A recent posting about bad behavior during an academic conference appeared just a day before I heard about a study about bad apples within organizations. It is somewhat startling that something as mundane as a junior faculty pup who pees on others' legs can be described in a scholarly journal. The report even included an conceptual framework (only part of which appears here) that seeks to represent how a deliberate detractor can influence the others with whom he comes into contact.
The study itself is quite clever: the researcher hired an actor who, unbeknown to three other research subjects, was to act like (1) a jerk or (2) a slacker or (3) a gloomy Gus.Which of these applies to the Golden Retriever Puppy is less important than this study's discovery about the cascading effects of his pissy behavior.
Although not disclosed within the article, the radio interview (near the 12 minute mark) uncovered that it was possible for diplomacy to overcome the negative influences of the jerk. And the diplomat could be a leader that emerges whose positive influences neuters the pup AND brings the group along. In other words, it may not be necessary for the entire group to resist and revolt. Instead, at least with the actor, someone who represents goodness and generosity can resist the attempts to pull one over to the dark side.
We present an unfolding model that describes the prototypical process by which one individual behaving badly might have a profoundly negative impact on the group. We suggest that the three most salient and important behaviors of a negative member are the withholding of effort, the demonstration of negative affect, and the violation of important interpersonal norms. (Felps, Mitchell & Byington, 2007)As I understand the story, the dynamics of the group were greatly harmed by the presence of the detractor. The mood of the group suffered and the levels of trust were jeopardized. In terms of completing the group task, the researchers noted lowered motivation, reduced creativity and lessened amount of cooperation. Other behaviors noted in the unsuspecting group-mates were defensiveness and irritability. This suggests that the "bad apple" can indeed ruining the whole barrel (cf. Osmond, et al. 2008). Fortunately, the group does have the capacity to resist.
Although not disclosed within the article, the radio interview (near the 12 minute mark) uncovered that it was possible for diplomacy to overcome the negative influences of the jerk. And the diplomat could be a leader that emerges whose positive influences neuters the pup AND brings the group along. In other words, it may not be necessary for the entire group to resist and revolt. Instead, at least with the actor, someone who represents goodness and generosity can resist the attempts to pull one over to the dark side.
No comments:
Post a Comment