In chapter 3 of The No Asshole Rule, I suggest that –based on theory and research on deviance and conformity to norms — it might be better to allow one or two token assholes to survive in an organization (especially if they have little power), as they will provide living proof of how not to behave. This idea is based partly on interesting studies of conformity to norms and deviance, especially studies on littering. These studies by Robert Cialdini and his colleagues show that people are less likely to throw garbage into a parking lot or walkway that has ONE piece of litter than NONE, because the a single vivid violation reminds everyone of the norm and the costs of violating it. In fact, in Kent Blumberg’s review of The No Asshole Rule, he wondered if I should have called "The One Asshole Rule" instead, which I thought was a reasonable point given the evidence presented.
Well, if you read this blog, you know that I am committed to evidence-based management, and that means that I reach conclusions based on the best theory and research I can find, but update when new information comes along. This means I try to act with knowledge while doubting what I know, or to steal a phrase from The University of Michigan’s Karl Weick, "arguing as if I am right, listening as if I am wrong."
A new article just published in Research in Organizational Behavior challenges my "one asshole rule" theory. Research in Organizational Behavior of the most respected publications in the field of organizational behavior, which has been co-edited for over 25 years U.C. Berkeley’s Barry Staw — I edited with Barry for a few years in the late 1990’s. and he currently co-edits it with Art Brief. There is a new article in ROB by William Felps and Terrance Mitchell, who are the University of Washington. Their analysis of 20 published studies suggests that "one bad apple" is enough to push a group into a downward spiral, as a Science Daily put it,
"Felps and Mitchell define negative people as those who don’t do their
fair share of the work, who are chronically unhappy and emotionally
unstable, or who bully or attack others. They found that a single
"toxic" or negative team member can be the catalyst for downward
spirals in organizations. In a follow-up study, the researchers found
the vast majority of the people they surveyed could identify at least
one "bad apple" that had produced organizational dysfunction."
Co-author Terry Mitchell is one of the best in the business, so I suspect that this research done carefully. I will read the original paper closely, but based on the report in Science Daily, it seems that the authors focused on small groups, where bad apples are especially like to have powerful effects. So perhaps a bad apple in a bigger group might still help crystallize "no-asshole" rather than "pro-asshole" norms. And another factor might have to do with the power of the "bad apple," so if the nasty person widely seen as behaving badly and plays a marginal role in the group, then perhaps they do less damage.
On the other hand, perhaps Felps and Mitchell are right. They do have 20 studies and Felps story about the "bad apple" that his wife worked with rings true to me:
Felps’ wife was unhappy at work and characterized the environment as
cold and unfriendly. Then, she said, a funny thing happened. One of her
co-workers who was particularly caustic and was always making fun of
other people at the office came down with an illness that caused him to
be away for several days.
"And when he was gone, my wife said
that the atmosphere of the office changed dramatically," Felps said.
"People started helping each other, playing classical music on their
radios, and going out for drinks after work. But when he returned to
the office, things returned to the unpleasant way they were. She hadn’t
noticed this employee as being a very important person in the office
before he came down with this illness but, upon observing the social
atmosphere when he was gone, she came to believe that he had a profound
and negative impact. He truly was the "bad apple" that spoiled the
barrel."
In short, perhaps The No Asshole Rule is the right title after all. And as a practical matter, it is so hard to keep demeaning jerks out of organizations that it is likely wisest to aim to hire none at all, as odds are one or two are likely to slip through the cracks anyway!
Finally, I should add that the the negative effects of assholes suggested in Felp’s story above and the 20 studies reviewed in this article provide further support for the vile effects of workplace jerks:
For example, in one study of about 50 manufacturing teams, they found
that teams that had a member who was disagreeable or irresponsible were
much more likely to have conflict, have poor communication within the
team and refuse to cooperate with one another. Consequently, the teams
performed poorly.
Sounds like like asshole poisoning to me!
Leave a Reply