. Originality/value -The paper investigates a mutiny outside of a maritime setting to offer support for Coye et al.'s conceptual framework, extend that framework in a manner more consistent with organizational practice, and offer guidance to practitioners.

Mutiny in the Band of Brothers: A Juxtaposition of Two Leaders

“…From his inability to develop alliances with his soldiers to his blatant attempt to punish Winters for a fabricated policy violation, Sobel is unable to generate confidence among the soldiers. Their distrust of Sobel leading them into battle breeds their defiance and eventual attempt to bring about change through mutiny (Humphreys et al, 2013;Huy et al, 2014;Lammers, 1969). deep bonds that are developed with Winters while also observing how followers' initial annoyance with Sobel transforms into suspicion, disdain, and ultimate distrust.…”

“…Sobel provides little evidence that Winters engaged in rule-breaking behavior, but regardless, Sobel uses his position power to punish Winters in hopes of pushing him out of the company. While Sobel wants the troops to view this act as a demonstration of his omnipotence, the troops respond by confronting this injustice through upward defiance (Humphreys et al, 2013). Their decision to resign from Easy Company is an intentional effort to end-run and to signal to the commanding officer that they question Sobel's leadership skills and field expertise.…”

Leadership lessons from the Titanic and Concordia disasters

“…Schwartz, in her review of management history research (Schwarz, 2015), concluded that leadership in a crisis was one of the primary themes in recent management history scholarship. This theme has adopted and investigated several areas of leadership, including the (Humphreys et al, 2013) study of the Battle of Blair Mountain to better understand defiance of leaders, as did (Coye et al, 2010) cases of mutinies. Other important studies on leaders and crisis included (Hollow, 2014) examination of bank failures, (Petersen, 2010) study of the Baltimore fire of 1904, (Lopes, 2014) study of the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 focusing on leadership in organizational transformation and (Brady, 2011) study of the battle of Stalingrad and the contrast of rigid vs improvisational approaches to organization.…”