Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
-Kurt Vonnegut
Look around the office or work Slack channels and chances are there is at least one bad apple in the barrel.
At least that is what one in four workers thinks, according to research from Atlassian that suggests bad apples can poison high-functioning teams to the core.
More than a quarter (26 per cent) of workers report having a bad apple on their team, and 13.6 per cent said the bad apple was their manager, a survey of more than 2000 workers in Australia and the US found.
Atlassian work futurist Dom Price says calling out bad apples could lead to a stronger workplace culture. Louise Kennerley
For Atlassian’s work futurist Dom Price, the research should be a huge wake-up call for most bosses.
“Whenever I work with companies, I ask them the same question: ‘did you hire idiots or did you create them?’ And I’ve got the same question for organisations with bad apples,” he said.
It was especially problematic when the bad apple was a manager or leader because of the trickle-down effect.
“If you think that a quarter of teams are struggling with someone who brings that team down and reduces their mojo, that’s not good, because if that team is 10 people, that is nine people who are negatively impacted,” Mr Price said.
From the interrupter and the mood killer to the idea thief, most people have worked with a bad apple at some point in their career.
“You’re negative, you cut everyone off, everyone’s ideas get poo-pooed, you ask a stupid question five minutes before the end of the meeting to derail everything,” Mr Price said. “They usually call themselves the devil’s advocate.”
.
But having a bad apple on the team is not all bad: the research found that teams with bad apples were more likely to be innovative in some areas.
“The weird side effect of having a bad apple in your team is, to some extent, the willingness to engage in conflict, and it creates an environment that forces a team to be more creative,” Mr Price said.
Despite this, it was key that people felt safe to call out bad apple behaviour, which Mr Price said could lead to a stronger workplace culture.
“A quarter of teams having bad apples could be fuelling the great resignation itself, but the problem is that people that leave are the good ones who don’t put up with it, and then you’re left with even more bad apples,” he said.
“The leaders who are thriving and the ones who are building great, sustainable teams are having that open dialogue with their teams, and they’re asking about ways they can do those things better, but bad apples aren’t looking for feedback, are they?”
Leaders need to be asking for constant feedback if they want to avoid the curse of the bad apple.
“Whenever I work with leaders, I regularly ask them: ‘what’s the best bit of feedback you’ve got recently?’ and I usually get met with silence,” he said.
Bosses should begin by asking their teams what is one thing they can do to improve how they work together.
“It costs nothing to ask,” Mr Price said. “It might hurt the ego a tiny bit but what you’re going to get is an absolute golden nugget where you can improve. And if you do it often, then it’s never a giant piece of feedback.”
The research also found that chief executives had an overinflated view about how effective their teams would be in the future.
“Most senior leaders have almost an equal and opposite view of what people on the ground are experiencing,” Mr Price said.
“I think there is a wake-up call for C-suite leaders, whether it be the great resignation or the war for talent or how we engage modern generations in the workforce.
“I think there’s a whole cohort of leaders where there’s a bit of ignorance as to what the reality is of how people are experiencing work right now.”
Natasha Boddy is Work & Careers reporter with The Australian Financial Review. She was previously a homepage editor and online producer. Connect with Natasha on Twitter. Email Natasha at natasha.boddy@afr.com
For the first time in a very long time, central bankers are coming under friendly fire as they lose control over some of the economic forces they themselves have helped to generate.
There’s a lot of truth to Keats’s remark that “if poetry comes not as naturally as the leaves to a tree, it had better not come at all.” I won’t sit down to a blank page—well, screen—unless I feel the narrative coalescing in my head. (“My head,” I say, though poems begin in the ear; “narrative,” I say, though I think poems are powered by rhyme and metonym, not story.) Perhaps what I mean is: when I have a direction from A to B, and a musical phrase to start with, then I’m on my way. And it goes fast.
There are many things that set off Donald Trump about the 2020 presidential election.
But this one was especially notable: Fox News calling the state of Arizona for Joe Biden on election night. Not only was Fox News way ahead of everybody on that call, but it was … well, Fox News. In Trump’s mind, this was hisnetwork calling Arizona for his opponent. How dare they? How could they?
So angry was Trump that he even called the person highest on the Fox News organizational chart — Rupert Murdoch — to get the network to retract the call.
But it was never retracted and, as it turns out, Fox News was right.
