'Bad Apple Effect'
The ripples it creates and how it affects collaboration, quality and group peace
There is a video clip circulating that talks about the "bad apple effect," where it was found "that a single negative member of a group can have a significant and negative impact on the entire group.
“This effect can be especially pronounced in smaller groups, where members are more likely to respond to negative behavior.”
It speaks to the reality of the natural byproducts of unchecked negativity, a problem that can occur in business, the workplace and in society. It’s worth talking about.
"Groups that had 1 negative person did 40 percent worse on all of their tasks and the quality of their work decreased by 25 percent,” the speaker in the video detailed.
“They also found that groups that had a negative person had 50 percent more conflicts and more disagreements that led to less effective collaboration.”
Organizational leaders often don’t recognize this reality or respond accordingly, as in ethically and responsibly, for the benefit of the group.
“From what I’ve seen, many leaders hesitate because they don’t want to deal with conflict or they assume the problem will resolve itself,” says Ashley Peña, the national executive director at Mission Connection, a comprehensive mental healthcare organization.
That creates an obvious, costly problem on different levels.
“Some may not realize how much damage one person’s negativity can cause,” Peña says. “It’s easy to dismiss it as ‘just their personality’ rather than seeing the ripple effects on morale, productivity and mental health.
Cara Laban, a life and business strategist with a background in applied psychology, talks about what isn’t being noticed and given proper weight.
“They may see a decrease in productivity but it wouldn’t necessarily be obvious where it is coming from,” she says. “Negativity can be subtle, intermittent or hidden by a person’s strengths.
“If a person who is highly intelligent or skilled is also negative, organizational leaders may overlook the negativity willingly or unwillingly and encourage everyone else to step up their game instead.”
It’s important, she stresses, to examine the label being used.
“It is also worth noting that negativity as a personality trait is subjective,” Laban says. “What one person might consider negative, another might consider realistic, yet if a leader is not interacting with this person on a day-to-day basis, they may simply miss the root cause altogether.”
Recognizing the problem late can lead to ongoing and shortsighted tolerance.
“Most people don't respond effectively to the ‘bad apple’ because, by the time they are aware of it, they feel group pressure to accept it,” says Michael Allen, a novelist and screenwriter.
That increases risks.
“Connected with other studies, the influence that the negative element can have on the whole, can be very powerful,” Allen warns.
The issue may also involve the variable of insufficiently-skilled leaders.
“One of the biggest challenges to diagnosing these problems is that it is often a problem with managers themselves,” asserts Jack Skeels, the CEO at AgencyAgile — a training and advisory firm — and author of “Unmanaged: Master the Magic of Creating Empowered and Happy Organizations.”
“In today’s modern meritocracies, people get promoted based on their individual accomplishments, merit and seniority, not necessarily because of their ability to manage and create positive group dynamics.”
He briefly elaborates.
“I call this the ‘Firefighter Meritocracy’ and it is especially prevalent in deadline-based and project-driven organizations,” Skeels explains.
“There are also measurement and survey methods that can be helpful in exposing these behaviors but also I believe the premise of this is somewhat flawed by the video’s interpretation of the research.”
The video pointedly recommends that people disassociate with people that are proving to bring excessive stress or mental health concerns into their lives. That analysis and decision may not always provide a clear conclusion and guidance.
“The crazy part about it though, these (test study) sessions were only 30-60 minutes,” the speaker says. “Some of you (he stresses) have had negative people in your life your entire life though. Imagine what they are doing to you mentally.
“You have to be ok with letting people go because your mental health is so important that you need to prioritize that over everything else."
That may not be a foolproof remedy in practice.
“The idea is helpful but can feel too black-and-white,” Peña says, adding that, “Sometimes negativity comes from stress, burnout or personal struggles. In those cases, helping the person work through it — rather than cutting ties — might be the better approach.
“That said, when it’s clear someone isn’t willing to change, moving on is often necessary for everyone’s well-being.”
“The concept of ‘moving on’ from negative people is quite oversimplified and not always feasible,” Laban says. “For professional or familial relationships, it may not be as easy as cutting ties. And even if you do move away, their words or actions may hang around in your mind."
Perceptions may be misleading, she says.
“Negativity can also be situational,” Laban says. “Someone may be experiencing a tough time so the negativity may be temporary. It is also important to consider, are they genuinely being negative or are they expressing concerns in a way that is challenging you.”
She points to errors we additionally may make in concluding someone is negative.
“Dismissing someone outright instead of first looking inward —and second — making sure they are okay, may mean alienating someone who simply needs support.”
The conclusion the speaker makes in the video may be an overstatement or inaccurate.
“The video suffers from what I call the ‘Gladwell Effect,’” Skeels says, “where people incorrectly extrapolate limited research findings into broad platitudes.
“Malcolm Gladwell, a reporter and the author of ‘The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference’ has admitted his ‘Broken Windows’ statements on New York city policing were an unreasonable exaggeration of the research.
“In that same way, the person in the video is citing a piece of very limited research and saying it applies to workplaces. The research is specifically about newly-formed teams — this was a research project — being given simple tasks and having an antagonist added to some of those teams.”
Skeels argues that organizations mostly address difficult employees.
“Companies also work very actively to identify challenging personalities within and create programs to deal with this,” he says. “The most challenging of these situations is when the manager or the managerial culture is the root of the problem, as most-commonly, managers are asked to judge managers.”
The way forward doesn’t have to be overly complicated.
“Act early and thoughtfully,” Peña says. “Set clear expectations for behavior, and when negativity shows up, address it right away. Be fair — give people a chance to improve — but always prioritize the health of the group.
“If the negativity persists, it’s time to make tough, but necessary, decisions to protect the team.”
Identifying the root may feel undesirable and tedious yet it is important.
“Smart decision-making starts with addressing the negativity at its source, but with empathy and context,” Laban states.
“Before deciding whether to distance yourself or remove someone from a group, take the time to have an honest conversation. Let them know that their behavior is impacting the group or your relationship, explain how and ask if there’s something deeper going on.”
Self awareness and social awareness may not be top of mind to the negative, real or perceived, member of a group.
“Some people don’t realize the impact of their actions and words until it’s brought to their attention…” Laban says. “The key is balance: protect the group dynamics but avoid making decisions hastily or without compassion.”
Skeels infers that judging people as negative is overdone.
“The ‘Bad Apple Effect’ is hyperbole — implying that poor behaviors have no remedy,” Skeels objects. “It is an extremely negative view of human potential and the nature of conflict and diversity in the workplace.”
To him, this belief and practice is dangerous.
“The greatest risk in adopting this narrative is that of ‘Bad Apple Witch Hunts’ where the organization discourages challenging-and useful-dissension within workplace processes and decision-making.”
Allen proposes a focus-forward as well.
“In a small group setting, the influence can be from the rest of the group,’” Allen says. “They can take the attitude that it's a teaching moment and start working with the negative members to produce more positive results.”
When a decision has been made to move on from a person being overly negativity, there are recommended steps to do so in a civil, sensitive, successful manner.
“It starts with respect and honesty,” Peña advises. “Have a private conversation, share specific concerns and offer support if it’s appropriate, whether that’s coaching or mental health resources.
“Be kind but firm. Frame it as a decision for the well-being of everyone, not as punishment. Afterward, check in with the rest of the group to rebuild trust and focus.”
When circumstances do dictate severing a relationship, acceptance is needed.
“In some cases, moving on may be the only answer,” Laban says.
“If it comes to that point, be direct but caring. Remember, if they are a negative person, they may have a negative reaction.”
She details what can be considered for the conversation.
“You can explain how their actions or attitude have been affecting you or the group; perhaps acknowledge their situation. But make sure to give them the opportunity to reflect and respond.”
She explains the benefit.
“Sometimes people need to realize the consequence of their actions in order to really look inward,” Laban says. “If there’s no improvement — and separation becomes inevitable — do it with respect.”
She speaks to what can be included within a professional context.
“Offer resources or guidance to help them improve in the future,” Laban proposes.
“If it’s a professional situation (for yourself) you do not have direct control over, perhaps try speaking to your manager about changing teams, or finding out if there is a way to collaborate with this person less, and explain to them why that is.
Within personal relationships, she offers ideas.
“Be clear and kind but firm in your boundaries. Avoid ghosting or abrupt endings, if the situation is not dangerous,” Laban says.
“Leaving someone feeling blindsided or abandoned only reinforces negativity.”
To sponsor this publication, place an ad or have links published, check this page.
Please consider following Communication Intelligence at the LinkedIn company page