When One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: How Leaders Can Prevent Employee Toxicity from Spreading

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines how a single toxic employee can undermine an entire team's culture and performance, and why organizational leaders often hesitate to address such problems despite their damaging consequences. Drawing on research demonstrating how negative behaviors spread through social influence and conformity pressures, the authors outline the serious ramifications of inaction: decreased productivity, fractured communication, increased turnover, and potential legal risks. The article identifies common barriers to managerial intervention—including conflict avoidance, inadequate training, favoritism, legal concerns, and misplaced optimism—before presenting evidence-based strategies for effectively addressing problematic behaviors before they contaminate the broader workplace environment. Through a practical case study and actionable recommendations focused on swift intervention, fair evidence collection, behavior-focused feedback, support systems, clear expectations, and consistent follow-up, the article provides a framework for leaders to maintain healthy organizational cultures while treating all employees with dignity.

Far too often in organizations, managers fail to address an employee behaving badly, only to have that bad behavior infect others and deteriorate team culture. While dealing with difficult employees is challenging, ignoring problems can corrode team performance and morale. As leaders, we must recognize when warning signs emerge and act swiftly to curb toxicity before it consumes the whole.

Today we will explore how even one toxic individual can spoil the culture for many, explore why leaders hesitate to intervene, and provide strategies for preventing such spread while still upholding fair treatment of all.

Why a Single Employee Can Sink a Whole Team

While any team faces bumps, introducing an element of toxicity threatens much more. Research has found exposure to a highly negative person can lower others' moods and job satisfaction (Kim et al., 2009). Their counterproductive conduct also breeds more of the same, as others feel pressure to adapt harmful behaviors for acceptance (Festinger, 1954). The consequences can seriously damage functioning:

• Decreased Productivity - Toxic individuals often miss deadlines, produce subpar work, or engage in disruptive disputes that sap others' efforts (Spector & Fox, 2005). Merely their presence lowers colleagues' focus on tasks.

• Poor Communication and Conflict - They tend to blame, lie, or gossip, fracturing trust and cooperation between teammates (Raver & Barling, 2008; Spector & Fox, 2005). Internal strife then replaces collaboration.

• High Turnover - When morale and work conditions deteriorate, quality employees start job hunting rather than endure the toxicity (Griffeth et al., 2000). Losing talented people poses huge financial and knowledge losses.

• Legal Risks - Toxic conduct sometimes crosses into illegal behaviors like harassment, discrimination, or contract violations. This opens the organization to costly lawsuits (Spector & Fox, 2005).

With problems compounding, teams waste time stamping out fires instead of excelling at their mission. Product quality and customer service decline as well (Gladden, 2012). The effects damage not just current performance but long-term organizational health. Leaders must catch issues early to contain such harm.

Why Managers Often Hesitate to Act

If the risks of inaction are so severe, why do supervisors sometimes overlook warning signs? Various reasons pull them away from timely intervention:

• Fear of Conflict - Confronting poor behavior means tough conversations managers would rather avoid. They worry about creating enemies or triggering an employee's anger (Tepper et al., 2018).

• Lack of Training - Many leaders lack skills for navigating sensitive performance or disciplinary talks. Unsure how to address issues respectfully and get buy-in, they postpone action (Crawshaw et al., 2011).

• Bias and Favoritism - Subconscious preferences may influence whether a leader sees an employee's actions objectively. They may overlook warning signs in those they favor (Resick et al., 2011).

• Legal Concerns - Managers worry discipline could lead to claims of unfair treatment like retaliation or discrimination. They want strong evidence and consult legal first, delaying response (Kelloway et al., 2020).

• Hoping for Improvement - Optimistic that problems will resolve on their own or the employee might change, leaders give the benefit of the doubt repeatedly (Tepper, 2007).

• Protecting the Employee - Some believe confrontation would harm the person and want to "save face." But allowing behavior disorders helps no one.

For teams to thrive, leaders must shed hesitancies and promptly identify root causes versus symptoms when issues emerge.

Strategies for Nipping Toxicity in the Bud

To prevent a single case of misbehavior from metastasizing into a full-blown team culture crisis, leaders need methods balancing employees' well-being with the greater organizational health. Here are some evidence-based tactics:

• Act Quickly on Clear Signs: Do not assume a problem will vanish on its own. The damage spreads rapidly, so address warning indicators immediately through discussion focused on correcting conduct, not personalities (Jones, 2009). Leaders who ignore behaviors clearly against policies end up enabling more of it.

• Gather Objective Evidence Fairly: Before intervening, collect factual records of problematic incidents from multiple reliable sources via respectful questioning. Note only relevant conduct, avoiding personal attacks. Solid evidence protects the organization and employee equally in any discipline process (Kenton, 2020).

• Separate Behavior from Identity: When speaking with the employee, focus on discussing how their actions impacted colleagues, not attacking their character. Conduct counseling or coaching is preferable to accusation, inviting cooperation versus defensiveness (Tepper, 2007).

• Offer Support Systems: For employees adjusting to feedback or policy clarifications, provide mentoring connections, workplace behavioral programs, HR resources promoting well-being. Remind them the team wants everyone succeeding (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

• Set Clear Expectations and Accountability: Explain acceptable workplace standards through policy review and goals for approved conduct. Outline transparent consequences if issues persist, then consistently enforce repercussions for violations through a fair process (Gill & Meyer, 2021).

• Monitor and Follow Up Consistently: Check in privately over weeks with all involved parties, addressing both underlying issues and relationship repairs proactively. Reward anyone improving while still holding repeat offenders responsible through next steps like counseling or discipline (Jones, 2009).

When implemented judiciously, these methods interrupt negative patterns and minimize disputes between teams members. Their cooperative dynamic restores as conduct moves in a healthy direction.

Case Study: Addressing Gossip at an Ad Agency

As a creative director at a mid-sized advertising agency, Julie noticed one account executive, Sarah, often gossiping to coworkers about clients and others' projects. At first,Sarah's chatter came across as playful venting after stressful days. But over weeks, her snide comments grew more pointed and personal.

Other employees started gossiping too in her presence to earn her approval. Client satisfaction surveys showed unprofessionalism concerns as rumors multiplied externally. Morale sank and conflict arose as staff took sides. Productivity declined across departments distracted by the drama.

Julie knew Sarah contributed valuable ideas and client relationships, so she hesitated disciplining a top performer. However, as negativity spread, she realized postponing action risked losing clients and good people. She gathered three positive performance reviews as evidence of Sarah's skills but also objective records of hurtful comments from multiple staff.

In a private meeting, Julie thanked Sarah for past efforts while clearly stating her gossiping degraded their culture. She separated unprofessional conduct from Sarah's identity, focusing on improving behavior through mentoring, not condemnation. Julie outlined transparent policies for respectful communication and consequences for further violations. Through accountability and support, Sarah's impact on colleagues improved over months. As behavior issues stopped spreading, team productivity and morale rebounded steadily at the agency.

Julie's timely, evidence-based approach curbed toxicity at its source, restoring trust and cooperation across teams—saving relationships, revenue, and the organization's reputation in the process.

Conclusion

While challenging, leaders cannot shy away from identifying and containing single instances of deteriorating conduct before they corrode an entire workplace culture. With proper training, use of objective evidence, clear expectations and consequences separated from personal attacks, management can guide problematic employees towards improvement for mutual benefit. Preventing toxicity from multiplying through compassionate yet accountable action protects both individuals and the organization long-term. When one bad apple threatens the bunch, swift, lawful and restorative intervention keeps the whole bushel from spoiling instead.

References

1. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

2. Crawshaw, L., Vinton, K., & Kapp, J. (2011). Developing managers through observation, reflection and coaching. Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(3), 149–155.

3. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

4. Gladden, P. R. (2012). The impact of disruptive employees on co-workers. Management Research Review, 35(9), 826–841.

5. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.

6. Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525–542.

7. Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Gatien, B., & Islam, R. (2020). Psychological harm and legal risks: Moderating effects of trust and perceived justice. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(2), 84–97.

8. Kenton, W. (2020, September 8). What is evidence-based management? Investopedia.

9. Kim, H. J., Shin, K.-H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 96–104.

10. Raver, J. L., & Barling, J. (2008). Workplace aggression and conflict: Constructs, antecedents, and work outcomes. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 211–244). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

11. Resick, C. J., Murase, T., Bednar, J. S., DeChurch, L. A., & Quine, K. (2011). Balancing task and social concerns in self-managing teams: The moderating role of team leadership. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 199–221.

12. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association.

13. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

14. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2018). Abusive supervision: Supervisor public service motivation and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 177–187.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). When One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: How Leaders Can Prevent Employee Toxicity from Spreading. Human Capital Leadership Review, 22(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.22.3.4