“Morale in the office was low, and it was about to get lower. We had to lay off a third of our workforce,” Hastings says. “We didn’t have any obviously poor performers. So we divided the staff into two piles: the 80 highest performers who we would keep, and 40 less amazing ones”
One weak teammate diminish team performance by 30-40% found professor . He compared performance for teams of college students — where a “bad apple teammate” actor was added to behave like a slacker, a jerk, or a pessimist.
10 years after that scandal, Gary Pisano admitted at :
“Innovative cultures are generally depicted as pretty fun. When I asked the same managers to describe such cultures, they readily provided a list of characteristics identical to those extolled by management books: tolerance for failure, willingness to experiment, psychological safety, highly collaborative, and nonhierarchical.
The easy-to-like behaviours that get so much attention are only one side of the coin. They must be counterbalanced by some tougher and frankly less fun behaviors. A tolerance for failure requires an intolerance for incompetence. A willingness to experiment requires rigorous discipline. Psychological safety requires comfort with brutal candor. Collaboration must be balanced with individual accountability. And flatness requires strong leadership. Innovative cultures are paradoxical. Unless the tensions created by this paradox are carefully managed, attempts to create an innovative culture will fail.”