The theme of this particular episode, Ruining It for the Rest of Us, was bad apples — people who spoil things for other people. The prologue featured an experiment by Dr. Will Felps, a professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, who wanted to see what would happen to the productivity of a group when faced with a bad apple — in this case, a planted actor who exhibited one of three toxic behaviors: being a big jerk (generally nasty and sarcastic), a slacker (not pulling their own weight), or a depressive pessimist (a negative Nancy, a nattering nabob of negatism).

As it happens, the negative individual — the bad apple — was consistently able to spoil the bunch, causing his groups to be much less productive than the control groups.

Although this makes sense to me (don’t we all know a co-worker from hell who poisoned the workplace well?), apparently, this isn’t supposed to happen — studies on group dynamics seem to think that individuals will be changed by groups, rather than the other way around.

There was one exception to the bad apple spoiling the bunch — in one group, there was a good leader: someone who, just by asking questions and listening to people, was able to counteract the bad apple and keep the group on course.

Now, I don’t want to read too much into this one study (most of which you can see here: “How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups“), especially because it plays into the conceits of social media and community management types. I think we tend to overestimate the power of leadership and moderation in shaping the culture of a community, and the whole idea of conversation influencing groups just makes us *swoon*.

But it’s a useful data point.

Problematic as they are offline, bad apples can even worse online. Online communities are usually bigger; depending on how the group has formed, you might not have had prior dealings with other members; you lose nonverbal cues; and it’s generally easier to be nasty to someone online — especially when you throw in anonymity.

Plus, if you’ve ever dealt with a bad actor online (a troll or flamer), you know how it’s easy to get drowned out. Online, one person can shout down a group, whereas offline, it’s usually the other way around. For example, a comment thread has passed the point of any usefulness when the people left in the conversation are all arguing with one person. When you see this, you know it’s time to go (mostly because all the normal people have dropped out.)

You do have some advantages dealing with bad apples online –  there are tools to filter and ignore, or even moderate and ban, bad actors. And if it’s a conversation space that you control (nominally), you can at least lay out the guidelines and try to set a good example — even control membership. (Though use too heavy of a hand and that’s a whole ‘nother problem.)

Anyway, if you’ve got your own stories about or strategies for dealing with bad apples in a group, please feel free to share in the comments.