Let's Invent a New Word or Phrase: What do you call someone who "opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome."

This question came in an email yesterday from Mozilla's Asa Dotzler, who is renowned for his skill as an open-source marketer, especially in spreading the Firefox browser.  The engine that propels any open source community is having a wide range of smart and hardworking people who generate and refine solutions, and are eager to step in and fix them when things go wrong.  So maintaining norms that encourage people to participate in generating solutions and making decisions-- rather than those who don't pitch in or help make decisions but always complain bitterly about the outcome  -- is crucial to any open source community. 

I would add that the same goes for life inside organizations: Some people refuse to speak-up or pitch-in when ideas are being developed, are unable or unwilling to go to key meetings, and generally don't have the will, time, or inclination to help their colleagues, but then repeatedly shoot-down the decisions that are made, refuse to help implement them, and bad mouth their more hardworking colleagues.  They are destructive assholes in my book.  Indeed, as Jeff Pfeffer and I showed in The Knowing-Doing Gap, there are some organizations where people seem to get rewarded and promoted for shooting down other people and their ideas --- not for generating, proposing, and implementing ideas.  At one large bank we studied, we saw and were told about episode after episode where people who proposed new ideas were ripped to pieces. The people who got ahead in the organization had learned it was career suicide to actually develop and push ideas -- the rewards were all given to critics who not only took down the new ideas, but also took down people who developed and proposed them.

To return to Asa and his friends at Mozilla, they want to discourage this kind of behavior (and so do people in a lot of other workplaces), and are trying to come-up with a punchy, sticky, and fun word to describe these destructive characters.  Here is what Asa wrote me:

A few of us at the office today realized that we didn't have a good word for someone who opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome. The most obvious example is someone who doesn't vote and then laments the election results. Ideally this word wouldn't be specific to simply expressing a preference (as in voting) because we'd like it to also include people who, given the opportunity to participate in something much more involved (say, stopping global warming,) fail to take advantage that offer and then complain about the results.  

We came up with a few multi-hyphenated phrases, what I'm calling the "German" approach, but it sure would be nice to have a single, short, and at least somewhat derogatory sounding term for this kind of person.  If you know of an existing English word, or care to help by making one up, we'd love to hear from you.

 

We'll also definitely credit any new word to the creator if we manage to push a that new word into popular use.

I can't come up with anything good.  Terms like "lazy complainers," "destructive second-guessers," and "listless lamenters" don't cut it.  In the spirit of the open source movement, I asked Asa if I could put this out here and see if the readers of Work Matters could come up with something better. We would love to see your ideas. Language is a powerful thing, and it would be great to have powerful word to describe this destructive behavior and/or the people who do it again and again.

Comments

[Dale]

Abjacktivist is my choice especially with the accent on"Jack" as in jackoff

[katie]

dipwad is the best word. or dip thong

[patrick t]

Armchair Critic
Monday Morning Sniveler
DoucheNag

[Alex]

A good friend of mine read this post and said that "haters" would be a good word. It's a more modern word, stemming from mostly rap and hip-hop music, that is simply a term used for one who hates on another.

[Hereward Holmes]

How about an insolent regressive?

[Ted Scott]

Best to call this type of person a detached dissident - he was once part of something, now he isn't, and he's got a cloud of negativity hovering over him ever since. Also, a little alliteration helps.

[Oliver]

How about using word pairs like:
- involuntary stakeholder
- backseat nag

[Andy Imboden]

HAHA Murphy Dysart!
You're not from the Northeast, are you?
Masshole = Massachusetts ...

[Maren]

Yes, yes, yes to Bob G.!!! CV Harquail, who was asked the same question, also posted a blog about these labels (full disclosure: she used content from an email I sent her after she asked my husband and I if we could think of any labels...) Check it out: http://authenticorganizations.com/harquail/2010/02/11/readers-question-can-we-shift-to-more-authentic-communication/

[Tiffney]

Lazy Bee. Instead of being a busy bee who helps everyone out and brings in honey, this is a bee who doesn't help out the group but reserves the right to sting you once the work is done.

[Geoff Wasserman]

Have an idea for the WORD you're looking for for the passive-agressive complainers...How about "Eroders"

[Tronica Lindstrom]

It's particularly easy to see when that person is your boss or someone in power. They provide no guidance or direction, so you do what you think is right, and then get publicly lambasted for not reading their minds.

I'd call it plain old Passive Agressive.

[Tom T]

We just call these folks kibitzers...not really a need to invent a new word.

[Murphy Dysart]

On my way to work today I saw a bumper sticker that said “MASSHOLE.” Not sure if there is a specific meaning for this word, other than perhaps “massive asshole,” but I like and plan to use it regularly. Anyway, it reminded me of your challenge and inspired me to come up with the following:

Slackhole – This one speaks for itself.

Passhole – Describes someone who passes on the opportunity to contribute to an idea, then criticizes what others come up with. Also appropriate for a driver in the right lane who speeds up and recklessly cuts in front of you.

Lollygaghole – Short would be gaghole, which adds double meaning.

Probably someone already thought of these, but what the heck.

[Ruven Gotz]

PassFailers - they "pass" on the chance to contribute, but call "FAIL" on the result.

DFA's - disengaged from the action on the ground but drop bombs from a great height (DFA=Death From Above; slang for bombing)

[Dean Zatkowsky]

It could happen to anyone who believes himself indifferent during the process, only to end up facing a dreadfully inadequate result.

If repeat offenders are the ones we wish to label, they are not the problem, either. Fool me twice? Shame on me. A good leader ensures the participation of vital team members, especially if they have been "passholes" in the past.

[John]

Creative Director

[Nancy Lewis]

I like Dances with Books "disenfranchised" - we could call them "disenfranks," but I would prefer "Sour Grapers."

[Nate McMahon]

Troll

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745791008]

Another vote for passholes (credit to Sniglets)

[Andy Imboden]

Unconscientious objector

[borkborkbork]

'Submarine' is brilliant. +1 to whoever suggested that.

[Hobie Swan]

Or we could turn to enomology and call them "dung beetles." Some dung beetles roll up feces into big balls to feed on. (They'll even fight over a dung ball.) Another kind buries feces as soon as they find it. A third kind simply lives in feces. So it seems like the people you describe should fit into at least one of these categories. But these beetles all serve some kind of ecological purpose. Is it possible that these corporate dung beetles do too?

[Carol Murchie]

I worked in a toxic environment where what I had to contribute (namely what the law says and what good corporate governance is) was considered rubbish to the "leaders" (it was a nonprofit) however it never stopped me from saying what I had to say and I never stopped trying to come up with new ideas and new procedures to make things better within my own sphere of influence. Therein lies the big difference from those who never seem to be there "at the creation" because they simply only know how to hack other people's work to pieces or have the misguided notion that being negative makes them look superior to everyone else.

Actually, good old Charles Dickens might have beat us to the punch with "The Artful Dodger".

[Bob_G]

If an organization finds itself populated with large numbers of the "non-participating disgruntled," perhaps a little self-examination is in order. Are they really all just a bunch of worthless whiners? Or is it *possible* that the organization has somehow attracted them, or even created them? Is this, in fact, a symptom of an assh*le environment, rather than simple flawed characters? People who have been ignored, abused, and had their ideas twisted and/or stolen are easily dismissed as having a "bad attitude." Do not blame the victims, folks. This is a complex and nuanced problem.