While universities have adopted new managerial approaches as they have become larger and more dependent on student revenue, the response of staff has been diverse, with a new study examining silent resistance by academics.
The study by academics from Western Sydney, Central Queensland and Auckland University of Technology explored “whether the apparent compliance of academics (to organisational change) can be understood as a form of silent resistance.”
“Silence … is often a subtler form of resistance. Employees may withdraw or disengage without openly expressing their concerns. Though less visible and less likely to cause immediate conflict, silent resistance can be just as disruptive to change efforts.”
The authors studied the response to change during 2004-08 at a large, un-named Australian university, based on data collection in 2014 and again in 2023 – allowing an examination of the long-term impact of change.
While some employees openly raised concerns about the organisational changes, others, concerned for their jobs, remained silent.
“Additionally, a number of staff members engaged in subtle resistance, strategically employing silence as a form of response. This silent resistance allowed them to express dissent indirectly, avoiding direct confrontation while still signalling dissatisfaction with the new system.
“Notably, this form of resistance ultimately impacted the achievement of certain organizational goals, as staff disengagement and non-compliance subtly undermined the institution’s efforts to fully implement and benefit from the performance management system changes.”
Silent resisters undermined reforms by defying instructions, pseudo-compliance or simply leaving their jobs.
“That was one of the easiest ways to deal with the head of school you didn’t want to see. You’d leave a message with the school secretary saying you were sick. The workload would drift for another month, and by the time we rescheduled, one session was mostly gone,” a surveyed staff member said.
The study also re-casts complaining and resignation as forms of silent resistance.
The research makes interesting reading for anyone involved in change management – including instigators of reforms and those subject to them. It makes clear the frustration of staff separated from decision making but also risks conflating lazy and or selfish behaviours as resistance.
The paper is important as the first piece in a puzzle – taking the time to understand the goals and challenges of the reformers as well as the impact and voice of silent resistance on professional staff, colleagues and students in a more comprehensive study would be valuable.