Superstars get a lot of attention from bosses. But bad apples deserve even more.

员工中的超级明星很吸引老板的眼球，不过那些害群之马获得的关注可能更多。

A growing body of research suggests that having just a few nasty, lazy or incompetent characters around can ruin the performance of a team or an entire organization─no matter how stellar the other employees.

越来越多的研究显示，在一个团队中，无论其他员工多么优秀，只要其中有那么几个讨厌的、懒散的或是不称职的家伙，他们就能毁掉团队乃至整个公司的表现。

Bad apples distract and drag down everyone, and their destructive behaviors, such as anger, laziness and incompetence, are remarkably contagious. Leaders who let a few bad apples in the door─perhaps in exchange for political favors─or look the other way when employees are rude or incompetent are setting the stage for even their most skilled people to fail.

这些“坏苹果”让人心烦意乱，拖所有人的后腿，而他们的破坏性行为──比如愤怒、懒惰和不称职──还相当具有传染性。那些为了换取治上的好处而引进一些坏苹果，或是对表现粗鲁、不称职的员工放任自流的领导者，实际上正在为他们手下哪怕能力最强的员工走向失败铺路。

It's crucial for leaders to screen out bad apples before they're hired─and if they do slip through the cracks, bosses must make every effort to reform or (if necessary) oust them.

对领导者来说，在招聘前事先把坏苹果剔除出去至关重要。假如这些人侥幸通过了筛选，老板就必须想方设法改变他们或是（如果有必要的话）解雇他们。

Spreading the Vibes

情绪传染

It's easy to understand why bosses would rather focus on attracting and developing superstars. A mountain of research shows that stars and geniuses can deliver astounding results. And, obviously, it's more fun and inspiring to focus on top-performing, energetic employees.

老板们致力于吸引和培养超级明星的原因不难理解。堆积成山的研究显示，明星员工和天才员工能为公司带来令人惊异的成就。此外很显然，把注意力放在那些表现最好、积极主动的员工身上，也会让老板们感到更加欢欣鼓舞。

But studies of everything from romantic relationships to workplace encounters show that negative interactions can pack a much bigger wallop than positive ones. The reason is simple: 'Bad is stronger than good,' as psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues put it. The negative thoughts, feelings and performance they trigger in others are far larger and longer lasting than the positive responses generated by more constructive colleagues.

不过一些针对从恋爱关系到办公室交际等问题所做的研究显示，与积极互动相比，人际交往中的消极互动可以积聚出更大的能量。原因很简单，恰如心理学家罗伊•鲍梅斯特(Roy Baumeister)与其同事得出的结论：“坏比好更强大”。这些坏苹果导致同事中产生的消极想法、情绪和表现，比那些积极主动的员工在同事里引发的正面反响要大得多，持续时间也长得多。

Consider research on bad apples and team effectiveness by Will Felps, Terence R. Mitchell and Eliza Byington. They examined the impact of team members who were deadbeats ('withholders of effort'), downers (who 'express pessimism, anxiety, insecurity and irritation') and jerks (who violate 'interpersonal norms of respect'). An experiment by Mr. Felps found that having just one slacker or jerk in a group can bring down performance by 30% to 40%.

不妨看看威尔•菲尔普斯(Will Felps)、特伦斯•R. 米切尔(Terence R. Mitchell)和伊丽莎•白灵顿(Eliza Byington)就坏苹果与团队效率之间的关系所做的研究。他们考察了坏苹果给整个团队带来的影响。这些坏苹果包括偷懒的人（不愿付出努力的人）、败兴的人（他们表现出悲观、焦虑、不安全感和恼怒情绪）和讨厌的人（违反人际交往规范的人）。菲尔普斯的一项实验发现，一个团队中只要有一个懒骨头或是讨厌鬼，团队的绩效表现就会下降30%到40%。

How can organizations squash those negative influences? The easiest way, obviously, is to avoid hiring bad apples in the first place─and that means taking a different approach to assessing candidates for jobs.

公司要怎样做才能消除这些负面影响呢？显然，最简单的方法是从一开始就别把坏苹果放进来。这意味着需要采用一种不同的方法来评估应聘者。

The usual means of screening are often weak when it comes to determining if a job candidate is a bad apple. Candidates may have gone to the best schools or may come across as charming and brilliant in interviews─thus disguising their laziness, incompetence or nastiness.

通常的筛选手段往往不足以判断一个应聘者是不是坏苹果。职位候选人可能曾在最好的学校学习，或者在历次面试中都表现得富有魅力和才气，从而将他们的懒惰、不称职或是可恶之处深藏不露。

That's why one of the best ways to screen employees is to see how they actually do the job under realistic conditions. Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta favor that approach. When they're hiring new people for their Palo Alto, Calif., company, Pulse, which makes a news-reading app for mobile devices, they consider evaluations from peers and superiors and do multiple rounds of interviews. But they say the most effective thing is to bring candidates in for a day or two and give them a short job to accomplish. (The candidates are paid for their time.)

因此，筛选员工的最好方法之一，就是观察他们在现实条件下工作时的真实状态。阿克沙伊•科塔里(Akshay Kothari)和安奇特•古普塔(Ankit Gupta)很赞成这种方式。他们的公司Pulse位于加州帕洛阿尔托市(Palo Alto)，为手机设备开发阅读新闻的应用程序。当Pulse公司招聘新员工时，他们会考虑那些曾与应聘者共事的同事和主管的评价，并进行多轮面试。不过他们说，最有效的方法还是让候选人来公司工作一到两天，让他们完成一些短期工作（这些是有偿工作，公司会向他们支付报酬）。

Not only do they learn a lot about the candidates' technical skills, Messrs. Kothari and Gupta say, but they also learn about their personality. How do they deal with setbacks? Do they know when to ask for help and to give others help? Is the candidate the kind of person they want to work with? The partners say there have been several candidates who looked great on paper and came highly recommended but weren't offered jobs─because technical and interpersonal weaknesses surfaced during the selection process.

科塔里和古普塔说，他们不仅因此了解到很多有关候选人专业技能的情况，还可以同时看出这些人的人格品性──他们是如何应对挫折的？他们是否知道何时该求助，何时又该帮助别人？候选人是不是公司员工乐意共事的那类人？他们说，曾经有一些应聘者，单从简历上看很不错，而且还受到以往同事和主管的极力推荐，但他们最终还是没能得到工作──原因就是在遴选过程中，他们在专业技能和人际关系上的弱点暴露了出来。

Play Nice or Else

拒之门外

Beyond smarter screening, it's important to develop a culture that doesn't tolerate jerks. The best organizations make explicit their intolerance for bad apples; they spell out which behaviors are unacceptable in the workplace and act decisively to prevent and halt them.

比运用一些巧妙的筛选方式更显重要的是，要在工作中营造一种不容忍坏员工的公司文化。最好的公司会把他们对坏苹果所持的不容忍态度直接表达出来。他们会事先讲清在工作场合中哪些行为是不能被接受的，而后就在实际操作中做到令行禁止，并同时预防这类事情发生。

Consider Robert W. Baird & Co., a financial-services firm that has won praise as a great place to work. The company is serious about creating a culture where disrespect and selfishness are unacceptable. They call this the 'no jerk rule' (though they use a more colorful word than 'jerk').

看看罗伯特贝尔德公司(Robert W. Baird & Co.)吧。这家金融服务公司被誉为很好的雇主。该公司认真地打造着一种文化，排斥工作中的无礼和自私行为。他们把这叫做“不要混蛋法则”（尽管实际上，他们用了一个比“混蛋”更光鲜的词儿）。

The company starts sending the message during the hiring process, says CEO Paul Purcell. 'During the interview, I look them in the eye and tell them, 'If I discover that you are a jerk, I am going to fire you,' ' he says. 'Most candidates aren't fazed by this, but every now and then, one turns pale, and we never see them again─they find some reason to back out of the search.'

该公司首席执行长保罗•珀塞尔(Paul Purcell)说，公司会在招聘过程中就开始传达出信息。他说：“在面试中，我会看着应聘者的眼睛告诉他们：‘如果我发现你是个混蛋，我就会炒你的鱿鱼。’多数应聘者不会为这番话揪心，不过还是不时有人听后变得面无血色，而后我们就再没见过他们。他们找了些理由退出了筛选流程。”

When the company makes a hiring error and brings aboard an employee who persistently demeans colleagues or puts personal needs ahead of others, Baird acts quickly to deal with or expel the bad apple.

当出现招聘失误，真的招来一个不断贬损同事、或总是把自己的利益凌驾于他人之上的坏苹果时，贝尔德公司会迅速做出处理或辞退这名员工。

Mr. Purcell's crusty approach won't work in every company culture. For an idea of how to handle the task with a more subtle hand, look at renowned chef Alice Waters, who has headed the restaurant Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., for 40 years now.

珀塞尔的急性子并不适用于每一家公司的文化。如果你在寻找一种更为迂回的处理方法，不妨看看著名大厨爱丽丝•沃特斯(Alice Waters)是怎么做的。沃特斯掌管位于加州伯克利(Berkeley)的潘尼斯之家餐厅(Chez Panisse)已有40年之久。

Biographer Thomas McNamee describes how Ms. Waters's love of people and food has spread to those around her. Along the way, though, many bad apples have been shown the door─but Ms. Waters doesn't hold it open. The process usually starts when one of her colleagues conveys the message that Ms. Waters isn't 'entirely pleased.' If the hints don't work, then that colleague─or someone else close to Ms. Waters─does the firing.

传记作家托马斯•麦克纳米(Thomas McNamee)描述了沃特斯对人和菜品的关爱是如何感染到她周围的人的。多年一路走来，尽管有很多害群之马曾被扫地出门，但沃特斯并没有一直让这扇门大开。辞退员工的步骤，通常是以沃特斯的某位同事婉转地传达出沃特斯现在“不十分高兴”的信息开始的。如果这一暗示不起作用，那么沃特斯的这位同事，或是另一位沃特斯身边的人就会辞退这名员工。

A spokesman for Chez Panisse says Ms. Waters does personally fire employees on occasion and 'she manages to have that person feel as though they are making the decision to leave and it is better for themselves to move on and explore new opportunities.' He also notes that a large percentage of employees have been with the restaurant for decades.

潘尼斯之家餐厅的一位发言人说，沃特斯有时确实也会亲自解雇员工，而“她会让那些员工感到好像是他们自己在做出离开的决定，而且似乎对他们来说，继续寻找新的工作机会是更好的选择”。这位发言人同时表示，餐厅现有员工中，为餐厅服务长达数十年的人占到了很大比例。

Keeping Them Close

封闭隔离

There are times, of course, when an organization can't─or won't─remove a destructive personality. Maybe the person is a star as well as a bad apple, for instance, or is otherwise crucial to the operation. In such cases, leaders might try to use coaching, warnings and incentives to curb the toxic employee's behavior. Another tactic is to physically isolate the bad apple.

当然，总有一些时候，一家公司不能（或不会）解雇一名对公司具有破坏性的员工。举例来说，也许这名员工虽算害群之马但同时也是个明星，或者此人在其他方面对公司的运营很重要。在这样的情况下，领导者可能会尝试采取训导、警告和激励措施来限制“带毒”员工的行为。还有一种策略，就是在空间上将坏苹果与其他员工分开。

In one organization, there was a deeply skilled and incredibly nasty engineer whom leaders could not bring themselves to fire. So, they rented a beautiful private office for him several blocks from the building where his colleagues worked. His co-workers were a lot happier─and so was he, since he preferred working alone.

在一家公司，有一名工作技能娴熟但令人厌恶不已的工程师。公司的领导者无法说服自己将其解雇，于是在距离全体员工所在大楼几个街区的地方，为他租了一间不错的供他专用的办公室。他的同事们很开心，而他也同样如此──因为他喜欢独来独往。

But beware: Leaders who believe that destructive superstars are 'too important' to fire often underestimate the damage they can do. Stanford researchers Charles O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer report a revealing episode at a clothing retailer. The company fired a top-producing salesman who was a bad apple. After he was gone, none of his former colleagues sold as much as he had. But the store's total sales shot up by nearly 30%. The lesson, according to the researchers: 'That one individual brought the others down, and when he was gone, they could do their best.'

不过要提醒一句：那些相信某些具有破坏力的超级明星对公司“太过重要”而不能解雇他们的领导者，往往低估了这些人可能带来的损失。斯坦福大学(Stanford University)研究员查尔斯•奥赖利(Charles O'Reilly)和杰弗瑞•菲佛(Jeffrey Pfeffer)举出的一家服装零售店的案例很有启迪意义。这家公司解雇了一名业绩表现最出色、但同时又是个坏苹果的销售员。在他离职后，虽然他那些前同事里没人能赶上他的个人销售业绩，但全店的总销售额却激增近30%。两位研究人员称，这一课告诉我们的是：“有一个人拖累了所有的人，一旦他离开，其他人就能做到最好。”