A single destructive attitude drags the whole team down if no one confronts it.
A single member can noticeably weaken a team. What is meant is not a difficult personality but a behavior: shirking, spoiling the mood, putting others down. The good members do not simply make up for it. One disrupter outweighs one supporter.
The team principle in detail
Four steps through the principle: understand, check, connect, apply. Open any topic to read more.
The explanationThere are two reasons for this. Negative experiences affect people more strongly than equally strong positive ones.
- There are two reasons for this.
- Negative experiences affect people more strongly than equally strong positive ones.
- Moods are contagious: what one person brings into the room spreads to the others.
- So first the team’s mood sinks, and with it performance.
The condition in the core statement is the lever. Whether the team sinks depends on whether someone confronts the behavior – and whether they have the power to do so.
Read closelyWhat the principle says – and what it doesn’t
A single destructive behavior can drag a whole team down. The effect is strongest in small, tightly interdependent teams and where the troublemaker has influence and the others cannot avoid them.
- Strictly speaking
- It is about behavior, not a judgment of a person. “Attitude” is a fuzzy notion; what you can observe is what someone does.
- Someone who disagrees is not a bad apple. Confusing the two is the principle’s greatest danger: an inconvenient objection gets turned into a disruption.
- The principle does not imply: remove that one person and all is well. If the environment tolerates or rewards the behavior, the next bad apple grows in its place.
The signs3 signs that the principle is at work · 3 that it is missing
- Disruptive behavior is addressed early and matter-of-factly.
- Those who address it are backed up.
- Leadership does not look away, even when the person in question delivers good results.
- Everyone knows who is dragging the mood down, and nobody says anything.
- Good people withdraw or lower themselves to that level.
- Belittling others is treated as normal.
The research6 sources: 3 primary studies, 1 theory, 1 review, 1 meta-analysis · 2001–2010 · with research limitations
- low
- moderate
- high
Moderate – theoretically well grounded and supported by field and lab studies; the clause about confronting it has hardly been tested directly.
- 2001Roy F. Baumeister et al.
Across many areas of life, bad events have a stronger effect than good ones of the same magnitude.
- 2002Sigal G. Barsade
Lab experiment with a planted actor: mood spreads in groups. Positive contagion led to more cooperation, less conflict and higher perceived task performance. The expected differences by type of mood did not appear.
- 2004Patrick D. Dunlop & Kibeom Lee
Field study: deviant behavior in work units negatively predicts their performance – more strongly than organizational citizenship behavior predicts it positively.
- 2006Will Felps, Terence R. Mitchell & Eliza Byington
Review of some two dozen studies plus a model: a single negative member (withholder of effort, downer, jerk) can make a group dysfunctional; good members do not offset this. The group can push back only if it has the power to do so.
- 2008Michael S. Cole, Frank Walter & Heike Bruch
Dysfunctional behavior in a team lowers performance through negative mood in the team; what matters is how the team handles negative emotions.
- Barsade’s experiment shows contagion in both directions, not a dominance of the negative.
- The often-cited figure of 30 to 40 percent poorer performance comes from an experiment by Will Felps that, as far as we have been able to determine, is known only from a radio segment and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
- Focusing on the individual falls short: besides the apple, the barrel matters – climate, norms and leadership.
Read more: what the research shows
Research speaks of negative group members. Will Felps, Terence R. Mitchell and Eliza Byington reviewed some two dozen studies and describe three types: the withholder of effort, the downer and the jerk. A single such member can throw a group off balance, and the group can push back only if it has the power to do so. One mechanism is emotional contagion – mood spreads from one person to the others. Sigal G. Barsade demonstrated this in an experiment. Michael S. Cole, Frank Walter and Heike Bruch found that dysfunctional behavior lowers performance through negative mood in the team. In a review, Roy F. Baumeister and colleagues show that, in general, bad events have a stronger effect than good ones of the same magnitude.
The originJohn C. Maxwell · “The Law of the Bad Apple”
- 2001OriginJohn C. Maxwell
The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork
- The Law of the Bad AppleRotten attitudes ruin a team
- todayExpanded
The clause “if no one confronts it” has been added from research.
The related team principles07 Catalyst · 06 Weakest Link · 16 Effort · 13 Safety
The principle is the counterpart to “Catalyst” and closely linked to “Weakest Link”, “Effort”, “Safety” and “Leadership”: whoever addresses disruptive behavior needs backing, and someone has to confront the behavior.
It must be distinguished from “Dissent” – the person who disagrees is not a bad apple.
The action steps5 steps: Describe the behavior, not the person
- Describe the behavior, not the person: What exactly does someone do, and what effect does it have on the team?
- Address it early. The longer it goes unchallenged, the more it is seen as tolerated.
- Back up those who address it. Without the power to act, a team cannot push back.
- Examine the environment: Do the climate, the rules or the leadership tolerate or reward the behavior?
- Distinguish carefully between disruption and dissent. Criticism of the substance deserves your protection; belittling does not.
The questions for your team3 questions for your team conversation: What behavior drags the mood down on our team – and who addresses it?
- What behavior drags the mood down on our team – and who addresses it?
- Do people on our team who call out disruptive behavior get backing?
- Where do we treat an uncomfortable objection as if it were a disruption?
Take time for one question at your next team meeting. Talk about it openly and note down what you take away from it.
The picture to rememberAmong bright dots, one is dark, and the darkness spreads to its neighbors.
- Among bright dots, one is dark, and the darkness spreads to its neighbors.
- A golden dot moves toward it, the spread stops, and the color returns.
What the Team Principle of the Bad Apple looks like in practice
An Actor as Troublemaker
The doctoral student Will Felps planted an actor in groups of four students – as a jerk, a slacker or a pessimist. According to his report, these groups performed 30 to 40 percent worse, and the other members adopted the behavior.
The Bus With the Curtains Drawn
At the 2010 World Cup, striker Nicolas Anelka insults coach Raymond Domenech at halftime against Mexico and is sent home. Three days later, the French national team refuses to train in Knysna – and ends up bottom of its group with one point and one goal.
An Organization That Looked Away
On February 19, 2017, former engineer Susan Fowler describes in a blog post how Uber handled her complaint: by her account, HR did not want to take action against her manager because he was considered a high performer. A law firm reviews 215 complaints, 20 employees are fired, and by June 20, 2017, founder Travis Kalanick is no longer CEO.
