Bad Teammates: Understanding How 'Bad Apples' Can Impact Teams
Findings from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), and Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta (IIM-C), India
As a leader or manager, you've likely encountered the phenomenon of a "bad apple" in your teams - that one team member whose negative behavior seems to drag down the entire group's performance and morale. It's a frustrating situation that can leave you wondering how to effectively intervene and get the team back on track.
A fascinating research paper by Saravana Jaikumar and Avina Mendonca titled "Groups and teams: a review of bad apple behavior" takes a deep dive into this very issue. Published in the journal, Team Performance Management, the paper examines the impact of three specific types of negative behaviors in teams and explores potential strategies for mitigating their effects.
Let's unpack their findings.
Previous research (Felps et.al) had identified three main types of negative behaviors that can derail team dynamics:
Withholding effort (also known as social loafing or free-riding)
Interpersonal deviance
Negative affect (frequently expressing negative emotions or attitudes)
While these behaviors had been studied before, their specific impacts on team performance and potential interventions to address them weren't well understood.
That's where this study comes in.
The Methodology
To tackle this complex issue, the researchers conducted what's called an integrative literature review. This approach involves synthesizing findings from a wide range of existing studies to generate new insights and frameworks.
The authors combed through numerous academic databases, searching for studies related to each of the three negative behaviors. They looked at how these behaviors affected other team members and overall team performance, as well as strategies that had been found effective in deterring or mitigating their impact.
This comprehensive approach allowed the researchers to piece together a more complete picture of how bad apple behaviors play out in teams and what can be done about them.
Findings
Let's look at what they discovered for each type of negative behavior.
1. Withholding Effort
When it comes to team members who slack off or don't pull their weight, the impact goes beyond just lost productivity. Sometimes, also called Social Loafing, this involves a team member putting in less effort when they are part of a larger group.
The researchers found that perceived social loafing (when other team members believe someone isn't contributing their fair share) can lead to a cascade of negative effects.
Note: Social loafing is different from perceived social loafing. The former is actual reduction of effort by a person in a team, whereas the latter is the perception of it. The perception of it might be because of actually social loafing, but sometimes, a person might be genuinely trying, but for some reason or another, might be perceived as not making any effort to help the group.
When this is noticed by team members, they often try motivational interventions to help the person perform better, but if it doesn’t work, then things can quickly turn sour.
Team members may resort to revenge, denial, exploding, or generally hostile behaviors. The authors explain that this could happen because as an individual perceives a lack of effort by a team member, a sense of injustice arises. Then they either blame the organization, or that specific team member.
If the organization is blamed, then it may result in work sabotage or work avoidance. If that co-worker is blamed, then it may lead to dysfunctional work behavior like gossip, abuse, threats etc. So in both types of behavior, there appears to be a “revenge motive” against some type of “injustice”.
There is also a funny phenomenon here called the minimum reciprocity rule. This effect is about team members contributing just slightly above the person with the lowest contribution. In other words, the bar is set very low, and the rest of the teammates perform just enough to pass that bar. The result is low performance by the group, as a whole.
What can we do to address this counterproductive work behavior?
One way, the researchers argued, to address the decline in performance, is to have some way to make the performance information of team members. The threat of embarrassment and social exclusion can, then, counter the social loafing behavior, and prevent the bar from being set too low.
Apart from that, organizations need to be better at motivating their employees and making the jobs meaningful to the team members. Besides that, leaders need to evaluate people on that ‘revenge seeking’ behavior, and catch it early, to address it. They must dive into investigating where the sense of ‘injustice’ or unfairness of coming from, and what to do to have the person change their outlook.
Overall, if the team has high morale, has good social cohesion (everyone bonds well with each other), believes in their mission, keep a small size, believes they have larger organization support, and has performance related norms in the team, then it reduces the effect of ‘injustice’ and social loafing.
2. Interpersonal Deviance
When it comes to interpersonal deviance - behaviors that violate workplace norms and negatively impact coworkers or the organization - the researchers found it can be particularly insidious. These can include gossiping or spreading rumors, backstabbing, assigning blame etc.
It often arises from social comparisons, especially when someone feels threatened by a higher-performing colleague. It tends to create a "spiral" of negative behavior, spreading to other team members. Even indirect knowledge of deviant behavior can lead to "bystander deviance." Surprisingly, high group cohesion can sometimes increase the spread of deviant behavior.
The effect of this kind of behavior on the overall group is not always the same. It seems to depend on the team members, specifically their ‘self-typicality’, or, how much a team member identifies themselves with their overall team. Members with high self-typicality (i.e, ones which identify highly with the team) will protect the interests and image of the team. The ones with lower self-typicality are more susceptible to the behavior of the deviant.
What can we do to address this interpersonal deviance?
One of the most effective things to do is to have team members with high self-typicality. How to do that? Having team members believe in the mission, what they matter to the team’s success, and having a say in the way the team makes decisions, and its impact.
Apart from this, introducing co-operative goals, having team members depend on each other instead of everyone working in silos, can have a positive effect here.
2. Negative Effect
Here, "negative affect" refers to a team member's tendency to consistently express negative emotions or attitudes. It's not just about having a bad day; it's about a pattern of behavior that creates a negative emotional atmosphere within the team.
Here are some examples of negative affect in a team setting:
Constant Pessimism: This team member always focuses on the downsides of a project, highlighting potential problems and expressing doubts about success. They might say things like, "This will never work," or "We're doomed to fail."
Chronic Complaining: This person frequently complains about their workload, colleagues, the company, or the project itself. They tend to dwell on the negative aspects of their work and rarely express satisfaction or gratitude.
Cynicism and Skepticism: This team member often expresses distrust or cynicism towards management, colleagues, or the company's goals. They might question motives, roll their eyes during meetings, or make sarcastic comments.
Quick to Anger or Frustration: This person has a short fuse and tends to react to challenges or setbacks with anger, frustration, or irritability. They might lash out at colleagues, make demanding requests, or shut down communication.
This kind of negative effect can be contagious and quickly spread, from one team member, to many. This results in a decrease in overall morale, and performance.
While these behaviors can be draining for the team, the study intriguingly found that negative affect isn't always a bad thing. In certain contexts, it can actually be beneficial.
More specifically, these negative moods enhanced creative tasks and idea generation. Team members with negative affect can be highly effective critical thinkers. Their tendency to focus on potential problems and challenge assumptions can lead to more robust solutions and prevent costly mistakes.During brainstorming sessions, a dose of skepticism can help teams avoid groupthink and encourage the exploration of unconventional ideas. A team member who plays "devil's advocate" can spark creativity and innovation.
What can we do to address this negative effect?
The key is for leaders to recognize the potential upsides of negative affect while also managing its downsides.
When it comes to negative affect, don't automatically try to squash all negative emotions in your team. Instead, channel them productively. Use team members with a tendency towards negative affect in brainstorming or problem-solving sessions. Their critical perspective can lead to more thorough analysis and creative solutions. Balance teams with both positive and negative-leaning members for optimal performance in complex tasks. Provide outlets for expressing and processing negative emotions constructively, such as retrospectives or feedback sessions.
The Bigger Picture
What's particularly valuable about this research is how it highlights the nuanced nature of team dynamics. It's not as simple as "negative behaviors are always bad." Instead, effective team management requires a deep understanding of different behaviors, their potential impacts, and the contexts in which they occur.
For instance, the finding that negative affect can sometimes boost team performance challenges the common wisdom that we should continually strive for positivity in our teams. It suggests that a more balanced approach, where constructive criticism and skepticism are valued alongside optimism and enthusiasm, might lead to better outcomes in certain situations.
Similarly, the research underscores the importance of context. What works to deter negative behaviors in one team might not work in another. Factors like team size, task type, organizational culture, and individual personalities all play a role. As a leader, your job is to understand these nuances and tailor your approach accordingly.