Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Across four studies, we examine how public negative labeling, which is when a group member is publicly identified as bad, affects team performance. Across three experiments and one field study, we test and find support for our model, that public negative labeling undermines team performance via reduced perceptions of team interaction quality. Our study contributes to the expansive conversation on team effectiveness which highlights that “fighting fire with fire” in terms of public negative labeling is ineffective for dealing with uncivil workplace behavior.

Keywords

labeling workplace negativity team performance team processes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alicke

M. D.

(2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556

Babiak

Hare

R. D.

(2009). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. HarperCollins.

Bainbridge

Everton

(2018). Radical candor: Why brutal honesty is tech’s hottest management trend. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/your-business/radical-candor-why-brutal-honesty-tech-s-hottest-management-trend-n842466

Barsade

S. G.

(2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Bayazit

Mannix

E. A.

(2003). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members’ intent to remain in the team. Small Group Research, 34(3), 290–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403034003002

Behfar

Thompson

(2007). Conflict within and between organizational groups: Functional, dysfunctional, and quasi-functional perspectives. In Behfar

Thompson

(Eds.), Conflict in organizational teams (pp. 3–35). Northwestern University Press.

Bendersky

Hays

N. A.

(2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734

Bledow

Rosing

Frese

(2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 432–450. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0894

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

10.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

11.

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Klein

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Halpin

S. M.

(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007

12.

Burnett

P. C.

(2001). Elementary students’ preferences for teacher praise. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(1), 16–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23870540

13.

Butterfield

K. D.

Trevino

L. K.

Ball

G. A.

(1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1479–1512. https://doi.org/10.2307/257066

14.

Campbell

Deacon

(2006). Unravelling the contexts of stigma: From internalisation to resistance to change. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.901

15.

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

16.

Cheung

J. H.

Burns

D. K.

Sinclair

R. R.

Sliter

(2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5

17.

Cohan

(2012). Why stack ranking worked better at GE than Microsoft. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/13/why-stack-ranking-worked-better-at-ge-than-microsoft/

18.

Cole

M. S.

Walter

Bruch

(2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.945

19.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

LePine

J. A.

(2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

20.

Crant

J. M.

Bateman

T. S.

(1993). Assignment of credit and blame for performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.5465/256510

21.

Dalal

R. S.

Lam

Weiss

H. M.

Welch

E. R.

Hulin

C. L.

(2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44636148

22.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.71

23.

de Jong

J. P.

Curşeu

P. L.

Leenders

R. T. A.

(2014). When do deviants not spoil the barrel? Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036284

24.

Detert

J. R.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2005). No exit, no voice: The bind of risky voice opportunities in organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005(1), O1–O6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2005.18780787

25.

de Wit

F. R.

Greer

L. L.

Jehn

K. A.

(2012). The paradox of intrateam conflict: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844

26.

Druskat

V. U.

Wolff

S. B.

(2007). The effect of confronting members who break norms on team effectiveness. In Thompson

Behfar

(Eds.), Conflict in organizational teams (pp. 229–259). Northwestern University Press.

27.

Eden

(1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.

28.

Edmondson

(1999). A safe harbor: Social psychological conditions enabling boundary spanning in work teams. In Wageman

(Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams: Groups in context (Vol. 2, pp. 179–199). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

29.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

30.

Ensley

M. D.

Pearson

A. W.

Amason

A. C.

(2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4), 365–386.

31.

Fehr

Fulmer

Keng-Highberger

F. T.

(2020). How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral disengagement. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12366

32.

Fehr

Gächter

(2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137a

33.

Felps

Mitchell

T. R.

Byington

(2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(06)27005-9

34.

Ferraro

Pfeffer

Sutton

R. I.

(2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281412

35.

Goodman

J. K.

Cryder

C. E.

Cheema

(2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753

36.

Grant

A. M.

Gino

Hofmann

D. A.

(2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61968043

37.

Gruys

M. L.

Sackett

P. R.

(2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224

38.

Hackman

J. R.

(1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press.

39.

Hamilton

(2015). One deviant can ruin the barrel. Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248851

40.

Harkins

S. G.

Szymanski

(1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.6.934

41.

Hossain

Kauranen

(2015). Crowdsourcing: A comprehensive literature review. Strategic Outsourcing An International Journal, 8(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/so-12-2014-0029

42.

Ilgen

D. R.

Fisher

C. D.

Taylor

M. S.

(1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349

43.

Jehn

K. A.

(1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

44.

Jehn

K. A.

Mannix

E. A.

(2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of Intragroup Cconflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453

45.

Kanov

Powley

E. H.

Walshe

N. D.

(2017). Is it ok to care? How compassion falters and is courageously accomplished in the midst of uncertainty. Human Relations, 70(6), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716673144

46.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

47.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

48.

Kozodoy

(2020). Honest to greatness: How today’s greatest leaders use brutal honesty to achieve massive success. BenBella Books.

49.

Kunda

Thagard

(1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103(2), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.284

50.

Kuvaas

Selart

(2004). Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.001

51.

Labianca

Brass

D. J.

Gray

(1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.5465/256897

52.

Lam

C. K.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

Walter

Huang

(2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021882

53.

LePine

J. A.

Van Dyne

(2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326

54.

Levin

I. P.

Gaeth

G. J.

Schreiber

Lauriola

(2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983

55.

Lubit

R. H.

(2003). Coping with toxic managers, subordinates. . . and other difficult people: Using emotional intelligence to survive and prosper. FT Press.

56.

Macionis

Gerber

(2010). Chapter 3-Culture. In Macionis

(Ed.), Sociology (7th ed). Pearson Canada Inc.

57.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

58.

Mason

Suri

(2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

59.

Mehta

P. D.

Neale

M. C.

(2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equations modeling. Psychological Methods, 10(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.3.259

60.

Meier

L. L.

Spector

P. E.

(2013). Reciprocal effects of work stressors and counterproductive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031732

61.

Morgeson

F. P.

DeRue

D. S.

Karam

E. P.

(2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

62.

Morrison

E. W.

Phelps

C. C.

(1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011

63.

Muthén

B. O.

(1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124194022003006

64.

Owens

B. P.

Hekman

D. R.

(2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1088–1111. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660

65.

Eden

(1994). Restraining the Golem: Boosting performance by changing the interpretation of low scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 744–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.744

66.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

O’Boyle

A. S.

(2011). Bad Apples or bad barrels: An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390998

67.

Palmer

T. M.

Sterne

J. A. C.

(2015). Fitting fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis models using structural equation modeling with the sem and gsem commands. The Stata Journal, 15(3), 645–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1501500303

68.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

69.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

70.

Porath

C. L.

Erez

(2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919

71.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141

72.

Satterwhite

S. R.

(2013). Here’s to the death of Microsoft’s rank-and-yank. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/11/13/heres-to-the-death-of-microsofts-rank-and-yank/?sh=578194d6777b

73.

Schilpzand

Hekman

D. R.

Mitchell

T. R.

(2015). An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage. Organization Science, 26(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0928

74.

Shah

P. P.

Peterson

R. S.

Jones

S. L.

Ferguson

A. J.

(2021). Things are not always what they seem: The origins and evolution of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 426–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220965186

75.

Shaw

J. D.

Zhu

Duffy

M. K.

Scott

K. L.

Shih

H. A.

Susanto

(2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021340

76.

Staw

B. M.

(1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(3), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90060-4

77.

Staw

B. M.

Sandelands

L. E.

Dutton

J. E.

(1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392337

78.

Sutton

R. I.

(2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. Hachette Book Team.

79.

Côté

Saavedra

(2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295

80.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

81.

Wageman

Hackman

J. R.

Lehman

(2005). Team diagnostic survey development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021886305281984

82.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Rittman

A. L.

Marks

M. A.

(2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(01)00093-5

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Public Negative Labeling Effects on Team Interaction and Performance

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material