Corporate Overcorrection: When Following Policy Gets You Written Up (and Why Reddit Loved It)
If you’ve ever worked in a corporate office, you know there’s a special kind of chaos that comes from new policies—especially the ones that seem designed more for appearances than actual improvement. But what happens when a rule is so over-the-top that following it is practically begging for trouble? Well, as one Redditor discovered, sometimes enforcing a policy to the letter can land you right in the HR hot seat, and the internet can’t look away.
Today, let’s dive into a call center saga from r/MaliciousCompliance, where an overzealous policy, a dash of honesty, and a big spoonful of corporate nonsense collided—with entertaining results, and plenty of spicy commentary from the Reddit peanut gallery.
The Overcorrection Heard ‘Round the Cubicles
Our protagonist, u/SomethinCleHver, found themselves as a team lead in a bank’s call center—an environment already thick with rules about security and privacy. Normally, employees had to keep personal info and passwords locked up when away from their desks (reasonable enough). Desk checks were routine, and violations meant write-ups for both the individual and their team lead. So far, standard operating procedure.
But then came a new suggestion from a fellow team lead: NO personal information or items—photos, knickknacks, you name it—should be allowed out, except on a tiny shelf in each cubicle. The logic? Apparently, to plug any possible compliance gaps. The reaction? “That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard,” our hero declared, predicting that no one would follow such an extreme rule and it would only make everyone’s job harder.
Unfortunately, honesty isn’t always the best policy in corporate brainstorms—especially when the boss’s boss is within earshot. OP was promptly written up for their frankness. But the real kicker came when, in a fit of true malicious compliance, OP enforced the new rule to the letter during their next desk check—and found “dozens” of violations. The result? Another write-up, this time for doing exactly what was asked.
Enforcing the Unenforceable: A Recipe for Malicious Compliance
Here’s where the story hits that perfect Reddit sweet spot: OP, despite disagreeing with the policy, meticulously documented every single violation. As they described, “I kept my feelings on the policy out and stuck to the facts.” The report was clean, professional, and by the book—no snark, no sarcasm, just a mountain of evidence that the policy was unworkable.
Redditors, of course, had thoughts. The top-voted comment by u/ShadowDragon8685 summed up the situation with, “Sounds like you need to take that ‘formal warning’ along with a copy of the stupid policy to HR and tell them you are not taking kindly to being written up for [checks notes] following company policy.”
The OP later revealed that HR had been no help in the past—classic corporate move, right?—but that if things had escalated to termination, they’d have “explored my options.” As one commenter, u/PeterGriffen565, put it: “That is a fine example of corporate bullshit. All companies want you to follow their policies exactly…till they don’t and then all of a sudden you are the problem for doing exactly what they said they wanted done.”
The Corporate Tightrope: Respect, Reactions, and the ‘With All Due Respect’ Clause
Not everyone was 100% on OP’s side, though. Some pointed out that professionalism matters, even in silly meetings. u/Tryknj99 asked, “Why would you curse at someone brainstorming ideas?”—a fair point, as workplace candor is a double-edged sword. Others joked about the delivery: u/hoppertn quipped, “He forgot to preface ‘With all due respect, this is the dumbest fucking idea I’ve ever heard.’ Checkmate.” (u/desertdilbert chimed in, “I have always loved the phrase ‘with all due respect’ because it leaves open the option that no respect is due whatsoever.”)
OP was quick to clarify that the punishment for language was understandable, but the real sticking point was being written up for enforcing a policy that leadership themselves ignored. In fact, as they explained, “It was an expectation, they just didn’t enforce it. So it accomplished nothing.” The irony was not lost on anyone: punished for not being a yes-man, then punished again for following the rules too well.
Lessons from the Desk Check Trenches (and Reddit’s Verdict)
If there’s a moral to this story, it’s that following the letter of the law in corporate environments can be a dangerous game—especially when the rules are more about optics than outcomes. Reddit’s verdict was overwhelmingly sympathetic to OP’s plight, with many sharing similar stories of “malicious compliance” backfiring on clueless management.
One particularly insightful comment from u/No-Mortgage-7408 highlighted the challenge of telling these stories online: “With Reddit you have to be very specific with details and realize people will take you very literally...Great story, thanks!” Meanwhile, others pointed out (sometimes with brutal honesty) that malicious compliance is best served with a poker face—keep your objections to yourself, then let the absurdity of the policy speak for itself.
In the end, OP moved on to greener pastures within the company, and the policy was quietly scrapped—a silent admission, perhaps, that the overcorrection was indeed as dumb as advertised. As for the manager who enforced the write-up? She left, was eventually laid off, and, in an almost sitcom-worthy twist, later reached out to OP to complain that “people didn’t like her.”
Conclusion: Your Turn to Share
So, have you ever been caught in a web of corporate rules so tangled that following them only made things worse? Have you ever “maliciously complied” your way into HR’s crosshairs, or seen a policy so ridiculous that it was destined to implode?
Share your stories (and your best “with all due respect” moments) in the comments below. After all, misery—and malicious compliance—loves company.
Original Reddit Post: A stupid policy was formed as an overcorrection, I was written up for enforcing it