Abstract
While studies of disciplinary power have largely focused on how employees conform, resist, or adapt to organizational norms, less attention has been paid to what happens when normalization efforts fail, leading to exclusion. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, this article examines how top management handles employees who persistently deviate from organizational expectations. Based on an empirical study of managerial responses to two types of deviant employees—underperformers and socially nonconforming individuals—we reveal how exclusion emerges as an escalating process. Initially, managers employ corrective measures aimed at normalization, yet when these efforts prove unsuccessful, they shift toward intensified control, documentation, and ultimately, exclusion. Our findings demonstrate that exclusion is not a failure of disciplinary power but rather its extension, reinforcing organizational norms through the removal of those deemed irredeemably deviant. By conceptualizing exclusion as an active disciplinary mechanism rather than a passive outcome, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of power dynamics in contemporary organizations.
Keywords
Introduction
A few years ago, I had to terminate someone’s employment. I fired him. It was as simple as that. He was inadequate. He panicked, essentially pleading for me to reconsider [. . .] Termination becomes particularly challenging when the person expresses emotions such as crying; it’s always difficult to handle. This individual had previously enjoyed working here, but it was clear that he was not a good fit. His performance was unsatisfactory. He lacked the necessary competence, suitable personality, and failed to meet expectations. His work pace was exceptionally slow, significantly slower than everyone else, which made him unprofitable. [. . .] Upon realizing this, I engaged in multiple conversations with him, attempting to modify his work approach and transform him into a doer. Trying to make him stop overthinking everything. He was a person that was thinking about everything, things not relevant to work. This process aimed to guide the person back on the right track. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, no improvements occurred. Some individuals are resistant to change and persist in their established habits. They are unable to change. And he definitely didn’t. So, he had to go. He was devastated. But we couldn’t fix him. (Benjamin, head of department)
“Disciplinary power,” a pivotal concept in critical organizational research (Barker and Cheney, 1994; Burrell, 1988; Clegg, 1989; Deetz, 1992), finds its roots in Michel Foucault’s influential writings. This concept revolves around the everyday practices that shape individuals and the knowledge produced about them. As we see in the story of Benjamin, this power is exerted not only through explicit rules and commands but through ongoing evaluations of what constitutes acceptable behavior in the workplace. It is in these daily judgments—of competence, personality, and pace—that disciplinary power operates, guiding individuals toward conformity or, in cases like Benjamin’s employee, toward exclusion. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault contrasts disciplinary power with early sovereign power, which relied on a binary logic of forbidden and not forbidden, with punishment serving as the ultimate judgment of guilt.
Discipline operates through the normative penalty, where any deviation from the accepted norm is considered an offense requiring correction. Foucault (1977: 177–184) delineates the normalizing judgment across five dimensions: comparison, differentiation, hierarchization, homogenization, and exclusion. Comparison enables normalization by establishing a point of reference against which deviations are measured; surveillance plays a central role, making actions visible and recordable. Differentiation establishes the norm by creating a framework for comparison; individuals are expected to conform to this norm, whether in artificial orders or natural processes. Hierarchization organizes individuals based on their conformity to the norm, creating a microeconomy of reward and punishment. Homogenization aims to make groups more uniform through training, using comparison and differentiation to correct deviant behavior. Exclusion becomes possible through differentiation and hierarchization, serving as both assessment and punishment or reward, evident in workplace systems of promotion and demotion. The ability to rank individuals in relation to the norm arises, but it also facilitates the identification of deviations, defining the “difference in relation to all other differences, the external frontier of the abnormal . . ., the shameful class” (Foucault, 1977: 183), which is segregated from the rest of the group.
However, in this paper, we approach the traditional Foucauldian concept of “the shameful class” in a slightly different manner. Foucault envisions this class as individuals considered problematic, subjected to specific corrective measures to return them to normality, “so that they might all be like one another” (Foucault, 1977: 182). In contemporary organizations, this exclusion does not aim to normalize but rather to permanently remove individuals from the system. This shift reflects a broader transformation in disciplinary power, where exclusion operates not as a failure but as an integral mechanism that reinforces norms by removing those deemed deviant. When compared to the focus on exclusion in this study, the purpose of exclusion differs. What Foucault describes as the exclusion of discipline has a clear intent of normalization. Those belonging to “the shameful class” are meant to be educated and trained to be reintegrated into the hierarchical system. This contrasts with the exclusion that occurs in today’s workplace, at a micro-level. Here, it is no longer about normalizing in the traditional sense, about reintegrating the deviant into the organization’s structure, but about shifting the boundaries of what is considered acceptable. Exclusion, in this case, becomes a mechanism not for correction but for reinforcing organizational norms by removing individuals who fail to conform. From a broader perspective, exclusion at the organizational level shifts the responsibility for normalization to society, where the individual becomes unemployed, today’s shameful class, and thus no longer the specific organization’s problem. However, this does not mean that disciplinary power ceases to operate. Instead, exclusion functions as a form of disciplinary power that shapes behavior within the organization by signaling what happens to those who fail to meet expectations. It is a form of control that extends beyond the individual who is excluded and influences the actions of those who remain.
While Foucault advocates for a comprehensive understanding of disciplinary power without detailed distinctions at the macro, meso, and micro levels, we emphasize our specific focus on the intricate mechanisms of exclusion at the micro-level. Our interest lies not only in the transition from normalization to exclusion but also in the nuanced process of exclusion itself, and how it operates as a disciplinary mechanism that continues to exert power over the remaining employees by reinforcing organizational norms and expectations. By examining how seemingly normative individuals face exclusion from employment, we delve into the detailed dynamics of disciplinary power within organizational contexts. What unfolds when an employee, initially perceived as normative, fails to meet the shifting threshold of normality and is unable to conform to the organization’s evolving expectations? At this juncture, the objective of normalization shifts into a process of exclusion, which no longer seeks to correct or integrate the individual but instead seeks to remove them from the organizational structure. This marks the culmination of the organizational disciplinary process, where deviance is no longer tolerated but actively expelled.
This paper aims to explore how an employee is constructed as deviant and handled when everyday disciplinary procedures, social mechanisms, and specific attempts to normalize them have failed. What happens when an individual fails to fulfill norms for teamwork (Barker, 1993), customer orientation (Hayes and Walsham, 2000), hard work (Kornberger et al., 2011), or continuous development (Bergström et al., 2009)? What if they refuse to comply with instructions (Anteby and Chan, 2018), or are simply mentally absent while physically present (Paulsen, 2015)? What happens when they, despite managerial intervention aimed to normalize them, continue to deviate?
Critical scholarship often presents the disciplinary apparatus as highly effective in exerting control over individuals within organizations, emphasizing their deep entrenchment in its mechanisms. However, there’s a growing recognition of the importance of shifting our focus toward acknowledging the limitations and failures inherent in disciplinary power dynamics. To further elucidate these dynamics, it is crucial to explore how exclusion, seemingly a failure, paradoxically contributes to the normalizing effect on individuals who manage to avoid being excluded. This phenomenon warrants a closer examination, challenging the conventional assumption of exclusion solely as a disciplinary failure. By unpacking these intricacies, we can better comprehend the multifaceted ways in which power operates in organizational contexts and its impact on those who deviate from normative expectations.
This paper seeks to address these gaps by offering nuanced insights into the complex dynamics of exclusion. Exclusion is not merely a failure of disciplinary power but rather a multifaceted mechanism that operates beyond mere elimination. It serves not only to remove individuals from certain contexts but also to subtly influence and shape behaviors, exerting control in more nuanced ways.
Additionally, drawing on the insights of Costas and Grey (2019: 1579), the discussion extends to consider “how more subtle forms of power, which produce, discipline, and govern subjects, exist alongside the presence of potentially more coercive and violent forms.” By embracing this broader perspective, our understanding of power dynamics within organizations becomes more comprehensive. We recognize that power operates not only through direct control mechanisms but also through the shaping of norms, values, and behaviors, ultimately influencing organizational dynamics in profound ways.
This study explores a specific aspect of disciplinary power within organizational contexts: the transition from normalization to exclusion, marking the point at which managers cease efforts to reintegrate the individual into normality and instead initiate steps for their removal. This process unfolds with its own logic, influenced by how the individual is perceived as deviant.
Two distinct types of deviance constructions emerge from this analysis. Firstly, there’s the portrayal of the employee as underperforming, where managers engage in iterative attempts to align the individual’s behavior with established norms of normality. Here, continuous scrutiny and feedback become tools to monitor and correct behavior, positioning the employee in a state of perpetual evaluation. In contrast, deviance can also manifest through amplification, where the individual’s idiosyncrasies—such as personal traits or working habits—are accentuated. Rather than explicit criticism, these traits become highlighted as inherently incompatible with organizational norms, gradually reinforcing their deviant status and justifying exclusion.
The manager’s handling of the deviant employee, including both failed attempts at normalization and the eventual separation from the organization, is intricately tied to their construction of deviance. This highlights the nuanced interplay between managerial perceptions and disciplinary actions within organizational power dynamics, where exclusion serves not only as a response to deviance but as a control mechanism that reaffirms organizational norms. The process of excluding an employee who fails to conform sends a powerful message to remaining employees about the consequences of deviation, thereby reinforcing the disciplinary apparatus within the workplace.
This aspect of organizational control practices is relatively unexplored—when disciplinary processes fail to achieve normalization, and managers resort to all necessary means to remove an employee. To capture the failure of normalization efforts, this study focuses on the perspectives of management, a viewpoint often overlooked in critical management studies (Alvesson et al., 2008). However, this failure of normalization does not indicate a breakdown in disciplinary power; instead, exclusion becomes a natural extension of the disciplinary process when normalization proves ineffective. By focusing on how managers construct deviance and implement exclusion, this study reveals the enduring strength of disciplinary power, even when normalization falters. However, as suggested by Bryant and Higgins (2010: 254), it is also valuable to examine “the activities of those groups who have the power to define certain acts as deviant,” in addition to studying marginalized groups.
The subsequent sections of the paper are organized as follows. The first section provides a literature review of how the disciplinary apparatus operates and specifically how deviators within its regime are handled. The second section presents the chosen method and the process of analysis. The following section presents the Swedish context in which the respondents were operating, including an overview of the Swedish labor legislation that provides the backdrop for the empirical sections. Subsequently, the empirical analysis is presented. Finally, the paper’s contribution is outlined, and it is discussed how the empirical findings contribute to the existing literature.
The deviant employee in Critical Management Studies
This literature review delves into the practices surrounding “deviant” employees, guided by the question of how managers handle individuals deemed as such. Specifically, it examines scenarios where attempts to “normalize” the individual, as defined by the manager, prove unsuccessful. This review also explores how the exclusion of deviant employees, often seen as a failure of disciplinary mechanisms, may instead represent an extension of these mechanisms, reflecting shifts in organizational control practices.
Disciplinary power and the exclusion of deviant employees
Michel Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, as presented in Discipline and Punish (1977) and further expanded in Abnormal (2003), is pivotal in understanding how control operates within organizations. While much of the literature has focused on normalization—the process through which individuals are molded to conform to organizational norms—less attention has been paid to the mechanisms that come into play when normalization fails. As Clegg (1998) and McKinlay and Starkey (1998) argue, exclusion should not be viewed as the failure of discipline but as its logical extension. The exclusion of deviant individuals can serve as a form of disciplinary power, reinforcing norms and control through their removal.
Foucault’s later works, such as “Security, Territory, Population” (Foucault, 2007) and “Abnormal,” (Foucault, 2003) provide additional insights into how disciplinary mechanisms evolve into broader governance strategies. These texts elaborate on exclusion as an intentional technique within biopolitical governance, where managing populations includes isolating those who disrupt the normative order. For example, exclusion can be seen as a strategy to delineate the boundaries of acceptable behavior, thereby strengthening the disciplinary framework by removing individuals who cannot or will not conform.
Building on this foundation, Nikolas Rose’s exploration of advanced liberal governance highlights how modern organizations employ both subtle and overt exclusion strategies as part of their control regimes. Rose (1999) discusses the role of governance in shaping individual behavior and emphasizes how exclusion functions to manage risks and maintain organizational stability. Similarly, Mitchell Dean’s (2010) work on biopolitical control illustrates the dynamic interplay between normalization and exclusion, framing exclusion as an active and necessary component of governance mechanisms.
Existing studies have contributed valuable perspectives but have yet to fully address the role of exclusion as a deliberate disciplinary strategy. For instance, Jackson and Carter (1998) and Clegg (1998) emphasize the logical progression of disciplinary power into exclusion but stop short of examining the nuances of how exclusion operates as a governance tool. Similarly, Barratt (2008) highlights the dynamic nature of power mechanisms within organizations, emphasizing how exclusion and normalization function together in shaping subjectivity. Rather than treating exclusion as a mere failure of discipline, Barratt underscores its role as part of a broader, iterative process of organizational control where individuals are categorized and positioned within specific power relations. Raffnsøe et al. (2019) further develop this perspective, emphasizing how organizational control is maintained through differential structuring of freedom and the continuous categorization of individuals within normative frameworks. Rather than positioning exclusion as a fixed endpoint, their work highlights how disciplinary mechanisms function through ongoing processes of differentiation, classification, and subjectification.
This paper aims to bridge these gaps by explicitly framing exclusion not just as a failure of normalization but as an intentional and integral strategy of disciplinary regimes. This perspective contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of power dynamics in organizations and responds to calls for more nuanced approaches within Critical Management Studies (CMS).
Exclusion as a disciplinary technology
In Weberian terms, such managerial practices reflect a form of bureaucratic authority (Weber, 1946), where formal rules and systematic documentation of deviant behavior legitimize and rationalize the exclusion process. As Bauman (2001) argues, exclusion is not merely a bureaucratic function but a broader social mechanism used to delineate and maintain the boundaries of a community. Bureaucracies, by codifying norms and enforcing compliance, contribute to this process by depersonalizing individuals, transforming complex human interactions into manageable categories that are easier to control. In doing so, those who fail to conform are not only disciplined but also systematically marginalized as a means of reinforcing organizational order.
Critical work studies often exhibit a tendency to focus solely on the employee, particularly when examining deviant behavior or resistance to managerial control. The analytical focus usually shifts toward the resulting effects on the subject (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). As Sanson and Courpasson (2022: 2) argue, this “subjectivization” of research, emphasizing “the individualistic treatment of petty acts and sentiment” and “stresses individual reactions to the deleterious effects of managerial domination,” often ignores processes outside of this scope. While the potential power of these “petty” acts of agency should not be underestimated (Scott, 1990), they often amount to “just” a small victory for the individual, providing “wiggle room” for employees to violate norms while still adhering to organizational goals (Brown and Lewis, 2011; Mumby et al., 2017; Thornborrow and Brown, 2009).
Moreover, this narrow focus overlooks how exclusion operates as an organizational strategy to reinforce norms through the removal of those deemed irredeemably deviant. Exclusion, in this sense, functions as a disciplinary mechanism that sustains organizational order rather than as a final act of discipline. Rather than reinforcing group cohesion through fear, exclusion operates as an ongoing process of structuring and reconfiguring power relations within the workplace (Barratt, 2008). Barratt highlights that exclusion should not be seen as a simple reaction to deviance but as an integrated part of the disciplinary framework, where power is exercised dynamically through both normalization and exclusion.
Horizontal and vertical control mechanisms
Some studies, however, offer a more comprehensive view of the disciplinary process, including a closer look at control techniques and how the deviant employee is handled. Despite their valuable contributions, these articles exhibit notable variations. Discipline, as depicted in previously discussed research, can be exercised both vertically and horizontally.
Starting with horizontal mechanisms, they involve the group in deciding what is considered a deviation and how to handle the individual. As with many deviations, the deviant employee is constructed in relation to how the group normally functions. An individual can be judged, for example, as not “pulling their weight” (Godfrey, 2016: 183), “performing shoddy work” (Brivot and Gendron, 2011: 146), or not investing a large enough “part of themselves in the team” (Barker, 1993: 436). In other words, someone “who does not perform as required or who breaches some other institutional code of behavior” (Casey, 1999: 172). However, what is particularly interesting in these cases is that the group has the mandate to act autonomously when it comes to deciding how to handle the deviant employee.
These studies offer valuable insight into what happens when norms are violated. For example, Godfrey’s (2016) study on humor as a disciplinary technology in the military highlights the effectiveness of social control through a joking culture. Recruits who violate the norm are subjected to ridicule and pranks such as their lockers being lifted, personal items hidden, and beds placed outside. According to Godfrey (2016: 184), “the only way to avoid being the target of continual joking behavior is to ‘fall into line’.” Similarly, Barker describes how workers “must identify strongly with their team’s values, goals, norms, and rules.” Those who “resist their team’s control, they must be willing to risk their human dignity” (Barker, 1993: 436). In both cases, employees risk losing something—their human dignity or becoming the target of harsh jokes—which prompts them to conform to the norm.
Exclusion represents an extreme form of this process, where the deviant individual is permanently removed from the group, thereby serving as a warning to others. As Anderson (2009) argues, exclusion from the social rituals of organizational life can be a powerful disciplinary tool, isolating the individual and signaling their deviance to the group. This resonates with the Foucauldian notion of biopolitical control, where exclusion becomes part of the organization’s disciplinary regime (Foucault, 1997, 2007).
In contrast to more direct methods of dealing with deviance, groups can also adopt subtler approaches. Deviant individuals may be marginalized, deliberately sidelined from the “rites and everyday rituals that signify organizational membership” (Anderson, 2009: 36–37) to make them aware of their wrongdoing. This process of marginalization, often studied as workplace bullying in organizational behavior and work psychology (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), ostracism (Robinson et al., 2013), or social exclusion (Blackhart et al., 2009), can also be seen as a way for the group to discipline deviant individuals.
For instance, Casey’s (1999) study on the process and effects of implementing a new organizational culture describes how a deviant individual was denied “understanding and team forgiveness” bearing the “burden of punishment” until they conformed (Casey, 1999: 169). Similarly, in Brivot and Gendron’s (2011) article, an individual who was deemed to be underperforming was denied access to the social group, which in turn prevented the individual from performing adequately.
Once again, the group functions as judge, jury, and executioner, as Barker (1993) argues. However, normalization efforts often succeed, as individuals subjected to sanctions are typically unwilling to risk their group membership or dignity. Yet, there are cases where individuals fail to adapt, as seen in descriptions of those who “do not fit with the culture” (Casey, 1999: 167), or repeat the same mistake and are “caught again” (Barker, 1993: 427). In such instances, individuals are either “encouraged to leave the company” (Casey, 1999: 167) or fired (Barker, 1993).
Vertical Procedures of normalization and exit strategies
Deviant employees may also be subjected to vertical procedures of normalization, where management initiates and directs the normalization process. As Weber (1946) and Scott (2003) describe in their work on bureaucracies, management’s control mechanisms tend to depersonalize these processes by using formal systems to define and enforce acceptable behavior. In this context, deviance is regulated through hierarchical structures and standardized procedures, designed to ensure conformity. There are extreme cases where managers employ norm-defying and provocative leadership tactics to reinforce their authority and organizational norms (Boje, 1995; Sørensen and Villadsen, 2018). Rather than simply imposing personal biases, such leadership involves strategically staged norm violations that simultaneously disrupt and reinforce power structures.
More commonly, particularly in knowledge-intensive organizations, the literature portrays an “up-or-out” culture. This theme is prevalent in critical scholarship, which often examines how individuals internalize organizational norms, assume responsibility for their self-development, and thereby participate in their own subjugation (Brown and Lewis, 2011; Covaleski et al., 1998).
In such environments, when an employee who has internalized these constraints deviates from the established norm, exiting the organization becomes the default outcome. Here, discipline is exercised by limiting the individual’s ability to achieve their desired professional identity. Managers may signal to the employee that they are underperforming, not advancing quickly enough, or incapable of further development, which prompts the employee to voluntarily leave the organization (Kärreman and Alvesson, 2009; Lambert and Pezet, 2011). For example, Bergström et al. (2009) show that employees who fail to meet organizational expectations of commitment, continuous change, and development are punished by being assigned to insignificant, unrewarding projects. When the opportunity to conform and succeed within the organization is removed, the deviant employee “finds an exit” (Kornberger et al., 2011: 521). Those who “cannot take the pressure” (Lambert and Pezet, 2011: 24) are “expected to leave the company in due course” (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2004: 431).
In conclusion, previous studies have demonstrated that organizational life can be challenging for employees who deviate from the norm, and that disciplinary power is strictly enforced through both subtle and overt mechanisms. While exclusion has often been discussed as an outcome, this review emphasizes the need to understand it as an integral process within disciplinary regimes. The failure of normalization does not signify the limits of power; rather, it extends the reach of disciplinary control through exclusion. Further research is needed to explore how exclusion functions not just as a last resort but as a deliberate strategy to reinforce organizational norms and regulate deviance.
Method
This study’s empirical data was primarily collected in 2015 through 50 interviews with senior executives from both private and public organizations. The interviews focused on how management addressed deviant employees, exploring both the identification of deviance and the strategies employed to manage these individuals. Based on a pre-existing understanding of the literature, particular attention was given to the most problematic individuals—those who could not be normalized through more subtle disciplinary measures. Following Foucault’s (1977: 183) concept of the limit that “defines [the] difference in relation to all other differences,” the study sought to investigate how management handled and constructed these individuals when conventional normalization efforts failed. Specifically, it focused on cases where employees, despite various attempts, could not be brought back to what the organization considered acceptable behavior.
Notably, the empirical material is intentionally biased. The focus was not on all deviant employees, nor those who had been successfully normalized or those not subjected to normalization attempts. Instead, the study concentrated on the most extreme cases—employees deemed deviant and ultimately unresponsive to all normalization efforts. By analyzing these few, extreme cases, the goal was to develop a deeper understanding of the disciplinary process.
Data collection
Initially, concerns were raised regarding the sensitivity of the topic and whether respondents would be willing to discuss it. To test both the interview approach and assess the availability of empirical material, a pilot study was conducted in the fall of 2014. Seven interviews (ID 1–7, see Table 1) were carried out with respondents sourced from the personal network of one of the researchers. The pilot provided two key insights: first, the desired material was accessible, as all interviewees had experience dealing with problematic employees and were willing to share their stories; second, follow-up questions were developed based on the initial questionnaire, with an increased focus on the chronological narrative of the respondents’ experiences.
Participant inventory.
The pilot study revealed that a simple, open-ended questionnaire could prompt respondents to freely share their stories. Following an introduction, respondents were asked broad questions about their organization, position, and experience. The central question—“As a manager, what sorts of challenges have you encountered with your employees?”—prompted respondents to discuss their most significant cases, leading to comprehensive narratives. Further questions, such as “How did you recognize that this employee presented challenges or issues?” and “What steps did you take to address the issue?” helped deepen the conversation. In some cases, follow-up questions were unnecessary as managers provided detailed responses without further prompting.
The insights gained from the pilot influenced the design of the main study’s interviews. Greater emphasis was placed on the chronological progression of events, from the initial identification of the problem to the resolution or exclusion of the employee. Semi-structured interviews were used to allow managers to narrate their experiences, with clarifying questions asked as necessary. These interviews explored not only a single case but also any additional experiences the respondents had with problematic employees.
In total, 43 more interviews were conducted (ID 8–50, Table 1), with each lasting an average of 56.4 minutes. While most interviews lasted between 40 and 100 minutes, two interviews (ID 39 & 45) were shorter due to scheduling conflicts, and 10 interviews were under 35 minutes due to time constraints. All interviews, except one (ID 35), were recorded and later transcribed.
Data analysis
The data analysis aimed to impose structure on a process that is inherently iterative and creative (Pratt et al., 2022). The empirical material, consisting of transcripts from interviews with 50 managers, was thoroughly examined to identify recurring themes, connections, and patterns. Initial notes were made directly on the printed transcripts, and NVivo was subsequently used to organize and code the data through an open-ended coding process. This approach facilitated the identification of significant concepts, leading to the formation of numerous empirically descriptive categories. As the analysis progressed, these codes were refined, merged, or renamed to more accurately reflect the data.
However, during the analysis, it became clear that the chronological order of events was becoming muddled. To address this, the coding framework was restructured to preserve both the temporal sequence of events and the data’s underlying themes. Several “time blocks” were created, such as “pre-problem stage,” “initial problem,” “corrective actions,” “failure to improve,” and “termination.” Each time block was then revisited, and the codes were adjusted accordingly.
By reintroducing time as an organizing principle, the analysis restored a sense of process. These time blocks, while not strictly linear, provided a clearer picture of the sequence of events, as suggested by Langley (1999: 703). At this stage, NVivo was set aside, and the printed transcripts were reexamined. Color markers and pencils were used to transfer the codes and time blocks onto paper, making it easier to identify overarching categories. This method also allowed for more effective retrieval of specific codes.
The data revealed that deviance fell into two main categories: performance-related issues and behavioral issues. These categories provided a framework for understanding how normalization attempts were structured. The way a manager responded to a problematic employee depended on how the problem was initially defined. When normalization efforts failed, the construction of the employee as non-responsive became central to the exclusion process.
In total, 143 narratives were analyzed, each centered on employees considered problematic and ultimately unwelcome in the workplace. Through this process, it became clear that the manager’s perception of the employee as beyond normalization was integral to the decision to exclude them.
The Context
Before presenting the empirical material, it is essential to provide a brief overview of the Swedish context, particularly its labor legislation. While the specifics of this legislation may not be the focal point, its significance lies in how it limits the otherwise broad authority of managers to intervene in various aspects of the employment relationship. This authority, commonly referred to as the “managerial prerogative,” is rooted in the conceptualization of labor as a commodity—something the employer purchases in terms of time and effort to direct as needed. Within the scope of this prerogative, managers have the right to organize work, determine working hours and methods, and make key decisions, including hiring, firing, and performance evaluations. However, this managerial right is often tempered by labor laws, which impose legal constraints on managerial actions, especially in relation to employee termination.
In Sweden, the Employment Protection Act (SFS 1982:80, 1982) governs the conditions under which an employee can be dismissed. Two main forms of dismissal are defined: summary dismissal and termination with notice. Summary dismissal is reserved for extreme cases in which an employee has “grossly neglected his obligations to the employer” (Section 18). This is seen as an extraordinary measure, applicable only in cases where an employee’s actions are so egregious that they “should never be tolerated in any legal relationship” (SOU 1973:7, 1973: 184 translated). Examples of such actions include disloyal competition (AD 1 1999 nr 144), theft (AD 2013 nr 89), prolonged unauthorized absence (AD 2016 nr 24), severe negligence (AD 2011 nr 24), or obstructive behavior (AD 2014 nr 9).
Alternatively, termination with notice requires “objective grounds,” which can either be related to economic, technical, or organizational reasons (such as workforce reductions) or to the employee’s conduct or performance (Section 7, paragraphs 3–4). However, fulfilling these legal prerequisites can be challenging for employers. In court, they must demonstrate that the employee was negligent (AD 1987 nr 90; AD 1990 nr 112), that their actions caused harm to the employer (AD 1981 nr 140), and that the employee was aware of the unacceptable nature of their behavior (AD 1981 nr 111).
Overall, this legal framework significantly restricts the range of actions a manager can take regarding dismissal. When managers perceive the formal process of dismissing an employee as too complex or cumbersome, they may resort to operating in legal gray areas, subtly pressuring the employee to resign voluntarily. As some respondents have observed, “Employee protection is strong in Sweden, and as an employee, you can misbehave quite significantly without facing termination” (Lucas, district manager). In response, “you have to make them quit” (Olivia, CEO), or “you pay them to leave quietly” (Camilla, head of department). If those strategies fail, “you frame it as a termination due to economic, technical, or organizational reasons” (Jacob, CEO).
Nevertheless, as will be demonstrated, a specific process typically unfolds before an employee decides to resign or accept a quiet departure. Moreover, this process varies depending on how the employee’s behavior is perceived as deviant. While the outcome may consistently lead to exclusion, the path to that exclusion can differ significantly depending on the circumstances.
Findings
In the following section, two types of deviance constructions are conceptualized: the employee as underperforming and socially nonconform. As will be shown, how the manager chose to handle the employee—that is, the specific, and in these cases failed, normalizing attempt as well as the final separation of the deviant individual—were dependent on how the manager constructed the deviant employee. It should be noted, however, as explained by the managers, that the process of normalization was usually successful, resulting in employees adapting and improving. However, this study is only concerned with the most extreme cases where the employee could not be normalized, and managers resorted to all necessary means to terminate their employment. Initially, managers claimed to have tried to help the individual improve, but when this proved ineffective, they shifted their approach from normalization to exclusion.
Type 1: The employee as underperforming
The first type of deviance concerns the employee constructed as underperforming, indicating an individual who fails to meet the expected level of performance. This norm of performance can be contextualized within the organization’s perspective of the employee as an economic asset, whereby the expectation is for the employee to generate more economic value than the cost incurred in employing them.
The construction of the employee as underperforming
Instances of this type of deviance were observed when managers discussed underperforming individuals. For instance, one manager referred to the individual as someone who has “trouble managing work” (Emma, office manager), another mentioned that they “don’t perform at an adequate level” (William, CEO), and some simply noted that they “closed far too few deals” (Olivia, CEO). According to the managers, this flaw was “quite easy to notice, especially in sales where everything is measurable” (Oliver, CEO). Olivia (CEO) emphasized that “you see [the numbers], and you can see that they don’t deliver.” In certain cases, “it might take a while to notice any issues, perhaps not for six months, maybe even a year, but eventually, they become apparent” (William, CEO). Another manager explained that these issues arise when individuals “do things wrong” (Olivia, CEO), “when they lack the ability to organize their work properly so that invoices can be sent out” (Michael, head of department), or “when you yourself, in the end, have to step in and do their job” (Bella, CEO). As Olivia (CEO) pointed out, “you realize that this person is costing us a shit load of money,” and as Simon (CEO) added, “you can feel and see that this is not right.”
There was a distinctive trait in the construction of the employee as underperforming, where the manager could base their assessment on the employee’s ability to perform the job or their willingness to do so. In the former case, the manager often separated the individual from their performance. The employee was frequently described as pleasant: “He was happy [and] cheerful, a nice person, he was liked.” However, as the manager explained, “He was incapable of doing his job” (Emma, office manager). Similarly, as William (CEO) explained about an individual who did not perform adequately, even if “nothing was wrong with their attitude or anything, besides the result,” such an individual “we think, can’t have this job, it doesn’t suit [them].” Another manager stated, “He was good at what he was doing, and nice, like that, but [. . .] the problem was the pace. He did not work fast enough. It is complex, it is both, as I say, the economy, the quality, and then the tempo” (Isabella, CEO). As Emma (office manager) explained, “[when they] don’t handle this [. . .] or always want help, ask about everything, and what [they] do often turns out wrong, and they keep asking, and asking again, and more mistakes, and when it is like this for a long time [. . .] then you eventually have to. . .”
The judgment of an employee as flawed could also be based on the employee’s willingness to perform the job. In this scenario, the manager believes that if the individual wanted to, they could perform at a higher level, but they are “slacking, scrimshanking” (Lucas, district manager). These individuals are often described as “always negative, won’t get things done, [. . .] dodging responsibilities, [. . .] avoiding taking on new assignments, and sneaking away” (Charlotte, CEO). They are “not interested in learning new things” (Daniel, head of department) and their performance is always “half-hearted” (Amelia, regional director). According to managers, these employees are bad for morale: “[It’s] both demoralizing and annoying” (Charlotte, CEO); “I get provoked, [. . .] there can’t be someone there who’s busy fetching tea or putting on lipstick, or something like that [. . .] How damn difficult can it be?” (Sofia, head of department); “at some point, you can’t take it anymore, these kinds of people” (Johan, CEO). Another manager described these employees as lacking drive: “they are not motivated at all [. . .] they are just waiting for someone else to do something [. . .] and after a while, I snap, like ‘now you have to shape up, now the wheat will be separated from the chaff!’.” (Bella, CEO).
The instances of construction of the employee as underperforming outlined in Table 2 serve as prime examples of how managers approach the assessment of such issues from multiple perspectives. Even if the dynamics are somewhat different when the judgment is based on the employee’s skill in doing the job, as opposed to the manager’s perception of the employee’s will, ultimately, it boils down to the employee’s actual performance. The manager sees this not as judging another person, but as assessing an employee’s revenue-generating potential, a judgment where only numbers matter, a level of scrutiny regarded as inherent to the manager’s role (Kallinikos, 2004; Miller and Power, 2013). Whether it is the inability to manage work tasks effectively, a lack of accountability in taking on new assignments, or a persistent lack of dedication to tasks, the overarching concern remains centered on the employee’s actual performance. These findings underscore the tendency to normalize individuals by reducing them to quantifiable metrics, such as productivity levels or task completion rates, to make them more manageable within the organizational framework. This reduction to numbers not only simplifies the evaluation process but also shapes the subsequent managerial responses, as we will explore in the following section.
Instances of construction of employee as underperforming.
Managerial response
Regardless of whether the problematic employee was deemed lacking in skills or commitment, the management’s actions to correct the issue were similar. They provided specific feedback to the employee and set clear goals to improve their performance. As Sofia (head of department) explained, “[I tell them], ‘this you have to do this month and this you have to do that month’.” Charlotte (CEO) also shared, “We tried, using performance appraisals and by salary adjustments, to make the individual aware of the problem. We were direct, told the person what weaknesses we saw, how they needed to develop, like that.” Similarly, William (CEO) stated, “We put different plans in action, like ‘what can we do to make this person perform’ [. . .] It was quite concrete activities to help the individual. Our intention was not to fire the individual but to help them develop. At this company we want to develop our personnel if they don’t perform at an adequate level.”
The plans implemented by the managers aimed to motivate the underperforming employee. As Daniel (head of department) explained, they sought to “push them to make an effort.” According to the managers, the most effective way to achieve this was to “make things clear” for the employee, as Jacob (CEO) noted. The managers typically began with what they called a “serious talk” (Michael, head of department), or “several serious talks [. . .] where [they] tried to communicate what [they were] expecting of the employee” (Simon, CEO); “what [they] saw as problematic with the current performance in relation to all others” (Emma, office manager); but also, as Lucas (district manager) explained, “to make the employee aware of that I see them, that I from now on will watch them like a hawk.” As managers noticed that continuous discussions and follow-ups were not leading to any significant improvement, their actions became more intensified. The documentation became more detailed and thorough, gradually limiting the employee’s space to improve and increasing the pressure for them to voluntarily leave the company. Each step in this process—from the initial conversations to the final stages of documentation—was not just a formality, but a clear trajectory toward a final goal: ensuring the employee understood that their time at the organization was coming to an end. This stepwise approach to addressing underperformance is further detailed in Table 3. The managers then followed up with the employee on a regular basis. “You have to follow this through, you meet like every week” (Simon, CEO); “every Friday” (Lucas, district manager); or “three times a month” (Jacob, CEO). As Simon (CEO) explained, this was to “know what actually gets done, how this individual actually contributes to the organization,” and so that “the employee knows that I am the authority here, that I am responsible for this” (Lucas, district manager).
Managerial response to employee underperformance.
When these concrete measures, such as goal-setting and regular follow-up, still failed to yield results, managers began to realize that the effort to normalize the employee was no longer fruitful. This led to a strategic shift where the focus was no longer on developing the employee but on separating them from the organization. By gradually raising expectations and intensifying the monitoring, managers create a situation in which the underperforming employee increasingly feels alienated from the organization. The psychological burden of not meeting the expectations often leads the employee to voluntarily leave, rather than go through a formal termination process. This suggests that exclusion frequently occurs as a result of managers pushing the individual toward self-exclusion rather than a formal dismissal. As Benjamin (head of department) noted, “This is a long process, a process where you try to break the individual down. You must make them understand that they aren’t good enough, even if they sometimes have been here for a long time. And in the end, you want them to quit.” To achieve this, “you need to build strong cases [. . .] be thorough in the documentation, documenting every intervention, even the nicer, or constructive ones at the beginning, like, ‘I have had three conversations with this individual’, write down what was said. When, how, and so forth” (Lucas, district manager). 2
Documentation, initially used to track the employee’s progress and efforts to rectify problems, gradually becomes a tool for legitimizing the exclusion. As managers systematically document each failed attempt to improve performance, they build a case that clearly demonstrates the individual’s time in the organization is coming to an end. This process transforms documentation from a developmental tool into a mechanism of exclusion. The sentiment echoed among other managers: “Yes, you need to start documenting” (Isabella, CEO), “Document everything” (Hans, CEO), “Document every action you take, everything that don’t work” (Simon, CEO). And “when you present this [to the employee]” (Lucas, district manager), “all this documentation” (Hans, CEO), “when you make them understand that they have had numerous opportunities to make it work” (Bella, CEO). “You show them the papers” (William, CEO), “then they can witness it for themselves, they can realize it” (Sofia, head of department). According to the managers’ accounts, this approach is often sufficient to “get rid of the problem [. . .] they quit because it becomes too obvious” (Lucas, district manager). “When they realize this, that they are in the wrong place and come to terms with the fact that the battle is lost” (Bella, CEO), then, “they quit” (Lucas, district manager), “they leave” (Jacob, CEO), they “stop working here” (Benjamin, head of department). ‘[You just tell them] “that this will not work, I want you gone”‘ (Olivia, CEO) or “recommend them to look for another job” (William, CEO). As the managers explained, “because they [the employee] know that having a termination on the CV isn’t favorable, they leave [quietly]” (Hans, CEO), “and then we shake on it, and they get some financial compensation, enabling them to voluntarily resign. It’s like, you want to give [the employee] a chance to leave the company while preserving their dignity” (Benjamin, head of department).
Following the analysis of managerial responses outlined in this section, it is evident that management perceived these individuals as deviant and resorted to disciplinary measures to induce change. They established specific goals and plans, implementing concrete activities and conducting ongoing performance evaluations to address the issue effectively. This approach inevitably reduced the employee to mere performance metrics, such as deals closed, errors made, clients contacted, or hours worked, with continuous comparisons to the established norm. Consequently, the employee became labeled as an irredeemable deviant, defined by the gap between their performance and the norm (Miller and Power, 2013). According to Miller and Power’s analysis of accounting and control mechanisms, this process often unfolds subtly, with each step—from setting concrete targets to documenting failures—contributing to the construction of the employee as an underperformer, ultimately legitimizing their exclusion.
As we transition to the subsequent section, our focus will shift toward a different type of deviance: the socially nonconforming employee. Here, we will explore how this distinct individual is constructed and handled within the organizational context, shedding light on the contrasting approach employed by management in such cases.
Type 2: Employee as socially nonconform
The construction of the employee as socially nonconform
The second type of deviance under consideration pertains to employees who are viewed as socially nonconforming. Such deviance can be attributed to failure to meet social norms in the workplace. Managers often identified such employees as problematic due to their behavior toward co-workers, describing them as rude, unkind, or angry. For instance, one manager stated that an employee “always yelled, so much so that they [co-workers] almost started to cry” (Bella, CEO), while another described an employee as an individual that “walked around belittling their colleagues [. . .] was mean and unkind [. . .] a small person who had no muscles in their soul” (Amelia, regional director). Yet another manager referred to an employee as “mad and cranky, a person that snaps, it was unbearable” (Isabella, CEO). Bella (CEO), also recounted an incident involving an employee who exhibited excessive toughness, resulting in widespread complaints from her colleagues. According to Bella, the employee’s behavior prompted everyone to voice their dissatisfaction. Bella relayed that the co-workers approached her and expressed their concerns, stating, “she is too tough,” and urging her to intervene, as they felt that the employee’s demeanor was “rude and harsh.” The negative impact on their well-being was evident as Bella stated, “Yes, they were feeling bad.” As a consequence, a significant number of complaints were raised, underscoring the extent of the issue.
Here, the manager focused on behavior as it was perceived mostly by the employees’ colleagues: the individual was described as “rude and harsh,” “mean and unkind,” or as Daniel (head of department) put it, “an individual that is angry.” This behavior, according to Daniel, “effects the work environment really badly” and “creates a lot of bad energy” (Amelia, regional director), which, in turn, led that individual to have difficulty working with others: they “get a lot of enemies” (Bella, CEO); “can’t work with others” (Daniel, head of department) or, as another manager put it, “can’t cooperate, not with anyone” (Ella, regional director), especially “when they have lost the respect of everyone in the house” (John, head of department). Similarly, Thomas (site manager) explained that a problematic employee “thought she was better than others, and she always bossed them around. She could scold someone, even if they had nothing to do with it, because she thought they had forgotten something. [. . .] She thought she knew better, was better than everyone else.” Another manager described their employee as “condescending” and said that she “did not listen to her co-workers [. . .] and tried to decide things that weren’t hers to decide. Maybe that doesn’t sound like a problem, but it was. It was really troublesome [. . .] It is hard for the employees” (Ella, regional director).
Managers often mention how other employees feel affected by the poor work environment created by the problematic employee. Complaints from coworkers inform the manager of the problem, and as one manager explained, “This person was really troublesome. [. . .] Everywhere she went I was informed that conflicts started. [. . .] It was all sorts of problems, and this affected the group around her really badly. The whole organization was affected. [. . .] Personally, I saw her, and yeah, she was a difficult person” (Daniel, head of department). Therefore, even if the manager does not experience the issue first-hand, they still rely on the judgment of the offending individual’s peers. Statements like “This person was totally lost,” “the person had no clue,” and “there was not one millimeter in this individual’s brain that could reflect upon anything,” or “she [the employee] was a tyrant, really” (Ella, regional director), may not necessarily reflect a personal experience, but rather a formal complaint that has turned into a personal judgment. As one manager reflected on a particularly challenging case: The group that formed against this individual was very strong and seemed to be fueled by anger. Looking back, it appears that the group only presented negative aspects of this person. It was almost like a hate group towards this individual. [. . .] But we concluded that the best course of action was to relocate this person. If you have 10 individuals who [. . .] [have] a lot of complaints, then you must, you have to, address the problem. (Marcus, CEO)
These remarks demonstrate the manager’s decision to act based on the group’s perception. In retrospect, this response may not have been entirely fair. However, at that moment, the manager felt the need to address the issue. The manager acknowledges that the labeled deviant behavior of the employee is problematic in and of itself for management. The group that formed against this individual was notably strong and driven by anger. Over time, it appears they exclusively emphasized negative traits, contributing to the employee’s stigmatization. Table 4 provides specific examples of how socially nonconforming employees are perceived and described by managers. This aligns with research on social exclusion and organizational control, where deviations from norms often lead to marginalization through stigmatization and performance-based exclusion (cf. Miller and Power, 2013; Tajfel, 1982). Marcus (CEO) described it as “almost like a hate group,” with the collective complaints reinforcing this negative image. The resulting stigmatization not only isolated the employee but also played a key role in management’s decision to relocate the person.
Instances of construction of employee as socially nonconform.
In such cases, self-reflection becomes a key strategy expected by management to facilitate reintegration of the socially non-conforming individual. However, when this reflective process fails—when the individual does not recognize or accept their “fault”—the exclusion becomes inevitable. Self-reflection is therefore not only a tool for improvement but also functions as a form of gatekeeping. As Bauman (2001) describes, social exclusion is often a process of boundary reinforcement, where those who fail to conform to collective expectations risk being increasingly marginalized. Rather than solely a failure of the individual to engage in introspection, exclusion is shaped by the community’s ongoing need to define itself through differentiation. Those who do not align with the shared values and norms of the group are not just stigmatized by their peers but risk permanent exclusion from the organization, as their perceived misalignment with collective expectations becomes a self-reinforcing justification for their marginalization.
Moreover, the individual’s lack of understanding or acknowledgment of the group’s rejection can further deepen their isolation. As seen in this case, the employee was described as perceiving themselves as faultless, which created an additional barrier to reconciliation. This lack of self-reflection often exacerbates the process of exclusion, as it alienates the individual not only from their colleagues but also from the introspective dialog that management seeks to facilitate. This aligns with theories of social exclusion, which suggest that individuals who fail to recognize or comprehend the group’s distancing often experience a compounded isolation, making reintegration into the group even more difficult (cf. Bauman, 2001; Tajfel, 1982). The notion of a “double exclusion” highlights how social isolation can become self-perpetuating, as the individual becomes further distanced both socially and psychologically from the collective norms.
Ultimately, the reliance on group dynamics and peer-driven complaints, rather than individualized performance assessments, highlights how exclusion is not only a consequence of the employee’s behavior but also of managerial actions. This reinforces the exclusionary cycle, where the socially nonconforming individual is continuously marginalized based on collective perceptions rather than direct evidence. Marcus (CEO) himself reflected on this, noting that while relocating the employee felt necessary, it may not have been entirely fair. This underscores the potential for management decisions to unintentionally amplify exclusionary processes, as decisions are made more in response to the collective frustrations of the group than through direct evaluation of the individual’s conduct. In this way, management’s reliance on peer feedback can perpetuate social exclusion, as behaviors are judged through the lens of group dynamics rather than objective performance criteria (cf. Miller and Power, 2013; Tajfel, 1982).
Following the exploration of how management perceives employees labeled as socially nonconforming due to their behavior toward colleagues, it becomes evident that these individuals undergo a distinct process compared to employees constructed as underperforming. These labeled deviants, constructed through collective judgment, experience a markedly different trajectory in terms of managerial intervention. Whereas underperforming employees are subjected to clear goals, performance evaluations, and attempts at improvement, socially nonconforming individuals face responses largely informed by peer complaints and group dynamics. Managers often rely on the judgments and grievances of coworkers to address the issues posed by these individuals, leading to interventions centered on psychologization and enforced self-reflection, where employees are encouraged—or pressured—to acknowledge and correct their perceived behavioral shortcomings. This shift in focus from performance metrics to interpersonal dynamics highlights the multifaceted nature of deviance within the workplace and sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the management strategies employed in handling socially nonconforming employees.
Managerial response
In contrast to addressing underperforming individuals with a variety of corrective strategies, which often involved reducing the employee solely to their performance and comparing them unfavorably to their peers, the approach shifted when dealing with socially non-conforming employees. In such cases, corrective measures were directed inward, aiming to prompt self-reflection and personal accountability. As Camilla (head of department) stated, the goal was to “confront them with their own behavior and its impact” on the work environment and their colleagues. This emphasis on self-awareness resonated with Benjamin (head of department) and Amelia (regional director), who explained, “When it is the self-image that is the problem, when people think they are a certain person but those around them think something completely different” (Benjamin, head of department), then “you have to work in this manner” (Amelia, regional director).
Such work often centers on compelling the individual to engage in self-reflection, which can provide them with insights into their own flaws and potentially enable them to change (cf. Foucault, 1978). As Amelia (regional director) elaborated: If you want to succeed in these conversations, you must burst their bubble. And, when I spoke to him and I saw, you know, when I saw his throat turn red with nervousness, when he became anxious, [. . .] then I knew that my words had hit home, had penetrated deeply into his mind. Then I was satisfied. I did not need him to verbally respond because I could tell from his physical reactions that it had got to him.
Observing physical reactions, such as nervousness, was interpreted as an indicator of the conversation’s impact, although the ultimate goal was to encourage individuals to confront their true image in the workplace, as perceived by their peers and managers.
While self-reflection could be facilitated in various ways, many managers, acknowledging the limitations of their expertise in navigating complex interpersonal dynamics, referred employees to external professionals. Managers like Daniel (head of department) readily admitted: “We involved HR and a psychologist in these cases.” This sentiment was echoed by Amelia (regional director), who stated, “My expertise lies in other areas; a professional should handle these situations.” Descriptions of external interventions varied, ranging from psychologists facilitating conflict resolution sessions to occupational health services offering consultations. However, some managers, like Thomas (site manager), expressed concerns about the effectiveness of these interventions, noting that the external intervention might have simply reinforced the employee’s existing perspective. Amelia (regional director) further emphasized the perceived necessity of external intervention due to the “potentially complex interpersonal challenges” presented by these individuals.
Despite seeking external help, the outcomes mirrored those observed with underperforming employees—limited to no significant improvements. A summary of the managerial responses to socially nonconforming employees is presented in Table 5. Managers reported instances where employees remained convinced of their own righteousness and attributed problems to others, like the employee described by Isabella (CEO): “[The employee] saw herself as flawless. She saw everybody else as problematic, that they were the ones doing wrong.” Similarly, Benjamin (head of department) described an employee who demonstrated a lack of self-awareness and resisted change: “He had no clue, not at the first meeting, and even at the second meeting, he still did not understand. [. . .] He was shocked. He didn’t understand anything.” These experiences resonated with other managers who expressed similar frustrations concerning the lack of acknowledgment and denial from some employees: “It’s often like this, they don’t want to understand, and then they deny everything” (Amelia, regional director), “She will never admit to anything” (Bella, CEO). Consequently, termination became the perceived only option when “the employee lacks the will to work on this” (Daniel, head of department).
Managerial response to socially nonconforming employees.
Documentation played a crucial role in this process, similar to the handling of underperforming employees. Managers emphasized the importance of thorough and meticulous documentation, expressing a sense of pride in their ability to do so. “It’s something I’ve learned, to write everything up,” remarked Isabella (CEO). Simon (CEO) emphasized the need for thoroughness, stating, “you have to be thorough in this, thorough, thorough, thorough, check everything and have a process for this.” Similarly, Amelia (regional director) affirmed, “I always do this, take notes, notes of everything, short and precise notes.”
However, the process of gathering information differed for these more complex issues. “As a manager you really need to listen in, be attentive, that is so important. Then you can gather small fragments here and there, from co-workers, that an individual is rude, or that something is not right. It is not always as straight forward, like ‘this is the problem’. Sometimes it piles up, the small signals, and when you have gathered this, dug deep, thought about it, then you can talk to the individual,” explained Christina (head of department).
In contrast to the straightforward approach used for performance issues, managers like Christina (head of department) relied on collecting “subtle cues and fragments of information” from colleagues and observing behavioral patterns over time. This almost became a strategic exercise, requiring innovative methods to acquire evidence. Examples included gathering customer complaints: Isabella (CEO) had “all these letters from unsatisfied customers” and had “gathered all the warnings she had received,” collecting previous warnings: Simon (CEO) had “received e-mails from clients that described how she behaved badly,” and maintaining detailed notes of interactions: Christina (head of department) had “taken notes of every time I had called this person to check in, all the times I had offered this individual to go talk to someone, every time when he had shown up and every time he didn’t.” Amelia (CEO) said, “I save everything—all the conversations, all the emails—because then, even if they try to deny everything, they can’t when they get to look at it.” Recording conversations, “I tape recorded some conversations. To discuss it later.” (Ella, regional director), served as another tool to document the situation.
Ultimately, documentation served as a means to convince the employee of the unacceptability of their behavior, aiming to prompt a change in their approach. Managers conveyed the message that the current behavior was unsustainable, “this isn’t going to work” stated Isabella (CEO), “[they] cannot stay” echoed Amelia (regional director), and “when I have decided that they can’t have a job here” asserted Ella (regional director). While acknowledging the potential for legal action, managers like Lucas (district manager) emphasized the cost-benefit analysis that often led to termination. They argued that the cost of retaining a disruptive employee often outweighed the potential financial burden of legal action: “if they take this to the union, if they go to court, then you just pay damages for the wrongful termination. [. . .] But you have made your calculations, checked that we can afford this, because keeping the individual is also a cost, when we could bring in someone else,” explained Lucas (district manager).
However, this documentation process can also be understood as part of a broader bureaucratic mechanism for exclusion. Through the formalization of complaints, warnings, and evidence, the socially non-conforming individual is no longer viewed as merely a subjective or interpersonal issue. Instead, they become the subject of a systematized process, whereby the accumulation of documentation legitimizes their exclusion from the organization. Drawing on theories of bureaucratic exclusion, such as those proposed by Weber (1946) and later developed by scholars like Scott (2003), the formalization of deviant behavior through documentation serves as a legitimizing tool for the eventual isolation and removal of the employee. This bureaucratic process allows management to distance themselves from personal or arbitrary decision-making, framing the exclusion as a result of objective, evidence-based procedures rather than subjective judgment. In this way, the documentation of socially deviant behavior becomes a powerful mechanism of control, legitimizing and formalizing the process of exclusion.
In summary, the findings reveal a stark contrast in the managerial response between underperforming individuals and socially non-conforming employees within the workplace. While underperforming individuals are often approached with corrective strategies aimed at normalizing their behavior, managing socially non-conforming employees entails a more intricate process akin to solving a complex puzzle. Managers resort to innovative methods to gather evidence, piecing together subtle cues and fragments of information to construct a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s behavior. However, despite these efforts, the complexity of the situation often surpasses managerial capabilities, necessitating external professional intervention. The initial challenges posed by socially non-conforming behaviors are compounded when individuals fail to acknowledge or address the constructed image of themselves within the workplace. Ultimately, this reinforces the perception of them being unmanageable, leading to termination as a last resort.
Discussion and conclusion
This study sheds light on the process that unfolds after an individual is labeled as deviant, with managers seeking both to normalize and ultimately exclude them. It underscores how the subsequent course of action varies depending on whether the individual is constructed as underperforming or socially nonconforming.
The analysis reveals two distinct types of deviance constructions: underperformance and social nonconformity. Underperformance is more readily addressed due to its measurable and seemingly objective nature. Managers can often reduce the problem to numerical metrics—such as the number of deals closed, errors made, or clients called—implying that the individual is not performing well and therefore contributing less. This reduction of the individual to a numerical value can easily be translated into charts and tables for comparison to the norm (Foucault, 1977; Miller and Power, 2013). As argued by Miller and Power (2013: 579), this practice is “deeply involved in constituting the space in which it is active.” In other words, reducing the individual to numbers does not merely reflect their pre-existing performance but actively helps construct what is said to represent the underperforming employee. When the deviant individual’s representation is compared to the norm and mediated (Miller and Power, 2013) by a more general narrative of good performance, the individual is judged as less capable than others (Foucault, 1977).
In contrast, constructing the socially nonconforming employee is not a matter of simply reducing complexity to insufficient performance scores. Rather, it involves an amplification of something much more ambiguous and amorphous. By maintaining an employee’s idiosyncrasies and quirks, the individual becomes too complex, difficult to handle, and unpredictable. As a result, the employee is rendered deviant not through a reduction of their identity but by being defined as the sum of their various faults. In this sense, it is still a form of reduction, as it fails to consider the employee as a whole. However, in this case, the identified problem is not reduced in itself. It is a problem that lies hidden in the shadows, buried deep within the individual, and requires the expertise of a specialist to address properly. This makes the employee so deviant that they are no longer considered normal (Foucault, 1977).
This process of amplifying deviance can be viewed as a careful judgment, wherein the manager communicates the established truth about the individual and transforms them into an object of knowledge. This follows the typical pattern of disciplinary examinations, which involve hierarchical observation and normalizing judgment, turning the deviant employee into an object of scrutiny. The only way for the employee to appear normal is to submit to such scrutiny. The focus remains on the predefined deviant individual, who is henceforth tied to that very construction. The examination process also generates a paper trail that turns the employee into a “case.” Detailed feedback, goal specifications, written action plans, stories from peers, and recommendations from psychologists and HR specialists are meticulously collected. This examination creates “a whole meticulous archive. . . [which] places individuals in a field of surveillance. . . situates them in a network of writing; it engages them in a whole mass of documents that capture and fix them” (Foucault, 1977: 189). When this truth is presented to the employee, they often surrender and leave the organization for good.
Current research on deviant workplace behavior frequently emphasizes the individual employee’s response to managerial control, placing a heavy focus on the “subject” (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Sanson and Courpasson, 2022). However, this focus can overlook the broader organizational dynamics at play. Our study highlights the limitations of solely focusing on individual responses or reactions to deviance. Employees may, in some cases, strategically navigate the system, violating norms while avoiding outright conflict. Similarly, what appears to be resilience in the face of managerial scrutiny may instead reflect calculated strategies to avoid exacerbating tensions. This observation aligns with Bryant and Higgins (2010: 254) argument, which emphasizes the need to focus on ‘the activities of those groups who have the power to define certain acts as deviant.’
As employees become increasingly aware of the possibility of exclusion and the consequences of being labeled deviant, disciplinary procedures and social mechanisms aimed at normalizing behavior become more effective. Risk-averse employees may easily transform into compliant subjects, behaving as expected and resisting only within permissible limits (Foucault, 1977). Once the risk of being labeled deviant is perceived, they adjust, improve, and submit to managerial expectations. Their agency is limited, allowing only temporary deviations or minor transgressions. These calculated acts of defiance cease entirely when the looming threat of exclusion becomes undeniable.
While disciplinary power seeks to normalize deviant behavior, the latent threat of exclusion stems from sovereign power, which operates not to rehabilitate but to expel (Agamben, 1998). When employees voluntarily resign, disciplinary power has achieved its goal. However, when employees are terminated by managerial decree, sovereign power takes precedence. Agamben (1998) describes sovereign power as the authority to make decisions beyond the bounds of normative practices, removing individuals from the collective body. In organizational contexts, the moment a manager exercises the power to terminate employment, sovereign power supersedes disciplinary measures. This shift from disciplinary to sovereign power introduces an additional layer of coercion, where the persistent threat of dismissal reinforces pressure on employees to conform.
However, beyond simply being a mechanism of sovereign power, termination can be understood through Agamben’s concept of homo sacer—the figure who is excluded from the legal and social order while still being subjected to power. The dismissed employee, much like homo sacer, finds themselves outside the normative structures of the organization, stripped of the protections and recognition afforded to active members of the workforce. Yet, despite this exclusion, they remain within the logic of organizational governance, as their removal serves as a performative act reinforcing managerial authority over those who remain. In this sense, the transition from normalization to exclusion is not only a shift from disciplinary to sovereign power (Agamben, 1998) but also an enactment of organizational sovereignty, where management defines the boundaries of who is included and who is cast out. Through this process, exclusion serves not only as a final step when normalization fails but as an ever-present possibility, shaping workplace dynamics through the implicit and explicit policing of organizational norms.
The shift from normalization to exclusion can be interpreted as a transition from disciplinary to sovereign power (Agamben, 1998). When managers are unable to normalize an employee through standard procedures, a more coercive form of power is activated (cf. Costas and Grey, 2019). While previous research has acknowledged that individuals failing to conform to organizational norms may be asked or forced to leave (e.g. Barker, 1993; Casey, 1999), or exit when they feel hindered in achieving self-identity (Bergström et al., 2009; Kornberger et al., 2011), these observations are often secondary. Our research delves deeper into the managerial process, first attempting normalization and, upon failure, proceeding to exclusion. This progression varies depending on how the employee is perceived as deviant.
The construction of deviance in both underperformance and social nonconformity can be viewed through the lens of ingroup-outgroup dynamics, which reinforce inclusion and mark deviant employees as outsiders. This dynamic facilitates disciplinary measures and justifies exclusion by positioning the deviant employee as outside organizational norms. By reinforcing these boundaries, managers protect organizational culture and strengthen group cohesion at the expense of the marginalized individual.
Ultimately, the disciplinary process seeks to impose homogeneity by normalizing employees. Deviations are fixed to differences, “pinning down” the deviant individual in their particularity. However, the extent of reduction varies depending on the construction of deviance, and this variation shapes the unfolding of the disciplinary process. The process described above shows how exclusion unfolds sequentially, moving from normalization efforts to the final decision to exclude. Managers first attempt to normalize behavior, but when these efforts fail, the process shifts toward exclusion. This study emphasizes the importance of time and sequencing in understanding how organizations respond to deviance.
The interplay of power—disciplinary and sovereign—reveals a complex system of control, where deviance is both managed through formal procedures and reinforced by social pressures. Foucault’s (1977) vertical and horizontal dimensions of disciplinary power are relevant here. Vertical mechanisms, such as hierarchical observation and formal feedback processes, are visible in the treatment of underperforming employees, where standardized metrics are employed. Horizontal mechanisms, including peer reviews and informal social sanctions, play a crucial role in excluding socially nonconforming employees. These dimensions combine to form a comprehensive system of power that governs the definition and management of deviance in organizations.
Moreover, this study calls for a critical re-evaluation of how disciplinary systems function in the context of legal and organizational constraints. While Foucault (1977) posits that disciplinary systems operate independently of legal frameworks, our findings suggest that legal boundaries shape the scope of managerial authority, particularly in terms of when and how sovereign power can be exercised. The act of excluding an employee, whether through voluntary resignation or termination, is always mediated by these legal frameworks, which vary across national contexts and organizational cultures. This highlights the importance of further research into how legal structures influence the exercise of power within organizations, particularly in relation to the construction and management of deviance.
In conclusion, our study highlights the complexity of managerial processes surrounding deviant behavior in organizations, revealing the nuanced interplay between normalization and exclusion. By critically engaging with Foucauldian concepts of disciplinary and sovereign power, we have shown how deviant employees are both reduced and amplified within organizational settings, with exclusion serving as the ultimate coercive tool when disciplinary techniques fail. This adds to existing literature by providing a more detailed understanding of the power dynamics that underpin the construction of deviant employees, with significant implications for both organizational theory and practice.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
