IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0325185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The complaint handler’s bind: How organisational constraints lead to defensive responses to criticism

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Gillespie
  • Tom Reader

Abstract

Defensiveness is often implicated in systemic organisational failures to explain why early warning signs were ignored and organisational resilience was compromised. But how does an organisation become defensive? We propose that defensiveness can arise as a response to contradictory work demands. Our research focuses on UK hospital staff tasked with responding to criticism online (herein complaint handlers). We examine these responses to criticism using a mixed methods explanatory sequential design. Six defensive tactics were reliably identified: redirecting patients to other channels, evading issues, psychologising concerns, invalidating concerns as incomplete, closing the feedback episode, and individualising concerns with bespoke workarounds. These defensive tactics were generally associated with less organisational learning and were sometimes viewed as unhelpful. To explain these results, we introduce the complaint handler’s bind: staff are tasked with responding to complaints without a viable pathway for organisational learning and an implicit injunction against voicing this dilemma. This demand-control double bind unwittingly gives staff little alternative but to be defensive. Future research, we conclude, needs to conceptualise defensiveness as sometimes a symptom rather than a cause of problems in organisational learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Gillespie & Tom Reader, 2025. "The complaint handler’s bind: How organisational constraints lead to defensive responses to criticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0325185
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325185
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325185&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0325185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0325185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.