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!
Bullying of Academics in Higher Education
The bullying of academics follows a pattern of horrendous, Orwellian elimination rituals, often hidden from the public. Despite the anti-bullying policies (often token), bullying is rife across campuses, and the victims (targets) often pay a heavy price. "Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci - "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men [or good women] do nothing." Winston Churchill.
Posted by: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon | February 20, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Just found you and your work this week. What a breath of fresh air in a world where assholes are not only tolerated, they are held up as examples and rewarded as people able to get the job done without needing teamwork or good "systems". These people come to believe in their own superiority and many become assholes about it. It seems high profile assholes are often promoted and their high positions make them particularly toxic. Just one in a high position can destroy organizational effectiveness. I've seen more than one Sr. Management team absolutely paralyzed by it. But many, if not most are what you might call passive assholes. Sometimes known as "players", they're quite nice and cordial, but they don't contribute until it's in their personal best interest to do so, leaving everyone else to haul the heavy load. This form of asshole seems more widespread and I might suggest is just as toxic. Of course both types are perpetuated by appraisal and reward systems rooted in a "survival of the fittest" core belief. Referencing Darwin in management circles, or in any social context is fraught with pitfalls, but this misunderstanding of his work is so strong and so often mis-used it's difficult to avoid. Interesting when you consider that Darwin's work was really about "survival of the fitting-est" toward optimal resource utilization - which sounds more like teamwork in a social setting. I suspect that there are also even deeper misunderstandings of our various religious doctrines that worm their way into our corporate policies and actually promote assholes. A never ending drive to separate people into good and bad, so we can reward and punish appropriately, invariably ends up rewarding bad behaviors of personal promotion. If this is true, and I really hope I'm wrong, it's going to be long road to better workplaces. Thanks for your work in helping to pave the way.
Posted by: Randy Harward | February 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM
As a matter of both law and ethics in today's world the process of removing a toxic player from either a team or the organization is something that takes time, counselling and documentation. It seems to me that team members and other employees will tolerate that time if the supervisor is doing the work of observation, confrontation, discipline and documentation. If the supervisor does not do that, then the situation goes into a death spiral, because workers do not only have to deal with the asshole, they also begin to feel like there will be no relief.
Posted by: Wally Bock | February 19, 2007 at 07:36 AM
I believe that the correct stance here is asshole intolerance, regardless of the size of the group or organisation. Large organisations are generally made up of a large number of smaller groups in any case. The corollary to Felps' wife's example is also interesting; what is the result of an individual having a bad day or series of days and behaving like an asshole? It happens, and if in the example above a few days' absence is enough to put the situation right, is not a few days of Mr Asshole taking over from Mr Teamplayer enough to make a situation bad?
Posted by: Peter Warne | February 19, 2007 at 06:51 AM
Glad to see the research bear out what we naturally feel...assholes upset the apple cart. I seriously wonder about companies that let assholes hang around "because he's a great salesman" or "she's really great with clients." It just can't be...and I wonder what the entire level of productivity could be if more assholes were kicked to the curb. They can go to AA meetings...Assholes Anonymous.
Posted by: Frank Roche | February 18, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Very interesting and recognisable.
In the course of leading workshops on Productive Conversations on Executive Development programme at London Business School I devised and applied simple measures that showed levels on negativity in different groups. Data was collected by participants and we then plotted results and discussed implications.
I was totally unprepared for subsequent strong reactions from one of the participants. Only now reading this post I realise that this was a jerk who could not deal with the implications of own behaviour, even when confronted with the evidence that everyone saw. He mounted a sustained campaign among other attendees to discredit the session.
It was always obvious that the whole episode had nothing to do with me and all to do with this asshole (oops, here, I said it). This fully confirms it!
Posted by: Lilly Evans | February 18, 2007 at 07:30 PM
Fascinating stuff. This goes to show that all managers have a responsibility to remove highly negative people from their teams. The cost to everyone else on the team is incredibly high - too high. And perhaps the best thing all managers can do TOMORROW is to begin the process of removing all negative people from their teams. Period.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 18, 2007 at 06:04 PM
Bob,
Thanks for the link and the interesting new data.
I concluded in my review that zero was a better number to shoot for if one was inexperienced at jerk management. As you note above, we should aim for zero, as one or two might slip in anyway.
We should probably leave the "one asshole rule" only for those who are expert at jerk management - and there probably are precious few of us who might fit into that category.
Kent
Posted by: Kent Blumberg | February 18, 2007 at 03:37 PM