Is Enough Actually Enough? An Inductive Study of Strategic Underperformance at Work

Individual strategic underperformance (i.e., individual performance actions that intentionally contribute to a strategy of performing below an individual’s own standards during a task) occurs in myriad daily contexts and has important implications for the strategic underperformers and their work organizations. Yet, we know little about this phenomenon. Through an inductive set of qualitative studies, we develop a model of motives, implications, and boundary conditions of strategic underperformance. Specifically, across four groups of individuals within two phases, we gained insights from 411 self- and observer-accounts of strategic underperformance and 36 semi-structured interviews to identify (1) why and when individuals strategically underperform, and (2) what consequences result for these individuals. We identify two primary motives and strategies of strategic underperformance: conserving resources due to feeling depleted/burnt out and correcting injustices due to feeling violation of justice. Importantly, one’s performance standards (e.g., being a high performer) and status characteristics (e.g., seniority, gender, race) shape the latitude with which one can strategically underperform. Our analysis further surfaces how strategic underperformance can operate as a double-edged sword—yielding both positive and negative implications for strategic underperformers. Themes further highlight how implications can hinge on task interdependence and task visibility. These findings sharpen our understanding of strategic underperformance, expand our understanding of performance inequities, and illuminate the complexities at play.