Complying with the outward form of orders or rules, while either allowing the result to reveal the flaws in the rules, or exploiting the flaws to sabotage the situation.

There are several forms known:

* EmbraceAndExtend
* WorkToRule

'''Examples...'''

* (WorkToRule) When given a programming task in a company, proceed along the lines of all process, coding and style guides. This will normally lead to huge overhead of pseudo documentation and the like. Nobody can blame you of doing anything wrong (in fact you are probably the first to do everything "right".  Then, for your efforts, you are rewarded by promotion to project manager position, whereupon you are free(-er) to alter the conventions used by the company as you see fit.
* (Military) MaliciousCompliance can be used by a covert operative in hostile territory to manipulate your opponents into letting you gain access to sensitive information.  You then have the option of JustLeave''''''-ing (for some definition thereof) once you've acquired what you came for, or, you can go all Hollywood and start blowing people away from the inside.
* (EmbraceAndExtend) Microsoft's ActiveDirectory product recognizes the Kerberos protocol, but it has been extended without suitable documentation to prevent it from interoperating with third-party vendor tools.  Sure, it is standards-compliant, but nobody else can play either, thus cornering the market.

'''However...'''

There is another side to MaliciousCompliance; for example, one of the best means is to do what the boss tells you to do, how he tells you to do it.  Do not offer suggestions, do not argue, do not go the extra steps to make it make sense.  Do it exactly how you are told.  Let ''their'' incompetence make it fail, and then point out you did it their way, as ordered.  This is especially useful if orders are given in writing, and you do not mind working for morons.  Does not work well if boss is competent or gives you orders to "do it as you see fit".  Very depressing way to work though, and does not result in improvement.  It also runs the risk of loss of employment if your managers are jealous.

'''However...'''

The usual counter-measure against this is to establish a routine of required question-asking and mind-using, so if something goes wrong everybody is asked: Why didn't '''you''' ask?

------

The most common example: When the Law needs to see what a big company is up to, they subpoena that company's documents. The company responds with big-rig trucks full of cardboard boxes full of hardcopy documentation - everything from founding the company to the most recently replaced lightbulb. Then the Law can't prosecute the company for non-compliance, but can't easily find the details they need, either.

''This sounds apachryphal, any sources?''