How to Minimize the Damage of One Bad Apple
Adding one bad apple to a team has 4X as much negative impact on a team’s performance as adding good apples. (The Power of Bad)
The Big Five Personality Traits:
- Tries new things.
- Is intellectually curious.
- Pursues creative ideas.
#2. Conscientiousness.
- Pursues achievement.
- Loves to finish things.
- Feels responsible to the team.
- Is organized and dependable.
#3. Extroversion.
- Talks and thinks at the same time.
- Is energized by social interactions.
- Is comfortable taking risks.
#4. Agreeableness.
- Is willing to set aside personal interests for the team.
- Enjoys harmony.
- Spends time helping others.
#5. Neuroticism.
- Leans toward depressed moods.
- Often feels anxiety, envy, anger, or guilt.
- Feels stress more frequently and deeply.
The Key Three:
The best team members are highly conscientious, agreeable, and low on neuroticism.
You might have a team member who is highly agreeable but not conscientious. They drop the ball because they can’t say no.
On the other hand, you might have a highly disagreeable but conscientious person. This person gets things done but doesn’t help others.
The strongest predictor of team performance is the bad apple, not the average of all the apples on the team. One neurotic team member has more negative impact than a group of optimistic team members, for example.
5 tips for dealing with toxic teammates:
- Work to understand them.
- Provide direct feedback.
- Accept that they may not change.
- Minimize their exposure to others.
- Spend time with good apples. (as much as possible.)
Think of some of the best teammates you have worked with. What were they like?
How might leaders minimize the damage of bad apples on the team?
Resources:
How to Breathe Vitality into any Team.
The Big Five Personality Test is one way to identify a good apple.
10 Strategies for Dealing with a Toxic Teammate (Leadership Freak)
Big Five Personality Traits (Psychology Today)
One of the best people managers that I ever experienced shared with me his ethos on recruitment which has stayed with me ever since (it’s not rocket science – and I’ve since heard it expressed in other ways – but I was young at that point it was really inspirational). His thinking was that lazy managers recruit in their own likeness – so they take on people who look like them, sound like them, have the same attitudes, experience etc etc. This tends to create team harmony as everyone agrees with everyone else and the ones who dont tend to get outvoted and so leave, but over time the team becomes a group of facsimilies of the manager. The astute manager recruits people who are required for the team – people who potentially look, think, feel, experience things in different ways but who bring diversity and alternative thinking and skills. This has the potential for creating conflict, dispute, debate but, in the end, it creates a group who are equipped to deal with the required activities and a vibrant and dynamic team who can shift, evolve, change and take on and achieve much more. Over the years I have admired (and worked for) several managers who have either consciously or subconsciously followed this thinking and have managed to balance this ambiguity. Your article has now heightened my respect for this type of manager as I’ve realised that to achieve that dynamic/diverse team you need to take some sizeable risks when recruiting (taking on the right person for the job in hand, evaluating the potential behavioural contentions, avoiding the ‘bad apple’ landmines) but also whilst managing the team (giving people enough space to experiment and be bold without destroying the whole construct, encouraging different styles of input/expression, optimising the contributions of each individual to achieve more as a whole unit). I suppose eventually it’s about everyone understanding that something can be stronger than the sum of its parts but only when each part is actually contributing Thanks most thought provoking
Thanks Martin. Your observation that a team can be stronger than the sum of it’s parts is supported by research. Team intelligence on a highly functioning team exceeds the intelligence of the members of the team. In other words, we’re better together, IF we can function effectively as a team.
The other thing you mention seems so important. Inexperienced managers tend to hire themselves. But as you indicate, it’s better to hire people who compliment the team. Cheers
I’m an interested observer watching this bad apple scenario play out on another team. Happy to report that the positive members are doing each and every one of the 5 steps you recommend for dealing with this bad apple, Dan. I’m expecting a principled outcome.
Thanks Christopher. I wish you well and look forward to learning from your experience. Cheers
Think of some of the best teammates you have worked with. What were they like?
Closed-mined, his way or no way, didn’t listen, cocky, liked to criticize others, and often attacked other people and not the issue on the table.
#3 is key–Accept they may not change. I’d go further–There is a very high probability the bad apple isn’t going to change.
Thanks Paul. My experience with bad apples includes…
Sometimes I think they’re bad when they aren’t. AND, as you indicate, if they are bad apples, they probably won’t change.
What a rough night to end by reading this! Maybe I can offer some encouragement to my fellow neurotic introverts.
1) Don’t stay ashamed. God loves you. Seriously. Let that sink in. A few other people do too. The rest? Well, “don’t expect them to change.” You have something to offer. Everyone does.
2) Own it. Positive Humility, not self-deprecation. For whatever reason, this is the car you were given. To quote C.S.Lewis, “Keep on. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. In the end, you may surprise us all, not least yourself, for you will have learned your driving in a hard school.” When you lose it at your teammates, or cave under artificial pressure and level of frenzy tuned to optimize their performance, not yours, do what you can to make it right, starting with, “I’m sorry.” (Stop at one).
3) Ask for what you need, given your current limitations. Then bring your best. I need more “psychological safety” (It’s a thing. Google it) than most. Given it by two great leaders, I’ve also solved two globally little but locally unsolvable problems in three so-called careers.
4) Best-seller, whatever. Hubristic positivity in leaders, with the risks and costs foisted off on others, is behind its share of bad wars (nearly all of them) and train-wreck projects, too. Planning Fallacy is also A Thing. Sometimes our “negativity” is just what they need, especially if backed by evidence. (Dial back the delivery, though. We really can be A Lot).
5) Finally, if your thoughts and moods are really impairing you, you may be mentally ill, which means you can become mentally healthier. There are a lot of good therapies and good meds available nowadays (if you’re well-employed and of a lucky color, but that’s a whole ‘nother problem).
Dan’s usually right, but he’s whiffed on mental health twice this week. #EndTheStigma. You’re still awesome, Dan!
Thanks Wretch. Glad you jumped in. I thought it was interesting to note that neuroticism is not considered mental illness. Neurosis is mental illness. Nothing in the Big Five has to do with mental illness.
I’m a half-empty person who continues to learn to be optimistic. But as Martin Seligman – the father of positive psychology – says, he will always battle a low setpoint of happiness. So do I.
You’re still awesome.
Think of some of the best teammates you have worked with. What were they like? Like I was “living a dream”, everything would work when done, no hiccups, just smooth sailing. Each individual knew their next step like “a well oiled machine”! smooth as silk!
How might leaders minimize the damage of bad apples on the team?
Separate them has been our practice and when we have no choice make the individuals aware its about the customer first, just work together conscientiously and get the job done and the majority of the time that works because they are professionals! (Not Implying others can’t work together as well).
Thanks Tim. YES…our happiness at work is deeply connected to the people we work with.
What helps me with your bad apple comment is it reflects a “do something” approach.
HI Dan, please say a bit more about #3 Extroversion. I am one & love being this way, but some of the great teammates I’ve had are not extroverts. While I’m thinking and talking, they are thinking and further developing plans. I don’t know if I missed the point you are trying to make. The scale from introversion to extroversion is a critical personality trait, but unless someone is on the extreme end, it’s just who they are. I appreciate the explanation you will deliver!
Thanks for asking, Ri. Perhaps one of the worst things to think is Extroverts are better than Introverts. Many of the top CEOs that I know are introverts.
When it comes to teamwork, introverts on the team usually prefer prep time. Extroverts don’t mind jumping on an unexpected topic. Introverts prefer time to think.
There is research that indicates extroverts are generally happier than introverts.
The other consideration is the type of team/job. Introverts are definitely better at some jobs. Extroverts may not be detail oriented.
In my opinion, introverts are often misunderstood and under-utilized. Having said that, team interactions take less preparation with a group of extroverts. The problem may be getting them to shut up.
Extroverts are energized by interaction, especially in groups. Introverts are drained by it, especially with unfamiliar people. It’s all a spectrum, which is why team formation and activities both benefit from intention and structure. I recommend Susan Cain’s “Quiet” for an understanding of introverts and cultural bias, and Alan Godwin’s “How To Solve Your People Problems” for a slightly different take on “bad apple” as distinct from “facilitation challenge.” None of this came naturally; I’ve had to work at it to achieve sufficiency.
I usually appreciate your articles, but I didn’t think this was a particularly good one. It takes all types to work together to get the best results. Picking out particular characteristics that you think make it easier for people to get along doesn’t necessarily end up with the best result. Typically, we form teams because we are producing a product of some type. This product will be used by people with the ENTIRE range of personalities. By selecting for a small subset, you risk invalidating the wants and needs of anyone different. Having someone who’s lower on openness is going to let the team know that maybe the innovations they are proposing will need to marketed differently because it’s confusing to people who don’t like change. I know many people high on neuroticism that use it to push through and get things done no matter what. Advocating for less diversity isn’t the best way to make a great team.
Thanks Jessica. I respect your sensitivity to different personalities.
I’ll add that there is such a thing as toxic personality.
It seems this post’s exemplifies some of what you espouse. It’s divergent