The Bad Apple: Group Poison

February 19, 2009

A recent episode of This American Life interviewed Will Felps, a professor who conducted a sociological experiment demonstrating the surprisingly powerful effect of bad apples.

Groups of four college students were organized into teams and given a task to complete some basic management decisions in 45 minutes. To motivate the teams, they're told that whichever team performs best will be awarded $100 per person. What they don't know, however, is that in some of the groups, the fourth member of their team isn't a student. He's an actor hired to play a bad apple, one of these personality types:

  1. The Depressive Pessimist will complain that the task that they're doing isn't enjoyable, and make statements doubting the group's ability to succeed.
  2. The Jerk will say that other people's ideas are not adequate, but will offer no alternatives himself. He'll say "you guys need to listen to the expert: me."
  3. The Slacker will say "whatever", and "I really don't care."

The conventional wisdom in the research on this sort of thing is that none of this should have had much effect on the group at all. Groups are powerful. Group dynamics are powerful. And so groups dominate individuals, not the other way around. There's tons of research, going back decades, demonstrating that people conform to group values and norms.

But Will found the opposite.

Invariably, groups that had the bad apple would perform worse. And this despite the fact that were people in some groups that were very talented, very smart, very likeable. Felps found that the bad apple's behavior had a profound effect – groups with bad apples performed 30 to 40 percent worse than other groups. On teams with the bad apple, people would argue and fight, they didn't share relevant information, they communicated less.

Even worse, other team members began to take on the bad apple's characteristics. When the bad apple was a jerk, other team members would begin acting like a jerk. When he was a slacker, they began to slack, too. And they wouldn't act this way just in response to the bad apple. They'd act this way to each other, in sort of a spillover effect.

What they found, in short, is that the worst team member is the best predictor of how any team performs. It doesn't seem to matter how great the best member is, or what the average member of the group is like. It all comes down to what your worst team member is like. The teams with the worst person performed the poorest.

The actual text of the study (pdf) is available if you're interested. However, I highly recommend listening to the first 11 minutes of the This American Life show. It's a fascinating, highly compelling recap of the study results. I've summarized, but I can't really do it justice without transcribing it all here.

Ira Glass, the host of This American Life, found Felps' results so striking that he began to question his own teamwork:

I've really been struck at how common bad apples are. Truthfully, I've been kind of haunted by my conversation with Will Felps. Hearing about his research, you realize just how easy it is to poison any group [...] each of us have had moments this week where we wonder if we, unwittingly, have become the bad apples in our group.

As always, self-awareness is the first step. If you can't tell who the bad apple is in your group, it might be you. Consider your own behavior on your own team – are you slipping into any of these negative bad apple behavior patterns, even in a small way?

But there was a solitary glimmer of hope in the study, one particular group that bucked the trend:

There was one group that performed really well, despite the bad apple. There was just one guy, who was a particularly good leader. And what he would do is ask questions, he would engage all the team members, and diffuse conflicts. I found out later that he's actually the son of a diplomat. His father is a diplomat from some South American country. He had this amazing diplomatic ability to diffuse the conflict that normally would emerge when our actor, Nick, would display all this jerk behavior.

This apparently led Will to his next research project: can a group leader change the dynamics and performance of a group by going around and asking questions, soliciting everyone's opinions, and making sure everyone is heard?

While it's depressing to learn that a group can be so powerfully affected by the worst tendencies of a single member, it's heartening to know that a skilled leader, if you're lucky enough to have one, can intervene and potentially control the situation.

Still, the obvious solution is to address the problem at its source: get rid of the bad apple.

Even if it's you.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
143 Comments

Jesus was kind of a guy who didn't fit in his society. There in Palestina he was the bad apple? Are you the companys bad apple (= Messias)?

Jerko on February 20, 2009 1:22 AM

Shame you rarely get to choose your team.

Stork on February 20, 2009 2:03 AM

I prefer a bad apple than bad milk.

Craig on February 20, 2009 2:19 AM

So, should you just commit seppuku if you are a bad apple?

Jeff on February 20, 2009 2:22 AM

The sub-prime tummyache was caused by too many good apples.
Anyway that study is hardly exhaustive, typical sociological pseudo science crap.

MacBet on February 20, 2009 2:28 AM

Isn't this something which is always know for all teams, groups et al that 'A group can walk only as fast as the slower member' or 'A chain is as strong as the weakest link'. So here you have reinstated it as A team is as good as the worst apple in it

Well, I was elated to see you had posted again :) in just one day, but tell you this was not as interesting as normally your posts are. I mean.. Tell me something I don't know!

btw I loved the statement - If you can't tell who the bad apple is in your group, it might be you

Mohit Nanda on February 20, 2009 2:32 AM

A bad apple comes from a good apple being left to simply rot, being bruised and again left to rot. Bad or lack of good leadership turns good apples into bad apples. But human beings are not as apples. Good leadership, inspiring leadership can turn most 'bad apples' into 'good apples'.

The most frightening scenario is that most of the people who are in leadership roles are themselves 'bad apples'.

Do you think this just a scenario?

Sam on February 20, 2009 2:40 AM

Each time I was thinking about talking to my team lead about bad apple I used to work with, I realized that complaining about team member makes me bad apple as well.
Thanks God, he left for better job, making this job also better

Mac on February 20, 2009 2:42 AM

Hey Now Jeff,

The bad apple described as a slacker, that is a good one.

Get rid of the bad apple you are either a good apple or bad apple. I enjoy working people in the 20%

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001002.html

Coding Horror Fan,
Catto

Catto on February 20, 2009 2:46 AM

So the teams were 4 people each, and those with 1 bad apple performed 30-40% worse. Is that really so surprising? You'd expect them to perform at least 25% worse with 1/4 of the people actively trying to ruin things. And how accurate could the measurements have been anyway?

Of course I haven't actually read the paper, so perhaps there is something in there that that would totally shut down my argument. If someone who has read the paper can point that out, I'd appreciate it.

In the meantime, I'll continue to assume that this is yet another quasi-scientific study that looked hard for a marginal and somewhat subjective effect in a small sample size and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, found it.

j_random_hacker on February 20, 2009 2:49 AM

I remember this meeting of a social group back when I was in University (looong ago!): They had invited a Brazilian member of the Landless Workers Movement. The girl explained how they tried to get back their land from the local all powerful landlords. And how hard it was. But how peaceful they wanted to keep anyway. And everybody in the room agreed that the movement was right and good and every other good feeling you may want.

Then a stupid agressive old guy entered and shouted that In my time, (World War 2), we would have taken guns and kicked this morons ass! You are stupid and will get only what you diserve if you're not ready to fight: nothing!. The guy was obviously not constructive, the typical bad apple example.

But! Without being aware of it, he raised questions in a couple other people and the conversation eventually uncovered several negative side effects of the actions explained by the girl.

Conclusion is that without that bad apple, we wouldn't have used our brains. I still hate the guy: He was rude and totally unconstructive. But the fact is that his presence helped the group improve its reflexions.

Serge Wautier on February 20, 2009 2:50 AM

@MacBet, j_random_hacker: *cough* Depressive pessimist *cough*


Schmoo on February 20, 2009 2:54 AM

Actually, it's quite obvious that bad apples do affect the group and the outcome. Perpetual bad apples know this, it is their form of control.

kbiel on February 20, 2009 2:56 AM

Jeff, try to get the name right. I think it's Will Felps but you use three names: Wil, Felps and Phelps. Two out of three seem to be wrong... http://www.google.com/search?q=will+felps

Anyway, something's awfully wrong with your theory. You suggest we get rid of the bad apples, right? And there's always a bad apple, right (you suggest that if you don't know who it is, then it is probably you) ? So that means that you always have to kick someone from the team, until, eventually, you remain alone and there can be only one bad apple: you. So, you kick yourself and you're left with an empty team.

I'm sure there are cases when there are no bad apples in the team! In my team, everybody struggles to get the best work done, each person is an optimist and I don't recall hearing nor saying anything like it can't be done or this is bad or i know better.

Your article's logic is deeply flawed... You usually write excellent stuff, but I doubt you thought very well about this one.

Tom on February 20, 2009 3:04 AM

1. The Depressive Pessimist will complain that the task that they're doing isn't enjoyable, and make statements doubting the group's ability to succeed.
2. The Jerk will say that other people's ideas are not adequate, but will offer no alternatives himself. He'll say you guys need to listen to the expert: me.
3. The Slacker will say whatever, and I really don't care.
---

Yup. I qualify on all of these. Where do I sign up?

Ketil2 on February 20, 2009 3:06 AM

This experiment cannot be fully objective: in real life bad apples are not always hired bad apples, doing the bad apple whatever it happens and whatever the group does.
Genuine bad apples will be affected by the group dynamics as well as other members, and in some cases, under the right circumstances, the bad apple effect can be contained.
Saboteur bad apples, individuals paid to sabotate a project, on the other side, will just try to maximize the detrimental effects of their behaviour, with far worse effect on the group.

Put in other words, a genuine bad apple can be resolved removing what causes him/her to do the bad apple, if it is possible; otherwise, remove the apple
But when the group faces true behavioural saboteurs, it is a whole different thing nothing less than the removal of the saboteur can fix.

Nabeshin on February 20, 2009 3:06 AM

You may also want to take a look at this article:
http://www.codesqueeze.com/destroying-teams-one-broken-window-at-a-time/

Alistair Collins on February 20, 2009 3:07 AM

Although I find the study a bit fishy, I thought this was common knowledge. In college we often did team efforts. Often if one person emited his I don't give a crap attitude, this would spread to the other team members like wildfire.

A way to detect a leader from a person that has a leader's position is to see how he/she can either change that attitude of this person, or in the worst case isolate that person.

In my life I have only met one such person and it's amazing what he could squeeze out of a group and how every time his team would have much-above average results. Even if this team's members were different people time and time again.

BorisCallens on February 20, 2009 3:11 AM

Face facts with your posts Mr Jeff,

1. What you keep writing about is repetitive. I can never see anyone really getting into your blog for too long. You only write whatever it is that gets your ads clicked on.

2. You ideas are rubbish. You keep going on about great management techniques. But your techniques seem to call everyone bad apples or not good enough. You should spend more time reading about real life examples than just churning out the same recycled drivel time and time again.

3. Where are you really going with this blog. Do you have a point to make? I don't think anyone commenting on your blog really cares what you have to say as it completely lacks any substance. I am really surprised you didn't quote yourself from a previous post, you sure as hell link to some useless stuff you wrote previously.

Read my name before replying to the above.

But seriously;
You keep saying get rid of the bad apple, why don't you learn some management techniques (or even some diplomacy) and get on with whatever it is you have to do.

I've worked in a few offices where I have seen what you call bad apples. After sitting down and asking them what can be done to make things better (this is called empowerment), I found it is very easy to bring them around and make them productive.

Continually labeling people in the way you do does nothing to bring them into what is going on. What you are doing only serves to isolate people further. And then you can get your power trip by calling someone (quite obviously someone where you now work) a BAD APPLE.

You are not helping anyone Jeff. Not yourself, not your workplace and certainly not the bad apple. Maybe, just maybe it's the geeky jerk who sees everything and everyone in black and white.

ThreeTypesYouSay on February 20, 2009 3:13 AM

Our final project group last year had a guy that the study refers to as a 'jerk'. Someone that would complain that things wouldn't work and that ideas were bad. Not once did he propose an alternative. I'm telling you, I was dragged down at times by this guy as were others in our team. Luckily, our self appointed project manager was actually very good with people and pulled us back up - very motivating.

It had absolutely no effect on the jerk though. He continued to be a jerk.

Oh, you want to do it that way? Ok... *rolls eyes and looks away*
I'm not an angry/aggressive person, but I wanted to smack him in the head!

`Josh on February 20, 2009 3:16 AM

Care must be taken between the two extremes, groupthink at one end and futile iconoclasm at the other. There really genuinely *are* a ton of bad ideas in execution that will only rightfully provoke much criticism, as there a ton of bad ideas to be executed which are liable to provoke the kind of reaction from a reasonable person as would be expected from bad apple one or three.

I think the core differentiating factor is that critical people at least step up and volunteer alternatives, and refrain from ad hominem. There's nothing wrong with direct and realistic criticism as long as it isn't just a tactic for negative psychological manipulation. And for the other two types, they need to pick their projects better, the problem is, we all gotta eat in the end and a lot of the time it does indeed mean being stuck on ridiculous projects because that's where the money is right at that moment.

Keep your options open and your head down in that situation. Why dress yourself up as a neat little scapegoat to take the blame for the failure of the project you're almost sure is due any month now? Better to at least salvage what you can from the experience and come out the defeated but valiant hero.

Eric on February 20, 2009 3:38 AM

Of course, if you are the bad apple, then getting rid of yourself can mean getting rid of the negative behaviours, as opposed to commiting ritual suicide. :p

Bernard on February 20, 2009 3:44 AM


In my opinion, the study highlights the effect of a good leader rather than a bad apple.

If there is no good leader, the bad apple automatically becomes the most prominent (because he is the one expressing opinions, whatever they may be, the most) and by default the identity of the group and rest of the group tend to follow him.

So the study shows that groups tend to emulate the person with most influence.

Rahul on February 20, 2009 3:46 AM

@ThreeTypes
I've worked in a few offices where I have seen what you call bad apples. After sitting down and asking them what can be done to make things better (this is called empowerment), I found it is very easy to bring them around and make them productive.

So in other words, you got rid of the bad apples. Like Jeff suggested.

What, did you assume the only way was to fire them? What gave you that idea?

The point is to not let a bad apple drag your team down. In real life, bad apples can (often) be converted to good ones, but you can't let it lie, you have to take action!

@all the bad apples on this blog
Seriously, what's with all the hate here recently? Jeff is a pretty average geek and he has been successful doing something that anyone reading this blog could have done as well. Yeah?

Boo-hoo! Get over it! Jeff did it, you sure as hell didn't! You can choose to be jealous and grumpy or you can choose to be inspired and do something yourselves. Even if you just go create a personal Jeff hater's blog, it would be more constructive than attacking him here.

Console on February 20, 2009 3:46 AM

Sort of a lead by example situation? And I agree, this illustrates the absence of good leadership as well (and to be honest lack of good leadership creates bad apples).

I've been a pretty rotten pessimist/slacker apple for a few months, and I haven't been able to kill my team's optimism.

Shawn on February 20, 2009 3:58 AM

Assuming linear contribution and a generally neutral approach to a group, 30-40% decline is exactly what I'd expect to see from the inclusion of a strong negative. The bad apple's 25%, plus the increased effect of someone being willing to have a strong opinion, adds up quite nicely.

By linear contribution, I mean that all else being equal, a group's work is the sum of its individual efforts: everyone contributes 25%.

By a neutral approach, I mean that in general, people are willing to let the Strong Talkers make decisions. Reducing conflict and a general sense of humility are strong disincentives towards having a strong opinion--people, quite wisely, bow to the group's opinion by reducing the strength of their own.

So of course there was reduced productivity.

This has mostly been said by Rahul before me. Ah well.

Anthus on February 20, 2009 4:05 AM

Should we interpret the last paragraph as an indication that you'll be leaving the SO team? ;) It sounded so ominous.

Bartek on February 20, 2009 4:07 AM

I agree with Nabeshin Rahul - if the bad-apple was the one with the dominance, then they were the defacto leader, and an actor being paid to act in a certain way isn't going to be so susceptible to dynamics which would otherwise change their behaviour, therefor their behaviour could easily dominate the group.

So the question is, do bad apples in the wild dominate the group in this same way? A kind of subversive leadership role.

Jim T on February 20, 2009 4:09 AM

OK, having listened to a bit of the podcast it seems the Jerk does indeed say you guys need to listen to the expert: me., bu tthis is only mentioned in the appendix, and that isn't included in the PDF linked to in this post. So I'm sorry I doubted Jeff's accuracy.

However, I'm not sure how relevant this study is to computing projects. A 45 minute business meeting is very different to a long term project.

Steve W on February 20, 2009 4:09 AM

My previous boss was the bad apple in the company, but to him, it looked like it was me...

The Depressive Pessimist will complain that the task that they're doing isn't enjoyable, and make statements doubting the group's ability to succeed.

It wasn't enjoyable because it was always bound to end in failure. He would ask constantly if it was enjoyable. I think he was trying to get us to lie to spare his feelings, thinking that if we said it enough, we would start to believe it. I'm not a spare-the-feelings kinda guy when it's designed to mask incompetence, let alone when it's designed to set me up as a fall guy for it. Take it on the chin or improve yourself.

Doubting our ability to succeed wasn't pessimism, it was experience. We managed one job on time and on budget, ever, and only then because it was something he couldn't interfere in. Productivity shot up by about 50% or so whenever he took holiday (we measured). I had to make statements doubting our ability to succeed because the boss was running around telling clients no problem, we'll have that done by the end of the week when it was a fortnight's work and we had other jobs to do in the meantime. Allowing him to do that unchecked would make it worse.

The Jerk will say that other people's ideas are not adequate, but will offer no alternatives himself. He'll say 'you guys need to listen to the expert: me.'

Again, I said this often, but I was right. He'd want us to take every quick-and-dirty option he ever came across, and expect elegant behaviour from the code. His ideas weren't adequate. He did need to listen to me, and I was the expert. I did offer alternatives, but as they were always involved more time and expense, I'm sure they were as good as no alternative in his eyes. He certainly never took any notice.

The Slacker will say 'whatever', and 'I really don't care.'

Two years of the above, working huge overtime for little pay, slowly getting worse as the business failed with him at the helm, constantly taking the wrap for his incompetence, and you'd be pretty jaded too. All I wanted to do was get stuck into my work and keep it going - he made it absolutely impossible, had no idea he was doing so, and then wanted to have Friday hour-long meetings for the sole purpose of being able to say proactive a lot. I really didn't care for pointless bullshit, but especially so when there was a week's worth of work to do before Monday.

So, who was the bad apple? If you have someone who you think is a bad apple, how do you know that it's not a perception forced by circumstance? What if he's right?

I'm out of there now (working with a great team for employers who absolutely rock!), and lo and behold - I am no longer pessimistic, I'm surrounded by ideas that I don't need to shoot down as inadequate, I care a lot and am valued as an employee. It ain't rocket science.

Grunties on February 20, 2009 4:24 AM

i don't know how exhaustive that study was, but from what i heard of group dynamics: every group needs certain roles to be filled.

Meaning given enough time people in a group fall into certain roles simply because no one else is playing that role.
So, what i'm saying is: if you fire one bad apple, i'm sure someone else will start to act like it sooner or later.

And my statements certainly wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia as i can't base any of them on facts or studies.

Stroboskop on February 20, 2009 4:28 AM

Another bad apple post.
Here we go.
Why don't you just accept that you are not management material?

Wally on February 20, 2009 4:48 AM

In the interest of not taking anyone’s word for anything, I’ve been trying to read the original paper. But as the site is blocked at work I can only read it on my phone, which isn’t very easy for a pdf. Therefore, I apologize in advance if I’ve missed something. But it does seem to me that the three types of bad apples described in this post are somewhat simplified.

In particular, what Jeff terms “The Jerk”, and is called “interpersonal deviant” in the report, is defined in this post as someone who criticizes other’s ideas, and says “you guys need to listen to the expert: me” quote in the paper. But in the paper this type is defined as someone who doesn’t understand workplace behavior, for example by making fun of people, making hurtful comments, swearing etc. Nothing in the definition about claiming to be an expert.

I’d be interested where the Jerk quote comes from, as I wouldn’t like to think that Jeff was deliberately tilting the definition to support his previous post.

Steve W on February 20, 2009 4:49 AM

Anyone else have a problem with taking the findings from a study about college students and applying them as one broad stroke to all other group interactions in life? My experiences of people and groups in college and in my career have been dramatically different.

I would revise the first sentence to read:
A recent episode of This American Life interviewed Wil Felps, a professor who conducted a sociological experiment demonstrating the surprisingly powerful effect of bad apples on college students.

mark on February 20, 2009 4:56 AM

I think the strongest point is to put numbers (although of dubious validity) on this.
Repeating what was already commented on: in a group of 4 people, if one person is _actively_ trying to sabotage the group's efforts you'd pretty much _expect_ about a 30% decrease in performance (how would you measure it?).
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. But people don't usually think about it, and so perhaps they don't realize how much a bad apple can effect a team.

That said, I have some serious reservation about the study _as presented here_:
My biggest objection is that the experiment only deals with very short term goals, and temporary teams with virtually no previous cohesion.
Say we repeated this experiment for a more representative time (lets say 3 months), and a long term goal. Who's to say that the team wouldn't overcome this small obstacle and perform almost as well as other teams?
Perhaps we would find conclusion is that bad apples only delay the time it takes the team to really form and cooperate?
Perhaps long term teams with pessimistic, argumentative people (hey, like me!) actually perform BETTER, because there is always someone that can ask the hard questions, and prevent overt optimism?

The second objection is that the actor person actively sabotaged the team's effort. After all, his/her goal was to prevent the team from performing their tasks, instead of accomplishing said task.
This situation is quite unlike most real world teams. Sometimes people are bad team players, but they seldom do it on purpose, and they are still out to achieve the task at hand.

To some up, the experiment (as described!) has little to no bearing on software development.

M on February 20, 2009 4:59 AM

I've been reading for a while, never commented. It's my go-to blog when I need some inspiration. Anyway, bad apples. I'm an employer, and I've found the negative effect of bad apples to be profound. It's affected not only my company's performance, but even my own personal outlook on life. Getting rid of that person is usually the only solution.

Recently, though, we had a previously good person that was having a really hard time and really irking my partner (who's also my wife). I forced us to stick it out. I confronted the employee a few times. We were patient. We worked through it. Now the bad apple is a better apple than before, from a work perspective.

I guess what I'm saying is that good apples sometimes become bad apples. But their not always unrecoverable. It will take patience, but sometimes you can overcome and end up with a different, but still good apple. A tasty Asian pear, for example. Well, you get it...

Dan Holtz on February 20, 2009 5:09 AM

So what do the bad apples do?

Jonathan Drain, Dungeons Dragons Blogger on February 20, 2009 5:12 AM

Can't really add much to this. The research is incredibly interesting, to say the least.

Ryan Meray on February 20, 2009 5:16 AM

And guess what? Politicians do this shit to us ALL THE TIME. You badmouth everything to get at the person in power--worst XXXX ever, XXXX crisis, XXXXgate, etc.

I've always thought these assholes had a greater effect on whatever XXXX was. Watch for politicians talking down the economy for political reasons. They're worsening it and screwing us all over just by badmouthing for their own benefit.

(Note there are no D's or R's in this comment; if you feel the need to respond please keep it that way)

Will Sullivan on February 20, 2009 5:22 AM

Hey Now Catto,

How I look forward to your comments; always informative and relevant.

Coding Horror Fan,
BA

Bad Apple on February 20, 2009 5:24 AM

He had this amazing diplomatic ability to diffuse the conflict

... I hope not, else it's HIM that's the bad apple!

I expect you meant he had an ability to defuse the conflict, i.e. disarm and pacify it - rather than spread it out in all directions!

JakeyC on February 20, 2009 5:30 AM

I was glad to get to the end of the article and read the positive affect of good leadership - the *real* point to take away from the article. The need for good leadership has been my mantra in software development for over 20 years.

It's been my experience, that we constantly fight a battle to win over team members to the goal of the team(s). Yes, I've had self-motivated team members, and they are like a cool breeze in the early morning sunrise. But I've rarely come across bad apples who are bad apples through and through. As the article mentions, we can all fall into one of the bad apple characteristics at one time or another. The team leader needs to become aware of these symptoms (and their affects), develop the ability to detect them early, learn how to deal with them effectively, and stay consistently vigilant with team morale.

While I agree that getting rid of bad apples is possibly the easiest approach, I'd argue that it isn't necessarily the best leadership approach.

As Dr. John Maxwell says, Leadership is influence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Winning a bad apple back into the team has far greater positive impact than just removing a thorn in the team's side.

Bill Berger on February 20, 2009 5:56 AM

Is it Phelps or Felps? Ah yes, we who see the trees for the forest.

Pete on February 20, 2009 6:24 AM

It's like questioning are you evil? Every human has possibility under certain circumstances to be evil, I think the same holds true for being a bad apple...
But sure there's some people who are worse a lot more often...
You should look into reading something about corporate culture. When you come into a new company you should get the company culture to blend in, that's the point. If everybody are slackers and you are a hig-achiever then you will not blend in, and therefore you've become the bad apple.

Jerko on February 20, 2009 6:32 AM

Personally, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the whole bad apple theory.

Sure, it's true, 100% true even, but 90% of the time it's just used, or rather, abused, as an excuse to blame and consequently get rid of the people that dare to critize the status quo. A disfunctional that doesn't complain is still a disfunctional team.

Duh on February 20, 2009 6:48 AM

The sub-prime tummyache was caused by too many good apples.
Anyway that study is hardly exhaustive, typical sociological pseudo science crap.

Do I smell a republican dittohead?

This was a very interesting read and makes a lot of sense.

Regis on February 20, 2009 6:48 AM

I was struck by how similar these Bad Apple strategies are to the 1944 U.S. Office of Strategic Services 'Simple Sabotage Field Manual'

(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of per­ sonal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and considera­tion.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of com­munications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reason­able” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the juris­ diction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

Here's the link to the article on boing boing about it:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/11/sabotage-manual-from.html

Dean Thrasher on February 20, 2009 6:48 AM

What if you've got a whole bushel of bad ones? ;-)

Scott Marlowe on February 20, 2009 6:53 AM

I agree with mark above: This study, consisting of groups of four college students, isn't necessarily representative of all people in all environments.

BruceA on February 20, 2009 6:54 AM

Does this really surprise anyone? You see this almost every day in professional sports. When someone is becoming the bad apple, the team tries to get rid of them. It seems like the teams with the best chemistry and least amount of problems are the ones with the most success.

Ryan on February 20, 2009 7:05 AM

non-violent communication: a href=http://www.cnvc.orghttp://www.cnvc.org/a">http://www.cnvc.org/a">http://www.cnvc.orghttp://www.cnvc.org/a

aoeu on February 20, 2009 7:12 AM

I was the lead for a team with a bad apple like this. Always complaining that it was too difficult and that no one would ever train him adequately. (Thing is...none of us got training of the type he wanted...we had to go out and find the answers we needed.) His constant bellyaching and griping eventually spread to several members of the team. (I'm obviously not the talented leader described in this article.) When my boss said I had to choose someone to leave our team, I jumped at the chance to get rid of this guy...even though there were less experienced folks on the team. Soon, we were getting more done with less people.

H on February 20, 2009 7:24 AM

This reminds me of the most recent 60 minutes podcast. In it, they discuss a mortgage salesman at a huge mortgage bank who went to all his superiors and executives trying to inform them about the bad mortgages they were all making.

He was of course fired, as a bad apple, when he threatened to warn Wachovia of the bank's terrible loans when Wachovia made overtures to acquire the bank.

Of course, after Wachovia acquired the bank for some $23 billion, they ended up losing more than $30 billion, being acquired on a fire sale, and then the resulting bank needed billions of bailout dollars to continue to exist.

So my point is, in certain environments where the team's approach is so terrible and backwards, you can hardly blame the bad apples for trying. Granted, acting like a bad apple, even in a terrible environment, is never going to fix anything. In that case, your choices are either to run away, or try to fix things in a more subtle way. Both are impossible choices.

And fixing $30 billion in bad loans is probably impossible no matter what you do.

Sam Schutte on February 20, 2009 7:24 AM

I've always assumed this was true. All members of a team, contribute positively and negatively. Strength in either direction carries more influence (not everyone is equal).

More importantly, the contribution of a team, any team, is a combination of their efforts, which means that it is intrinsically a compromise. People have long known that 'design by committee' generally produces lackluster designs. The only way around this is to allow one (and only one) visionary to control everything. The big problem of course, is that that amps up the risk considerably as well.

This is a huge problem with many of the newer Software methodologies. They advocate that everyone should have their say, that the design should 'always' be from a committee. The results of this approach are well-known.

Paul.

Paul W. Homer on February 20, 2009 7:39 AM

Rob Conery was right. You quote what others say and write one sentence with your own conclusion. Dude and you make money by readers reading this crap.

Joe on February 20, 2009 7:43 AM

@MacBet, j_random_hacker: *cough* Depressive pessimist *cough*

life isn't all high fives

MacBet on February 20, 2009 7:48 AM

@Joe

Jeff thanks you for your visit and ad revenue - Way to show him!

HB on February 20, 2009 7:49 AM

I don't think that a 45 minute exercise does anything to prove or disprove group dynamics.

Hartmut on February 20, 2009 7:50 AM

I'd agree with Hartmut, that first 45 minutes is forcing a small group of people to try and quickly learn to get along, which I doubt would meet with much success (Jerry Springer Show anyone?)

Often you'll learn how to work with people that annoy you, or don't perform the way you would like. That sort of knowledge comes with time. I'd be willing to bet that with more time and a larger group the impact of the bad apple would much more limited.

HB on February 20, 2009 7:54 AM

Want an example of this, see also wikipedia. And there's no way to throw them out.

MrDolomite on February 20, 2009 7:57 AM

Uh, conventional knowledge says that a chain (group) is only as strong as its weakest link...

Izkata on February 20, 2009 8:12 AM

If you can't tell who the bad apple is in your group, it might be you.

Does every group have a bad apple? I mean, is the worst person necessarily a bad apple, or do they have to meet some threshold of crappiness?

What if the entire group is the same?

TM on February 20, 2009 8:20 AM

How can this be discussed without sounding like a bad apple? Clever topic.

Good Apple on February 20, 2009 8:22 AM

On the flip side, my brother once mentioned a leadership book about group think: how groups of smart people make dumb decisions.

Jeff Schwandt on February 20, 2009 8:27 AM

@TM: You just kick one at a time, until you only got one left.

This is the worst post ever.

Good Apple on February 20, 2009 8:27 AM

I'm glad to find one techie who listens non-tech podcast(s) (I normally get weird looks when I mention non-technical podcasts around my tech friends). BTW, if you liked this episode of the show, you may enjoy other episodes, too, like these ones: http://alekdavis.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/best-of-this-american-life-podcasts/

Alek Davis on February 20, 2009 8:49 AM

So what this post is really trying to say, A bad apple spoils the whole barrelful?

My grandmother was right, and she didn't even have a blog.

Pardeep on February 20, 2009 9:12 AM

yeah, whatever..
:)

Marian on February 20, 2009 9:14 AM

I must confess to being the Jerk. But I'm working on it! :)

Randolpho on February 20, 2009 9:15 AM

Speaking of bad apples, Jeff, stackoverflow seems to be getting overrun by a troll.

Kyralessa on February 20, 2009 9:29 AM

If more people were like Al Bundy - group dynamics would be solved (and maybe less software problems). He's a real american hero with real good sound values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Bundy

Jerko on February 20, 2009 9:30 AM

I know for a fact that this is true. I've dealt with bad apples myself, and have also seen groups affected by them. They really do bring the whole group down. It's strange to watch other members of the group take on the same personality, almost as if they just want to be on the same level. And then everyone tends to focus on the worst member and not the actual goals of the group.

Timothy on February 20, 2009 9:30 AM

Hi my name is Norm.

I am an 80%'er
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001002.html

I am unreachable
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000856.html

And I am a bad Apple
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001227.html

Now how do I change my ways?

Norm on February 20, 2009 9:36 AM

This phenomenon is so very real. The other night we were playing a card game, and this new person said I hate you to people every time she had some small reverse in luck during the game. Other newer people took on this destructive habit, too. It takes 6 positives to make up for 1 negative, and that only works in some cases, not all. She spewed out about a dozen negatives. Pretty soon we weren't having a very good time at all. It occurred to me that if she continues coming to visit the group, we won't even be able to play that game any more, and we've been enjoying it for at least 4 years, always finding opportunities to feel good and say thanks to each other with smiles. She changed the dynamics of the entire game for everyone into a pile of toxic sludge.

Kanga Roo on February 20, 2009 9:40 AM

Hey I just hooked up with http://www.PinMoney.info and already have made money, $30, from the signup and the payout was great. Within 2 weeks I had the cash. It was worth every bit of my time. Just thought I would pass it along.

Cheers
Dave ~_~

Dave Simmon on February 20, 2009 9:48 AM

Too much apple talking makes me feel hungry. I'm going to lunch right now.

Carlos Figueroa on February 20, 2009 10:01 AM

RE: Norm
Live in three non-English-speaking countries for the next two years, then try this career again.

This post scratched an itch, so I started a thread here you might like to read/contribute-to

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=525336

Spraff on February 20, 2009 10:15 AM

You are right in that slacking and jerking isn't nice.

But if someone has negative comments but no positive ones, so what? You should have the answers to the negative comments, if the bad apple doesn't. Also the negative ideas are comments or questions. You cannot move forward if someone tells you that there is a wall ahead even if you get rid of the commenter.

I think many become bad apples if the rest of the group doesn't listen to the person. If someone has a good idea, but the rest of the group rejects the idea because of some random reason, the idealist starts to feel that he isn't appreciated as part of the group.

Silvercode on February 20, 2009 10:24 AM

This is all common sense.

In a business, if you have a bad apple, you need to get rid of them. Quickly.

Conventional business wisdom.

Bill on February 20, 2009 11:11 AM

I thought Rahul's comment was so brilliantly simple and insightful, that I had to compliment it.

Robin Barooah on February 20, 2009 11:31 AM

@MacBet: The sub-prime tummyache was caused by too many good apples.

For those who complain about this comment, my first response, which follows MacBet, is that without the Bad Apple, it's just easier and faster for the group to do something Incredibly Stupid. In the world of CodingHorror, I offer up: xml, ejb, COBOL, SOA, etc. The wisdom of the group is often the admiration of the Emperor's New Clothes. Y'all remember that.

BuggyFunBunny on February 20, 2009 11:38 AM

Jeff,
help draw the fine line between bad apple and constructive contrarian?
Differing points of view are valuable, but they sometimes sound pessimistic.

Guidance always appreciated...

Eric on February 20, 2009 11:43 AM

I think this study also showed the existence of a good apple effect.

Lev on February 20, 2009 11:50 AM

I agree with @Bill that this seems somewhat obvious. If someone is being negative in a group environment, the natural and expected result is for the rest of the members of that group to put up their guard against the negativity / criticism. The effect that is decreased mental flexibility, which results in a decrease in creativity and productivity.

I think perhaps the author has drawn a somewhat improper conclusion. Actors must, by definition, have the ability to project a great deal of self-confidence (basically, persistence). You've mixed them in groups with Students, who, by nature, should be very open-minded (or they won't be able to learn).

Additionally, the actors have a degree of foreknowledge. Basically, you've hired people to TRY to influence the status-quo of the group. Obviously, when you look hard enough for one conclusion, you will invariably find it.

Try this again with real students, real slackers, real jerks, and real WINNERS. I think that you'll find the real conclusion is that the most confident has the most profound effect on a group's dynamic. I know that if I were put in a group with Jack Welsh, I would have a fire under my ass to perform my best. Similarly, if I had a homeless man in my group, I wouldn't be nearly as motivated to perform as strongly, because I don't have the added incentive of making a possibly profitable association with them. (This conclusion is based on the assumption that confident people are more valuable as associates)

It's all about the inherent value of the situation. The more you have to gain, and the more you have fairly assessed those gains, the more you will be motivated by them.

Matt on February 20, 2009 11:52 AM

@Matt (myself)

1) Apologies for my vulgarity, I hope I haven't offended anyone.
2) When I said I think the author has..., I am referring to Wil Felps, not the author of this article.

Matt on February 20, 2009 11:56 AM

At first I thought that this was spot on, as I have certainly experienced this myself - one bad apple in the team spending half of every meeting whining about everything and such.

But Rahuls summary actually feels even more correct, as I have certainly seen the opposite as well. One very positive person, a very good apple if you will, can also affect a group. It doesn't even have to be the leader, just any member of the team that spreads energy.

It seems though that at least within IT, there is a tendency towards the jerk personality to some extent. Cynicism, dismissive one-liners, and an inherent sense of always knowing a better way to proceed than whatever has already been agreed upon - I see this a lot more often than I see the real positive can-do, let's-go guys.

Console on February 20, 2009 11:57 AM

This American Life is the bomb. There is tons of good stuff there. Keep listening Jeff.

Ian on February 20, 2009 12:37 PM

If you dip them apples in candy first, they radiate more, they become sweeter, and they stay perkier longer.

The only problem is, it makes other people want to bite them too.

Andrew Zen on February 20, 2009 12:55 PM

Managers hate bad apples because they contradict the official BS line we're great, the project is humming along nicely, live your lives for The Company.

Especially when times are stressful, someone who states loudly what everyone around are thinking (i.e. we're in deep s..t), can have a very positive effect on the workplace atmosphere.

katastrofa on February 21, 2009 1:09 AM

What happens when the bad apple is actually the right one though? I'm talking specifically about the jerk persona. I've worked on a lot of teams that were just a bunch of hacks trying to pretend that they were capable of being professional software developers. I was the voice of reason who actually wanted to do things the RIGHT way, but it could have been construed as being the jerk persona.

What do you in a case like this, when the jerk is actually right and the rest of the team are stupid?

Wayne on February 21, 2009 1:45 AM

If the jerk is the right one there are 2 options :

1) he is the boss and he micro-manages. This will go horribly wrong unless he really is right, and capable. And, while this is better in America than elsewhere, I've yet to meet the first decent-level manager with any real (exact-science at least) degree. In the rest of the world, there are no managers that have decent credentials either as tradesmen or academics. Political science, MBA just don't cut it.
2) he does what he's told and walks away with a paycheck out of a project that falls apart

(and there's obviously option 3, getting fired)

You can prevent the bad-apples from infecting others. That's called a strongly hierarchical organization. If done right, it can be as capable as the person at the top. If that's a very capable guy, that's great. If not, well ...

You cannot prevent bad-apples from infecting others in an equal setting, any more than you can protect people on a marketplace from suicide terror.

oelewapperke on February 21, 2009 3:21 AM

Of course there is also the little matter ... we aren't smarter collectively or in teams than individually. Teams can have a wider knowledge than any single team member has, but they cannot have better knowledge.

Everybody who's seen a demonstration, or any group of people react as a group knows this. The more people, the more stupid a team becomes. Huge teams are, first and foremost, hugely dumb.

Of course, in practice this translates to a team performing significantly worse than any individual team member would on his own.

The only way to make functioning team is to have strictly disparate responsabilities : don't have 4 coders/domain experts/analysts. Don't have 2 coders. Have a single coder, a single analyst, a single domain expert and a single tester in a team.

America is built on the strength, and especially the smarts, of individuals. Soviet russia was built on the smarts of teams.

oelewapperke on February 21, 2009 4:27 AM

Soviet russia was built on the smarts of teams.

That's a myth. Take Russian aircraft designers, for example.

katastrofa on February 21, 2009 5:01 AM

What's with all the Bad Apple stuff lately? This is like the second or third recent post about this. Others here have alluded this: don't we all learn this cliche jibber jabber about bad apples when we're seven years old or something like that? Isn't this one of the most famous cliches ever?

What exactly is the story here? Some rather suspect study essentially confirms the conventional wisdom and this is supposed to be surprising? Not sure I see the point here. Aren't there a million cliches about this, some already mentioned, like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and all that. I don't know about all this sub-prime mumbo jumbo but @Macbet as one thing, this study is typical sociological pseudo science. Sociologist make so many wide claims based on so little evidence and their research programs are so weak. Karl Popper showed how Freud's psychoanalysis was unfalsifiable pseudo science and most of this kind research has the same problems. Don't get me started on this nonsense about the The Three Personaility Types for This and Eleven Personality Types for That stuff.

In reality, people and group dynamics are much much more complicated than is revealed by this sort of stuff. Probably, the issue is far too important to be left to the sociologists.

Anyway, this is far too simplistic. I don't think all these cliches should be used to actually analyze real problems. While a chain may be as strong as its weakest link, a group is not necessarily so. There are characteristics of groups that are not translatable to chains of links and barrels of apples. The only places where it might make sense to apply the chain analogy is where there is a group that must perform some function (probably this would need to be a rather discrete function) and the role of any member in the group (or set) is *equivalent* (in the mathematical sense), such as in the case of a chain (perhaps the two ending links are somewhat different, I haven't bothered to think this through all the way, after all it is a cliche). However, this is not the case in most groups. In reality, militaries are not as strong as the weakest soldier, sports teams do not perform only as well as the weakest player, and so on and so forth. Actually, it becomes very strange to equate what it means to be a strong military or sports team with what it means to be a strong soldier or player; there is just a difference in what it means. In a chain, all that it means to be strong is that all links are Strong. As for barrels of apples, it becomes even more complicated. You have to really pay attention to what you mean by strong, weak, good, and bad.

You might say, well it's just an analogy so we aren't trying to arrive at a perfect 1-1 translation. However, then I question how useful it is to even use such an analogy or cliche at all.

The nice thing about a scientific and logical way of thinking is that it frees you from the shackles of thinking in terms of cliches and analogies in order so that to you can begin to understand a thing precisely.

We don't need cliches to muddy things up anymore than they already are. We certainly don't need pseudo-studies that purport of offer surprising results by concluding that they have *confirmed* cliches. That is one of the silliest things I've heard in a long time.

charles on February 21, 2009 5:14 AM

I was on a team with 2 types of the bad apples. The amount of negativity that can be caused is tremendous and can result in bad team morale and low productivity.

SkyDog2 on February 21, 2009 5:31 AM

@Wayne

Part of being right is to get the rest of the team along with you.

If all ways to make the sheep understand your clever masterplan fail, eventually you have to give up complaining about it and try to make the best of whatever plan you can agree on.

Otherwise you are just being a jerk, even if you happen to be right.

I also highly recommend Joel's essay how to get things done when you are just a grunt (something like that) as an answer to this. He suggests creating a bubble of excellence around yourself.

The team won't bother with source control? Install it locally and use it yourself. Nobody talks to the users? YOU talk to the users. Nobody writes specs? YOU write specs. No documentation? Write it! And so on.

Console on February 21, 2009 5:40 AM

I learned similar techniques in Leadership class to what the study's Good Leader used.

This American Life! It's one of my favorite shows. Here in Washington it's on KPLU every Sunday at 12:00, so I'm waiting for it to come on (in 10 minutes) while I bake some bacon and code :)

Zoasterboy on February 21, 2009 11:50 AM

The sub-prime tummyache was caused by too many good apples.
Anyway that study is hardly exhaustive, typical sociological pseudo science crap.

@MacBet:

Are you trying to say that you don't want to consider the possibility
that you're a bad apple?

I've seen this happen, I've felt this happen. I've even felt myself becoming a depressive pessimist simply by being in the company of one.

Adam on February 21, 2009 11:58 AM

As a web-url-grammatical thing, your sentence

This apparently led Will to his next research project: can a group leader change the dynamics and performance of a group by __going around and asking questions__, soliciting everyone's opinions, and making sure everyone is heard?

Links to your own 'Are you an Expert?' post when clearly the reader is expecting that you're linking to something referencing Will's next research project, and not linking to your anti-expert post which is totally offtopic to Will's next project.

It's almost like quoting yourself, and we all know how much we like people who quote themselves.

offtopic on February 22, 2009 1:43 AM

More comments»

The comments to this entry are closed.