Don’t Let Bad Apples Spoil Your Team
Do you ever wonder just how many perfectly good barrels of fruit get spoiled by just one ‘bad apple’?
The bad apple analogy is well-known and generally accepted, but how often is this off-the-cuff remark taken seriously and acted upon in the workplace? We’d anticipate not as often or as early as it should.
None of us genuinely expect to get along with everyone we encounter in life, and very few of us will enjoy a career where we don’t share our workplace with a toxic co-worker.
Remote working came as a blessing to many as they no longer had to physically share the same space as a caustic co-worker, no more awkward water cooler moments and barbed small talk.
With businesses increasingly requiring employees to make a full-time return to the office (or even hybrid working), many of us are once again at the mercy of our less positive colleagues.
Granted, some objections about the return to the workplace focus on issues such as the daily commute or inflexible working hours, the truth is that the prospect of once again working with ‘that person’ is a contributing factor.
But if it’s just one person, does it really matter?
Back in 2006, Will Felps and Terence Mitchell of the University of Washington in Seattle published a paper in Research in Organizational Behavior, the findings of which suggested that ‘bad apples are like a virus to their teams, and can upset or spoil the whole apple cart’.
Along with factual results from their methodical research, there were also anecdotal references, one being from Felps’ own wife: she herself was unhappy at work where the environment was described as cold and unfriendly.
One of her ‘particularly caustic’ co-workers came down with an illness that caused him to be away from the office on sick leave for a few days.
“And when he was gone, my wife said that the atmosphere of the office changed dramatically. People started helping each other…” Felps said. “But when he returned to the office, things returned to the unpleasant way they were.”
Nobody had particularly identified this individual as being a bad influence, or the effect they were having, but she had witnessed the social atmosphere when he was absent and came to believe that he had a profoundly negative impact.
Perhaps more concerning still, Felps and Mitchell found that negative behaviour will outweigh positive behaviour – where one person can ‘spoil the barrel’, two good employees can’t ‘unspoil’ it.
And, if nothing else, the very choice of the word ‘virus’ intimates at the seriousness these researchers regarded bad apples and the detrimental impact on teams.
Their research focused on small groups of between five and fifteen employees, the purpose being that:
- smaller teams have greater interdependence upon each other
- they typically require more interaction among members
- they are generally less tolerant of negative behaviours
- members of smaller teams are more likely to respond to, or speak out about, a colleague’s negative behaviour
One study found that in teams with a disagreeable or irresponsible individual, there was an increase in conflict, not just involving the individual but across the team. Internal team communication deteriorated, and cooperation [collaboration] was also affected for the worse.
Unsurprisingly, overall team performance was poor.
It’s not just unwanted comments that have a negative impact, so too can the inactivity (either deliberately or inadvertently) of a co-worker: someone who doesn’t do their fair share or is happy to leave the heavy lifting to others can cultivate resentment and feelings of unfairness.
This is ‘social loafing’, a recognised psychological phenomenon where people put in less effort towards achieving a goal when working as part of groups. There are numerous factors which enable social loafing to occur including lack of accountability, having no clearly defined goals or purpose, and poor team dynamics in general.
Social loafing can present itself in many forms but the most common one we experience is in team meetings where the person makes little or no contribution, or engagement and participation in general is minimal.
Managing bad apples for the benefit of the team
Back in 2021 we developed our own coaching model, ‘The Five Dimensions of Teams’, based upon our extensive experience of working to improve team performance across diverse industry sectors and multi-disciplinary joint venture projects.
Our model leverages the research of professors Michael West and Peter Hawkins, along with that of Patrick Lencioni and, in particular, his ‘Five Dysfunctions of Teams’.
Whilst the intention for the model is to help develop these highly effective teams, there is an underlying seam throughout that helps identify, address and resolve the negative impact of bad apples.
Establishing a Primary Purpose provides a clear raison d’être, it’s why the team exists. If an individual is unable to unify themselves behind the purpose, then team members can help support their ‘re-alignment’. The ideal is for everyone to be accountable, collectively sharing their successes and working to overcome adversity.
Team leadership may seem the obvious place to look for resolving the issue of bad apples, but we consistently witness that it’s the team members themselves taking this on through open and honest dialogue.
Supporting their colleague (and each other) they collectively address any underlying issues, establish and periodically re-visit the etiquette of how they conduct themselves.
Meetings are often referenced as instances where the disruptive or negative impact of bad apples can be most acutely witnessed and the desire to have better meetings is a perennial objective for high performing teams.
See our article on The 30-Minute Meeting Challenge
For team members to develop these attributes (as Professor West refers to this, “knowledge, skills and abilities”) is a crucial area and one where diversity is valued, and people are emotionally aware of both themselves and others.
There will always be conflicting perspectives in any team and the ability to manage conflict in an effective manner is a highly desirable tool to possess, again, both for leaders and their teams.
For any organisation or project team, the last element of our Five Dimensions of Teams model is that of Impact. The model isn’t intended to be a linear process – if we do this, then that, we’ll arrive at there – and teams should regularly assess if they are still working in the right direction and with the right focus.
If the direction of travel isn’t right, is this down to a bad apple or are other factors in play? Having collective awareness should be enough to identify issues and take necessary action.
“Because I disagree, does that make me a bad apple?”
In a trusting, open and honest team – key tenets for high performance – having an opinion that isn’t aligned with the status quo doesn’t necessarily make for being a disruptive influence.
Diversity is such a strong attribute for any team and can foster innovation and stimulate enhanced team dynamics. Conversely, if diversity is suppressed then this is far more likely to harbour resentment and unwanted bad traits.
Disagreement can lead to conflict but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing as we touched upon in a recent article.
A bad apple’s behaviour may concern relationship conflicts – personal preferences, attitudes and interpersonal styles – which have potential to be the most destructive and damaging for teams.
It’s not uncommon for these to stem from task-based conflicts where differences in approach and ideas are not heard, and the culture of the team should afford everyone the appropriate platform to make their contribution.
Nobody wants to be a bad apple
The collective achievement of teams will always outweigh those if we worked alone and inclusion in a group satisfies that human need to belong; it helps define and support our sense of self and social identity.
The recent popularity of BBC’s The Traitors may have led many of us to think there is a Machiavellian force amongst us, but far from it. It’s incredibly rare that we come across an individual who actively seeks to be a disruptive influence and, if they are, it is more that they don’t have the self-awareness to recognise this.
We genuinely believe that nobody actively seeks to be a disruptive or negative influence on a team. In the earlier example of Professor Felps’ wife, the person in question appears to be something of an ‘office joker’ who, one assumes, was taking the joke too far, too often and perhaps didn’t have the skills to appreciate the sensibilities of his audience.
If there is a truly bad apple whose actions (or inaction) is adversely affecting the performance of others and the team as a whole, then doing nothing is never an option.
There will be good reason why they are included in the team, but if they are simply not a ‘good fit’, then it’s in everyone’s best interests that they don’t spoil the barrel.
Article references:
How, When, And Why Bad Apples Spoil The Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups – Will Felps, UNSW Sydney; Terence Mitchell, University of Washington Seattle, Eliza Byington, The University of Sydney
Social Loafing At Work: Definition, Causes And How To Prevent It – Erik Pham, founder of Health Canal and Forbes Business Council Member
The Five Dysfunctions of Teams – Patrick Lencioni, the Table Group