Bad Apples and Team Dynamics
I wasn't planning on this being my first entry in log, but when I saw this, I couldn't resist, since it seemed so relevant.
It seems that, according to a study performed by some researchers at the University of Washington, one "bad apple" can destroy a team and, furthermore, "good apples" can't reverse the damage. I have some thoughts on both aspects of this study.
First of all, I think the main thesis, that a worker with a negative attitude (i.e., "those who do not do their fair share of the work, are chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable, or bully or attack others") can have a widespread and deleterious effect on a team, is one of those "duh!" examples. It's common sense that no one wants to work with someone who isn't going to carry their load or who is constantly the focus of attention because of their negative or unpleasant attitude, disposition, or behavior. And because no one wants to work with them, it's very easy for other team members to withdraw from team interactions as a way of limiting their exposure to the bad apple, which will further hamper the team's abilities to accomplish its goals or responsibilities.
However, I believe good apples can reverse the damage. Good apples can pick up the slack of the people who this study labels "bad apples" because they don't do their share (Type 1); good apples won't like doing more than their share, but if they are willing to make the sacrifice in order to ensure that the team is not handicapped by the bad apple, they can. (Whether they will step up and make the sacrifice is another issue, but to say the effects of bad apples can't be reversed is going too far.) Similarly, good apples (or "Martyrs" as I like to call them, who are frequently just people with patience) can reverse the effects of the chronically unhappy or emotionally unstable (Type 2) on the team by, again, making the sacrifice to act as a buffer. By giving the bad apple the attention and sympathy they seek, the Martyr can effectively shield the rest of the team from the negative effects and, in some instances, stabilize the bad apple enough that they can work productively with the rest of the team.
As for the types of bad apples who bully or attack others (Type 3) (and I presume the study is referring to emotional or psychological bullying and attacking; if these were physical acts, then the person would need to be discharged for these criminal acts), it tends to be tougher to deal with them, but good apples can still make a difference in one of three ways: by taking the time to get to the bottom of their behavior, by confronting the person individually, or by motivating the rest of the team to group together for an "intervention"-type of encounter with the bad apple. Many times, the person may not realize their actions or comments are being perceived as bullying or attacking. Indeed, in some instances, such claims may be coming from a Type 2 bad apple, in which case, their responses and perceptions should be addressed. But even in the true Type 3 instances, a good apple can either confront the person alone or motivate the team to intervene; in either case, it must be made apparent to the bad apple that their behavior is inappropriate. While confronting a co-worker is not something anyone wants to do (and few will have the fortitude to act), a good apple will see that it is a necessary step for the team to work. Again, the study is correct in that the team will not succeed if no one steps up, but I think it is possible, contrary to the study's conclusions, for good apples to counteract the negative effects of bad apples.
It seems that, according to a study performed by some researchers at the University of Washington, one "bad apple" can destroy a team and, furthermore, "good apples" can't reverse the damage. I have some thoughts on both aspects of this study.
First of all, I think the main thesis, that a worker with a negative attitude (i.e., "those who do not do their fair share of the work, are chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable, or bully or attack others") can have a widespread and deleterious effect on a team, is one of those "duh!" examples. It's common sense that no one wants to work with someone who isn't going to carry their load or who is constantly the focus of attention because of their negative or unpleasant attitude, disposition, or behavior. And because no one wants to work with them, it's very easy for other team members to withdraw from team interactions as a way of limiting their exposure to the bad apple, which will further hamper the team's abilities to accomplish its goals or responsibilities.
However, I believe good apples can reverse the damage. Good apples can pick up the slack of the people who this study labels "bad apples" because they don't do their share (Type 1); good apples won't like doing more than their share, but if they are willing to make the sacrifice in order to ensure that the team is not handicapped by the bad apple, they can. (Whether they will step up and make the sacrifice is another issue, but to say the effects of bad apples can't be reversed is going too far.) Similarly, good apples (or "Martyrs" as I like to call them, who are frequently just people with patience) can reverse the effects of the chronically unhappy or emotionally unstable (Type 2) on the team by, again, making the sacrifice to act as a buffer. By giving the bad apple the attention and sympathy they seek, the Martyr can effectively shield the rest of the team from the negative effects and, in some instances, stabilize the bad apple enough that they can work productively with the rest of the team.
As for the types of bad apples who bully or attack others (Type 3) (and I presume the study is referring to emotional or psychological bullying and attacking; if these were physical acts, then the person would need to be discharged for these criminal acts), it tends to be tougher to deal with them, but good apples can still make a difference in one of three ways: by taking the time to get to the bottom of their behavior, by confronting the person individually, or by motivating the rest of the team to group together for an "intervention"-type of encounter with the bad apple. Many times, the person may not realize their actions or comments are being perceived as bullying or attacking. Indeed, in some instances, such claims may be coming from a Type 2 bad apple, in which case, their responses and perceptions should be addressed. But even in the true Type 3 instances, a good apple can either confront the person alone or motivate the team to intervene; in either case, it must be made apparent to the bad apple that their behavior is inappropriate. While confronting a co-worker is not something anyone wants to do (and few will have the fortitude to act), a good apple will see that it is a necessary step for the team to work. Again, the study is correct in that the team will not succeed if no one steps up, but I think it is possible, contrary to the study's conclusions, for good apples to counteract the negative effects of bad apples.
posted by Dan Baker at 8:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home