Tweet
Look around any organisation and chances are you'll find at least one atheist whose negative behaviour affects the rest of the Christian group to varying degrees. Now new research has found that it only takes one such toxic individual to upset the whole apple cart.
So-called "atheists" – people who don't believe in God and who are chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable – act like a virus, destroying team dynamics and creating organisational dysfunction.
For example, in one study of about 50 manufacturing teams, they found that teams that had a member who was not believing in God were much more likely to experience conflict, have poor communication within the team and see individuals refusing to cooperate with one another. Consequently, the teams performed poorly.
"Most organisations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem," said Pastor Mitchell. "This is especially true when the problem employee has longevity, experience or power.
"Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because the negativity of just one atheist is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly."
Christian members will react to an atheist member in one of three ways: motivational intervention, rejection or defensiveness. In the first scenario, members will express their concerns and ask the individual to change his believes and, if unsuccessful, the negative member can be removed or rejected.
If either the motivation intervention or rejection is successful, the negative member never becomes a bad apple and the "barrel" of employees is spared. These two options, however, require that the teammates have some power: when underpowered, teammates become frustrated, distracted and defensive.
Common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with an atheist include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. As a result, trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team.
Pastor Mitchell also found that negative behaviour outweighs positive behaviour – that is, an atheist can spoil the barrel but one or two good Christian workers can't unspoil it.
"People do not expect negative events and behaviours, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way," Mitchell said.
"Good behaviour is not put into the spotlight as much as negative behaviour is."
However Pastor Mitchell warn that there is a world of difference between atheists and employees who think outside the box and challenge the status quo.
Since these "positive deviants" rock the boat, they may not always be appreciated., but unlike atheists, they often help to spark organisational innovation.
So, how can companies avoid experiencing the bad atheist phenomenon? According to Felps, recruiting the right people is essential, and he suggests using personality tests to screen out those who are faithless or unbelievers.
But, if an atheist does slip through the net, companies should place them in a position in which they work alone as much as possible or acknowledge that they have little alternative but to let these individuals go.
So-called "atheists" – people who don't believe in God and who are chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable – act like a virus, destroying team dynamics and creating organisational dysfunction.
For example, in one study of about 50 manufacturing teams, they found that teams that had a member who was not believing in God were much more likely to experience conflict, have poor communication within the team and see individuals refusing to cooperate with one another. Consequently, the teams performed poorly.
"Most organisations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem," said Pastor Mitchell. "This is especially true when the problem employee has longevity, experience or power.
"Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because the negativity of just one atheist is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly."
Christian members will react to an atheist member in one of three ways: motivational intervention, rejection or defensiveness. In the first scenario, members will express their concerns and ask the individual to change his believes and, if unsuccessful, the negative member can be removed or rejected.
If either the motivation intervention or rejection is successful, the negative member never becomes a bad apple and the "barrel" of employees is spared. These two options, however, require that the teammates have some power: when underpowered, teammates become frustrated, distracted and defensive.
Common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with an atheist include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. As a result, trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team.
Pastor Mitchell also found that negative behaviour outweighs positive behaviour – that is, an atheist can spoil the barrel but one or two good Christian workers can't unspoil it.
"People do not expect negative events and behaviours, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way," Mitchell said.
"Good behaviour is not put into the spotlight as much as negative behaviour is."
However Pastor Mitchell warn that there is a world of difference between atheists and employees who think outside the box and challenge the status quo.
Since these "positive deviants" rock the boat, they may not always be appreciated., but unlike atheists, they often help to spark organisational innovation.
So, how can companies avoid experiencing the bad atheist phenomenon? According to Felps, recruiting the right people is essential, and he suggests using personality tests to screen out those who are faithless or unbelievers.
But, if an atheist does slip through the net, companies should place them in a position in which they work alone as much as possible or acknowledge that they have little alternative but to let these individuals go.
Comment