How one bad apple spoils it for everyone (actual research)

Over the holiday drive, I was catching up on some podcast episodes of the PRI radio show, This American Life. (In addition to a couple of episodes from WNYC’s Radiolab.)

The theme of this particular episode, Ruining It for the Rest of Us, was bad apples — people who spoil things for other people. The prologue featured an experiment by Dr. Will Felps, a professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, who wanted to see what would happen to the productivity of a group when faced with a bad apple — in this case, a planted actor who exhibited one of three toxic behaviors: being a big jerk (generally nasty and sarcastic), a slacker (not pulling their own weight), or a depressive pessimist (a negative Nancy, a nattering nabob of negatism).

As it happens, the negative individual — the bad apple — was consistently able to spoil the bunch, causing his groups to be much less productive than the control groups.

Although this makes sense to me (don’t we all know a co-worker from hell who poisoned the workplace well?), apparently, this isn’t supposed to happen — studies on group dynamics seem to think that individuals will be changed by groups, rather than the other way around.

There was one exception to the bad apple spoiling the bunch — in one group, there was a good leader: someone who, just by asking questions and listening to people, was able to counteract the bad apple and keep the group on course.

Now, I don’t want to read too much into this one study (most of which you can see here: “How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups“), especially because it plays into the conceits of social media and community management types. I think we tend to overestimate the power of leadership and moderation in shaping the culture of a community, and the whole idea of conversation influencing groups just makes us *swoon*.

But it’s a useful data point.

Problematic as they are offline, bad apples can be even worse online. Online communities are usually bigger; depending on how the group has formed, you might not have had prior dealings with other members; you lose nonverbal cues; and it’s generally easier to be nasty to someone online — especially when you throw in anonymity.

More here, including links: http://myventurepad.com/MVP/44971

Well, I know that my behavior has certainly been influenced, more than I'd like to admit, by big jerks. I've been one myself, several times. What are you willing to admit to?

The good leader in the study that gets DU in high production mode.

your point on nonverbal clues is especially good.

This particular forum tends to feed on negativity; it is simpler and easier to find fault than to find balance.

As for your final question - I dare say everyone who posts here has been drawn to hyperbolic overstatement and I know I have.

What I find curious is the need for narcisstic self promotion for being the most ideological pure and the attendent need to be the first and most vociferous critic on our elected Democratic leaders even when some of them have proven lives of service and sacrifice of their personal life to actual acts of progressive change.

Hey Finnfann, you did a terrific job of summarizing that program and study. I am a regular listener to that show and I listened to this one twice because I found it so interesting.

I intend to use the program in my Group Dynamics class next semester.

I've been on discussion groups since the internet came into being. I've probably been on this one the longest, but there was another one I was on for four or five years. It was an armchair detective group. Anyway, it was interesting how certain high-profile killers would have trolls come 'round and put the wrench in the detective works.



Cher

That's why I haven't given up on Obama yet, at least til he is in office.