HR question: "insubordination" outside a military environment

In My Humble Opinion
1

The dictionary definition of insubordination is “defiance of authority; refusal to obey orders.”

I’ve always believed that this term is not applicable in ordinary, civilian employment settings. Even though the definition says “defiance,” IMHO the two terms (defiance and insubordination) aren’t equivalent or interchangeable. Insubordination is appropriate in settings where there is a strong authoritarian hierarchy and chain of command, particularly the military, but also military-type settings like a police department or possibly a religious order. IOW organizations where the members have knowingly taken their place in a subordinate position (hence the term) to an acknowledged strong authority that has the power to give orders. A loyalty oath of some kind is a condition of membership and members expect enforcement of orders and punishment for disobedience.

In ordinary offices, schools, retail establishments, nonprofits, etc., bosses are supervisors, colleagues, even owners, but they don’t have this kind of authority, though some petty Napoleons think they do. I’ve worked in places where the “boss” (at whatever level) accused people of insubordination-- and I thought then and still think it is bullshit. I mean, a soldier can defy an order, be court-martialed, and possibly shot. A defiant priest can be excommunicated (but he is still “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”). Their superior officers have the right to issue orders, and both sides know it. But a civilian boss who says, “That’s an order,” is out of line.

To me, supervisors can make requests, issue directives, set policy and those things can be enforced ultimately by firing, after the proper procedures have been followed. But to go back to the definition I started with, dismissal simply for “defiance of authority; refusal to obey orders” is not legitimate, because the civilian boss doesn’t have the authority to issue “orders” in the first place.

Question triggered by plight of a friend who has taught in a private high school for over 40 years. He has clashed with a new CEO (not the principal, but the principal’s boss) for the past four years and got a letter threatening him with firing for “insubordination.” Not looking for advice on what he should do, as I don’t have all the details, just opinions on the appropriateness of that term in this situation.

2

I’m not an HR anything, but to me, in a civilian work environment, it would be useful as an equivalent for “willful refusal to perform the job for which one was hired or agreed to be promoted/assigned to.”

3

Shrug, the boss is the teacher’s hierarchical superior, insubordination means “refusal to follow orders of a hierarchical superior”, so strictu sensu it is fitting. And I have no idea who told you that civilian bosses can’t issue orders.

4

I think you are wrong. I am a senior software developer in a Fortune 500 company. I have a fair amount of autonomy about how I go about my work. I can disagree with my boss, I can argue with my boss, I can disagree with decisions that are made and with orders I am given. But ultimately, I must implement the decisions and obey the orders, and I can’t obey them while telling everyone openly how stupid I think the orders are. And they are ultimately orders. My boss directs my work, and after all the discussion is done, I do what she tells me to do. To do otherwise would be insubordination.

5

Huh? Where did that come from?
Interesting comments so far.

6

It comes from the experience of seeing someone get fired for insubordination for doing what I described. Obeying orders while openly bad-mouthing the wisdom of the orders. Sorry if it was off-topic.

7

I don’t see the distinction. If my boss tells me to do something, like Crotalus I can say “shouldn’t we do this differently” or “isn’t this more important” or “that won’t work and here’s why”, but if he says “no, do what I said” and I don’t do it, I can get fired. Or even if I say “that’s a dumb idea you stupid asshole” I can get fired for insubordination.

How is “do what I say or get fired” not “having the authority to issue orders”?

Last week somebody where I work did get fired for not doing what he was told. I don’t know if it was called insubordination, but he did get told to do something (actually several somethings), didn’t do them, and got canned.

Regards,
Shodan

8

For any useful definition of “orders” most civilian bosses have the ability to issue them. You’re quibbling about a tiny distinction that has no meaning in reality. If my boss tells me to do something, it’s effectively an order. I can question an order or refuse to follow one, as the military can. And while I can’t be thrown in the brig as a result, I can be terminated (sometimes on the spot) with little or no recourse.

9

You may have trouble maintaining a job then.

Yeah, I’m not sure why you make the distinction. For all intents and purposes, you signed a “loyalty oath” when you agreed to have the company issue you checks in exchange for your labor. In some cases, you may have signed an actual contract.

I’m a manager. If I instruct someone on my team to perform a task and they refuse or give me lip about it, even though I can’t fire them on the spot, I can put various procedures in motion that will adversely affect their career with the company, possibly terminating it.

Keep in mind, many states are “at will” employment, meaning you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all.
Also keep in mind that “leadership” is different from having a higher name on an org chart. If you actually need to get stuff done, you can’t discipline your underdrones every time they question you. Otherwise they will mutiny. Either passively where they will just do what you say exactly how you say it with no initiative or extra effort. Or they could actively seek to undermine you (up to and including blowing you up, if in a dangerous military setting).

10

The proper procedure need be no more than saying “You’re fired”, far less procedure than necessary by the military. When cause must be established to terminate an employee businesses must establish a policy that defines and disallows insubordination but that wouldn’t extend to an employee refusing to perform their job. The details of what constitutes insubordination may be different between the military and private businesses as well as other areas of the public sector but that doesn’t make a meaningful distinction in the principle.

11

Jesus, it’s becoming like a para-military society.

In 35 years, the only order I’ve ever known an employee to be given is milk but no sugar.

You would have to be a total dickhead of a boss to express yourself in those terms - instant loss of respect from all the workforce.

12

The shred of validity in OP’s position IMO is one of appearances. It sounds self important to many ears, mine included, for a work superior at a regular job to speak of ‘orders’ or ‘insubordination’. Employers will generally find more success keeping the iron fist inside a velvet glove on stuff like that.

But practically speaking your boss at your job has the ‘authority’ to give you ‘orders’ as they relate to your legitimate job function, and to fire you or get you fired if you are ‘insubordinate’ by not carrying them out or giving too much attitude. Unless there’s some formal internal mechanism (civil service rules, union grievance, universal govt limitations on firing possibly applicable in non-US cases, etc) otherwise and/or you can find a lawyer who can construct a plausible case that the firing was really for an illegal reason like your race, sex, age etc rather than just your refusing to perform your job function as ‘ordered’ by your supervisor.

13

You’re picking the second part of a dictionary definition while ignoring the first part, and defining the second part really narrowly, then concluding that the word doesn’t apply. If you don’t do as your boss directs you, you’re insubordinate, it’s really not that complicated. There’s nothing that requires loyalty oaths or a military structure, or for things to be phrased in terms of ‘orders’. The first part of the definition you posted makes that clear, since it’s simply ‘defiance of authority’.

Also for your friend’s sake: generally if you get fired for insubordination, you’re not eligible for unemployment benefits. And if you try to make some argument about how you’re not in the military so they can’t give orders so you can do what you want, they will have a chuckle at you while not paying you benefits.

14

Finally! Someone who gets my point! Thank you.

This isn’t just terminology; it’s about attitude on both sides.

I’ll tell you one of the places this comes from. My father had a 20-year career in the Air Force and was forced to retire for medical reasons. He was a sergeant (eventually a Chief Master Sergeant) and held many supervisory positions, usually running a lab of some kind. He was a gifted organizer and manager, and his shops won lots of awards. When he retired, he never adjusted to civilian workplaces. He said it was because people didn’t have to do what you said the way they do in the military.

In the military (and like organizations), authority exists for its own sake. It’s integral to the discipline, culture, and mission. An officer issues an order, you obey. Period. Even if it’s repeatedly digging a hole and filling it up again. A civilian boss cannot operate that way. Authority does not exist for its own sake in civilian life. Authority and hierarchy are there to facilitate getting the job done. In civilian life, you can’t say, “Drop and give me 50,” give no reason, and punish someone who won’t do it.

An employee IMHO can be uncooperative, lazy, a troublemaker, a PITA, even defiant, and worthy of firing, but in my lexicon, the word insubordinate is reserved for military organizations, i.e., settings where orders must be obeyed instantly and without question. I think that is a meaningful distinction.

Yes, I disagree with the definition as stated. I don’t accept the authority of the dictionary on this. :wink:

I don’t have the details. But did you note that I said he was 67 and ready to retire?

15

Suppose you’re right. To whom would he make this argument?

16

Depending on what the order was, you can be leaving work in a panda car.

17

You can put whatever you want in your own lexicon, but you said this was an “HR Question” in the subject, which (at least in not-your-own-lexicon) means you’re asking about how human resources departments use the term. HR departments, Unemployment Insurance agencies, the Department of Labor, local labor boards, and just about everyone else uses the term by the dictionary definition.

18

Just today my team was told to prepare a list of “items you want to be able to show in the February demo”.

Was that not an order because it wasn’t yelled?

19

We can all have our own private meanings for words. I no longer believe that “pink” is a color but rather a type of bread, for example. Don’t ask how much miscommunication that has caused, especially when my wife asked for new underwear.

The only problem is when one attempts to impose a meaning on others and that ain’t going to fly.

“Insubordination” is used in the civilian world to mean that an employee refuses to follow the direction of the boss or company.

When I was a manager then there were cases where I had to fire people who refused to follow company’s or my directions.

I had an assistant who refused to answer the phone in the established manner because she felt her approach was better. I let her know that her opinion was noted but this was company policy and to do it. She didn’t and was out of the door in 15 minutes. Our internal notes was that she was fired for “insubordination and refusal to follow company procedures.”

Because she was fired for cause, she would not be eligible for immediate benefits under Japanese unemployment regulations.

20

Maybe I’m the only person in the world who prefers to talk to myself thusly, “I’m doing what is requested of me,” and not “I’m following orders.” In my long career, I never felt that i was being ordered to do anything or was following orders when I was given a directive, even when I worked for the gruff, tactless retired Coast Guard Commander (of blessed memory). <shrug> I feel that precise language is important, and never more so than in the conversations that go on inside your own head.

So y’all are saying that as far as most HR departments are concerned, “insubordination” is a legitimate reason for firing someone? And I suppose the specifics of what constitutes that are left up to the supervisor who felt slighted? Good luck with that. How do you prove insubordination if the fired person wants to dispute it?

I’d be interested if any people with supervisory experience in the military and then later (or before) supervisory experience in a civilian workplace felt/feel as my father did, namely, that “giving orders” in each setting is qualitatively different from the other.