How A Bad Apple Can Impact Team Culture

In John C Maxwell's book Undisputable Law of Teamwork, Maxwell identifies the 'Law of the Bad Apple' as one of the undisputable laws of teamwork. In brief it states that "rotten attitudes can ruin a team." Maxwell demonstrates how negative team members can significantly impact overall team performance and morale, thus leading to a negative cultural impact on the department or company.

In his book, Maxwell states that several things on a team are not contagious. These include experience, talent, willingness to learn and practice. However, he follows up by stating there is one thing that is contagious within a team, and this is attitude! Maxwell further adds that the one thing more contagious than a good attitude is someone with a bad attitude.

It takes one rotten apple to spoil an entire barrel of apples

Maxwell argues that negative team members can have a disproportionately destructive impact on overall team culture. He says that just as one rotten apple can spoil an entire barrel, one team member with a consistently negative attitude can undermine the effectiveness of the entire group. The one team member could have an influence on another and over time this attitude can make a difference of how team members interact with each other. The leader-manager needs to identify early when such negative behaviours or attitudes are present. Action needs to be taken to either eradicate it or implement positive change behaviours.

Be Aware of Negative Behaviours.

Here are some negative behaviours which can damage a team's cohesiveness:

1. Resistant to critical feedback and change.

2. Gossiping or complaining behaviours can undermine team members when a pattern of complaining is not brought directly to the responsible team member but raised inappropriately 'behind their backs' with other employees.

3. Absenteeism without cause or being consistently late for work, especially during critical periods when a whole-of-team effort is called for can damage team cohesiveness.

4. Passive-aggressive behaviour by the use of sarcasm, giving the 'silent treatment' or making subtle put-downs, or even overt hostility can be toxic for team culture.

5. Behaving with a sense of entitlement or resenting other team members' achievements, and belittling others because of a false sense of superiority can also be toxic.

6. Shifting blame to others or circumstances, without owning up to the mistake or error of judgement can cause a diminution in credibility not only of the employee, but potentially of the whole team.

7. Dishonestly erodes trust and credibility, whether it involves bending the truth for personal gain, lying, or omitting key details when reporting to others.

8. Lack of responsibility. All members in the team are responsible for the role they play - like a well-oiled machine. It takes one team member who 'doesn't care' to cause a potential state of 'friction' among team members, thus affecting productivity and morale.

In my time in management, I have witnessed how negative behaviour can have a very disruptive impact on the smooth operation of the team. Sometimes this could be behaviour not set out intentionally to be disruptive. However, over time, this behaviour and attitude which is manifested by one person becomes contagious to a stage of becoming almost 'nightmarish' when a group of team members display the same behaviour and attitude. Up until then everything seems to be working smoothly, productively and with collegiality.

Manager talking to an employee (for illustration only)

In a retail store setting, I heard a story where an employee after working in the store for a few months, approached his store manager requesting a promotion, not only in salary but also in position. The employee had an overrated opinion of himself and expected that his previous role in another retailer qualified him for a promotion. That sense of entitlement was being displayed in the store, even to the extent where tasks which were normally assigned to the employee's existing role was not actioned as he felt the task too ‘junior’ for him. The manager spoke to him privately indicating that his probation period had not been completed and the agreed objectives which he had signed off when he began his employment had not been completed. He was required to wait another twelve months. The story ended with the employee not seeing the probation period through and resulted in him leaving the company.

While the above story applied to one employee, which was managed before the 'bad apple' contagion spread, the next story was a little more disruptive.

A story is told of a manager who employed a new recruit with the technical skillset the manager was looking for. It was a relatively new way of doing things which was fundamentally agreed with by management. As the project ramped up, it became apparent that an increased team with the same skillset would be required. However, in the recruiting process, the organisation did not go through the usual open market hiring protocol but relied on the recommendation of the new recruit who was admittedly qualified and well skilled. Over time, the additional resources were onboarded, and the new team's productivity rate was allowing the project to meet its major milestones.

As the new delivery team was considered specialists for the duration of the project, they were set apart from the other regular operational team members. In time this proved to be counterproductive as these specialists became a 'law unto themselves' and were at odds with the general attitudes of the wider department. The level of cross-team cooperation, and the cross-pollination of ideas and processes were noticeably lacking or not achieved at all. Furthermore, the level of disagreements between operational teams were becoming more apparent, and social gatherings were often cliquey.

A 'bad apple' attitude can cause irreparable damage to a team, unless it is addressed (for illustration only)

The Contagious Nature of Negatively.

John Maxwell in his book, but specific on the Law of the Bad Apple emphasizes that bad attitudes spread more quickly and pervasively than positive ones. He says that negative team members can:

• undermine team morale through constant complaints, and in the workplace, these could be related to procedural matters and or protocol issues among other things.

• create resistance to new initiatives or changes (however in the abovementioned scenario the resistance from the specialist team was to accepted norms, while steam-rolling practices or rebelling with new practices without collective buy-in and consensus). While procedural change is important and should not be frowned upon but welcomed, one needs to consider more effective ways to manage change without causing trauma and chaos among the wider team.

• influence other team members to adopt pessimistic perspectives. The practice of bad-mouthing can impact both long standing and new employees in a company and can even put a disdain between employees and management.

• drain energy from productive team activities. While operational matters have to be consistently overseen, either by team leads or managers, energy required to improve attitudes or eliminate negative attitudes can be draining and time consuming. Such things usually take time and because they are usually intrinsic, special matrices have to be developed and implemented to measure its progress and success.

Impact of Team Performance.

As the project progressed, the specialist team who were key to the project delivery became more and more relied upon. This overinflated their negative attitude and behaviour. Maxwell's Law of the Bad Apple in the first few months was confined to the specialist team, however in time this team's attitude began to have a negative impact on the wider department. The Law demonstrated that teams with negative members experience:

• reduced productivity and efficiency, which may not necessarily be contained to them but could impact the rest of the team members who are associated with the negative members.

• decreased willingness to take on challenges or effect change. In some severe circumstances teams who are negatively influenced may be tempted to ignore taking on board management direction.

• impaired communication and collaboration, which can lead to conflict and dysfunctional behaviours across team members. This disruption can have significant consequences where major project delivery timelines are involved.

• lower overall team satisfaction and engagement leading to a slowdown in productivity and drop in morale.

Still using the team case story as an illustration, it became apparent as it was revealed over time that the specialist team members had been working together prior to them being recruited by the company. So, while one specialist would have been considered one "bad apple" albeit it would have taken a longer time before any negative attitudes were manifested (if at all). Having a number of resources with the same disruptive attitude, mindset and objectives, required the situation to be carefully handled and managed. Not only was a major project to be delivered but staff morale, productivity and staff turnover became an on ongoing concern. The new team used their 'knowledge' to contest direction and set new different objectives, which had to be sensibly managed.

Addressing the Challenge.

John Maxwell emphasizes that effective leader-managers cannot ignore the "bad apple" problem, as doing so ultimately compromises the entire team's potential success. Here are some ways in which the problem can be prevented, and if a "bad apple" problem has been manifested how it can be addressed:

1. Identify negative influences early. A leader-manager will need to establish in their minds what and where negative influences are from and mitigate these influences with positive reinforcements among team members.

2. Provide support and professional development opportunities. Team culture is often the sum result of the attitudes of the management team. A leader-manager needs to establish early what are the acceptable behaviours for the team, provide support and demonstrate to team members that positive-caring-honest behaviour is a desired cultural trait for an effective team.

3. Set clear expectations for professional behaviour, which are supported with appropriate learning and development opportunities (for both team and leaders), coupled with succession planning.

4. Make difficult personnel decisions when necessary to protect team integrity and credibility. While this could be challenging for the existing team, in the long run it would be more effective managing out one "bad apple" then finding out that good staff are leaving the company because of the dysfunctional environment caused by one "bad apple".

In the team story case study, the company delivered the scheduled phases of the project. The skills seen as beneficial were selectively inherited. Specialist team members who were contracted were let go and their contracts were not renewed. The remaining specialist members who were employed as permanent staff were appropriately managed.

Speaking to Leader-Managers on Addressing the Bad Apple.

To leader-managers John Maxwell provides a simple leadership approach to the issue. He says that if you think that you have a “bad apple” on your team, you need to take the person aside and discuss the situation with them. Doing it the right way is important, and as you approach the team member, share what you observed but give them the benefit of the doubt. Assume that your perception might be wrong and you want clarification. Then, if your perception is wrong, you have not done any damage.

If your perception is right however, give the team member clear expectations and an opportunity to change, in other words address the problem before the 'whole apple' is affected and before it can 'infect the barrel'. Then hold the person accountable. If they change, it’s a win for the team. If not remove the person from the team because you can be sure the one "bad apple" will be contagious and affect the rest.