Will Felps and the Team Principle of the Bad Apple
A doctoral student plants an actor in student work groups – as a jerk, a slacker, a downer. According to his report, these groups performed significantly worse. Will Felps’s experiment shows the Team Principle of the Bad Apple: a single destructive attitude drags the whole team down if no one confronts it. One group stayed stable, and the reason why is the most fascinating part.
4 min read4 sectionsSituationConnection to the principle
Contents
Four students sit at a table. They have 45 minutes for a business decision-making task. Each member of the best group stands to win $100. A camera is rolling. Three of the four don’t know that the fourth, a student named Nick, is playing a part. Doctoral student Will Felps wants to know what a single troublemaker does to a group. On December 19, 2008, he described the experiment on the radio show “This American Life,” in the episode “Ruining It for the Rest of Us,” hosted by Ira Glass. An example of the Team Principle of the Bad Apple.
Two tables, each with one dark dot: on the left the others fade, on the right a gold dot keeps everyone connected – as with Will Felps.
01
Three Roles for One Actor
Situation
Depending on the group, Nick played one of three types. As the jerk, he ran down the others’ ideas and posed as an expert. As the slacker, he leaned back, texted on his phone and snacked on the side. As the pessimist, he put his head down on the table, complained about the task and doubted that the group could succeed.
Connection to the team principle
The Team Principle of the Bad Apple states: a single destructive attitude drags the whole team down if no one confronts it. “Attitude” is a soft word. The experiment makes it tangible because it translates attitude into visible behavior: putting others down, shirking, dragging the mood down. Will Felps, Terence R. Mitchell and Eliza Byington describe the same three types in a 2006 review that provides the theoretical foundation. For you as a leader, this is the more useful language. A behavior is something you can address. An attitude is something you can only assume.
02
What Happened to the Other Three
Situation
According to Will Felps’s account, groups with such a troublemaker performed 30 to 40% worse than comparison groups – even when the other three members were capable. On the videos, he watched the others adopt the behavior. With the jerk, they became curt themselves or held back information. With the slacker, they lost interest. With the pessimist, by the end several of them had their heads down on the table.
Connection to the team principle
The obvious expectation is that three good members make up for one bad one. The experiment suggests the opposite. The troublemaker is not absorbed; he is copied. This fits what the 2006 review draws from about two dozen studies: good members do not offset a negative one. One caveat is in order. Sigal G. Barsade showed in a 2002 laboratory experiment – which also used a planted actor – that moods are contagious in groups. Her study, however, demonstrates contagion in both directions, not that negative moods dominate. Good moods spread, too.
03
The One Group That Held Steady
Situation
One group remained unaffected. It had an informal leader. He asked questions, drew everyone in and defused the actor’s attacks. His father was a diplomat from South America. This led Will Felps to plan a study of whether deliberate questioning and listening counteract the effect.
Connection to the team principle
This is the second half of the core statement: “if no one confronts it.” In this group, someone did confront the behavior – without a showdown and without throwing anyone out. He didn’t silence the troublemaker; he neutralized his impact by keeping the others engaged in the conversation. It is also worth noting who did this: not an appointed leader, but an ordinary group member. It is, however, a single group. That is an observation, not proof.
04
How Solid Is the Evidence?
Situation
As far as is known, the experiment has not been published as a peer-reviewed study. The figure of 30 to 40% comes from the radio interview. How many groups took part is not known. What has been published after peer review is the theoretical paper from 2006.
Connection to the team principle
For your own practice, this means: treat the figure as a rough order of magnitude from a firsthand account, not as a measured value. The review also names a condition that explains a great deal in everyday working life: a group can only push back – that is, address the behavior or exclude the person – if it has the power to do so. Students who can’t avoid each other for 45 minutes and are reluctant to reprimand a stranger hardly have that power. On your team, you do.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
01
Describe behavior, not attitude. Jerk, slacker, pessimist – categorize what you actually see, and address exactly that.
02
Don’t count on the good people to compensate. If you wait, you shift the burden onto the very people you least want to lose.
03
Watch for imitators. If several people suddenly turn curt or switch off, look for the trigger instead of admonishing each of them individually.
04
Practice the antidote: ask, include, defuse. In tense meetings, make a point of drawing the quiet ones into the conversation.
05
Give your team permission to address disruptive behavior themselves – and back those who do.
Summary
Will Felps placed an actor playing a jerk, a slacker or a pessimist in groups of four students. According to his account, these groups performed 30 to 40% worse because the others adopted the behavior. One group remained stable because one member calmly asked questions, included everyone and defused the attacks. The experiment is documented only through a radio interview and should therefore be read with caution. Still, it serves well as an illustration of the Team Principle of the Bad Apple – precisely because of the one group in which someone countered the troublemaker.
