Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

https://www.tlnt.com/toxic-workers-are-more-productive-but-the-price-is-high/

by tarunupaday • 7 years ago

200 214 7 years ago

A 2015 study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor published by the Harvard Business School defines a “toxic” employee as: “A worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.”

If this is how they defined toxic, then the findings of the study are simply tautological.

andylei• 7 years ago

the study finds that

avoiding a toxic worker (or converting him to an average worker) enhances performance to a much greater extent than replacing an average worker with a superstar worker

EpicEng3• 7 years ago

Per their definition:

avoiding a (worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people) (or converting him to an average worker) enhances performance to a much greater extent than replacing an average worker with a superstar worker

Well yeah, of course it does. A harmful worker causes harm. Duh.

chosenbreed37• 7 years ago

The article seems to equate "Rock Star" to "toxic". Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive for the organisation :-)

pavel_lishin• 7 years ago

Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive for the organisation :-)

What?

010101010101• 7 years ago

It does the exact opposite of that. The argument is that the focus on finding “rock stars” who act as a positive force is less efficient than a focus on avoiding “toxic” employees who act as a negative force.

sometimesijust• 7 years ago

The article compares the return on the cost/investment of hiring a rock star vs NOT hiring a toxic. It acts as guidance on what part of one's hiring pipeline is most worth investment.

blue1379• 7 years ago

https://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/16-057_d...

It comes to a figure of 12k loss as the cost of replacing the toxic employee. Yes, replacing an employee is always a net loss in isolation.

It seems to be using a tautological definition:

defines a “toxic” employee as: “A worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.” Yes, that causes a net loss. By definition.

They also state they don't consider "productivity spillover" because they found spillover can sometimes be negative so they just assume it all cancels out. If Bob rebuilds something and saves every other employee lots of time going forward.... this analysis just ignores it.

The news coverage makes it seem like a tickbox study tailored to HR interests in large orgs, so they can pat themselves on the back for 'proving' that teamwork trumps uncharismatic productivity, despite the study saying nothing about that.

If one wanted to truly study these costs, they'd also be looking at charismatic unproductive people who, despite all making each other feel good, don't actually bring any value to an organisation.

EpicEng3• 7 years ago

Did you swipe this from reddit?

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/asmvxc/til_a...

andrewflnr• 7 years ago

Alternatively, you found GP's Reddit account.

Nasrudith4• 7 years ago

Also "toxic" is a term abused to mean "heretical" at times. The guy pointing out HR works for the company not you and is encouraged to some negative dynamics to justify their salary by reducing liability and claimed productivity may be branded toxic.

Charismatic people building their own fiefdoms that view networking as king and actual productivity gains a threat are building not just houses of cards but full scale card mansions are more actual organizational harm toxic than any ill-mannered productives.

commandlinefan3• 7 years ago

tautological definition

There's a picture that gets re-posted on LinkedIn periodically of Netflix's CTO Reed Hastings captioned with a quote attributed to him: "Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high." Although this is the sort of feel-good positive fluff that is perfect LinkedIn-bait, I can't help but notice that the people who re-post it and re-share it tend to be people who I remember personally as being mostly just regular jerks. Look, I know better than to characterize myself as "brilliant" on the internet (and I honestly don't think I am, although I do think I'm competent), two things I indisputably am are educated and experienced. Since the subjective words "talented" and "brilliant" and "rockstar" are usually used as a stand-in for the more objective but contentious terms educated and experienced, I can't help but think that somewhere in the back of their minds, they're including me in their list. The people in my network who re-post this platitude usually didn't like me very much because they found themselves in a sticky situation that they expected me to be able to get them out of. When you're educated and experienced, but you still can't solve somebody's crisis on the spot, they don't think, "oh, well, I was asking a lot", they think, "he could have helped me, but he didn't because he's a jerk who thinks he's too good for me".

Zimahl2• 7 years ago

If more than one person has thought you are a jerk, especially more than one at a single job, and you don't know why, you're probably a jerk. The classic sign of a jerk is someone who can't pinpoint why someone would think they are a jerk in the first place. Or worse, you know why but you just don't care.

As far as toxic workers go (jerks included), there are a lot of reasons they are toxic:

* They are negative all the time. They sap the enjoyment out of the room. * They are highly critical of other's work. No one else has a problem with the work others are doing, they just nit-pick every little thing. * They avoid hard work and only go after prestige projects. They'll try to push stuff like maintenance work onto others, and half-ass it when they have to do it. * Anything they do wrong is met with a strong defense mechanism and a need to deflect into someone else.

I'm sure there's more, these are just off the top of my head. Contrary to belief, being 'brilliant' has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can be toxic. I've met a few toxic people in software and out, and some were downright mediocre.

jedberg• 7 years ago

Having worked at Netflix, I can tell you the difference: An experienced person says "In my experience, this is the best way to go because of X, Y, and Z". A jerk says, "The best option is my way and if you do it any other way you're wrong and I don't have to justify myself to you because I'm that good."

In both cases what the person is suggesting is in fact the right way to go most of the time. The difference is whether or not you feel you're better than everyone else.

unknowns5• 7 years ago

I found the guy.

If I try as hard as I possibly can and output 20% of an amazing individual. do I have no place in this world?

Listen, this is the basic level of human interaction. manners are oil for bodies at friction, and respect is a gateway to team participation.

If you cant see the value in that, then you are the problem. You can output a million times the output of your team, but if you dont have a team then you have nothing except yourself. and if you are the only reason for success.. why arent you Jeff Bezos?

"charismatic unproductive people who, despite all making each other feel good, don't actually bring any value to an organisation." -- This phrase stinks of devaluation. if you have a team that you view every member of as providing nothing of quality, then again.. you are the problem. Everyone has something to provide, on many different levels.you are failing to see that, and that is your problem.

but carry on my friend. if you are as amazing as you say, then ill read about you in the news soon.

tekno45• 7 years ago

What if they are all find slacking off together super fun and make each other feel great...but don't get any work done?

ramblerouser• 7 years ago

Everyone has something to provide, on many different levels.you are failing to see that, and that is your problem.

Totally false. Some prople are really bad at their jobs and gang up with other unproductive people to rag on those who are carrying the team. If you cant see that, you are probably insecure and rationalizing your hostility to people who are better and make you look bad in comparison.

5trokerac32• 7 years ago

As someone proclaiming that "manners are oil for bodies at friction", the ridiculousness of your rudeness is only surpassed by the unbelievable strawman you just set up.

blue1379 brings up some very valid questions. If a snobbish, but highly talented employee builds toolkits/engines that double or triple the production of the average employee, does the same equation used in the study apply?

On the other hand, what constitutes a "non-toxic" employee? Does everybody's buddy who convinces half the team that 2-5pm is ping pong and beer time not disproportionately decrease productivity?

He's asking for more nuance, which is never a bad thing. You seem to be demanding that things stay binary.

jerf• 7 years ago

"If I try as hard as I possibly can and output 20% of an amazing individual. do I have no place in this world?"

You have a place in this world, no question.

But it may not be at the company of your choice, in the job of your choice, at the pay of your choice.

With the genes I rolled, there is no amount of work I could have done to become an NFL quarterback. C'est la vie. The NFL owes me nothing.

killjoywashere• 7 years ago

charismatic unproductive people

Not to drag politics into this, but, seriously, I think Trump has this category covered quite nicely. The costs are staggering.

Symmetry• 7 years ago

This reminds me of a story about hen breeding:

Selecting the hen who lays the most eggs doesn't necessarily get you the most efficient egg-laying metabolism. It may get you the most dominant hen, that pecked its way to the top of the pecking order at the expense of other hens. Individual selection doesn't necessarily work to the benefit of the group, but a farm's productivity is determined by group outputs.

Indeed, for some strange reason, the individual breeding programs which had been so successful at increasing egg production now required hens to have their beaks clipped, or be housed in individual cages, or they would peck each other to death.

While the conditions for group selection are only rarely right in Nature, one can readily impose genuine group selection in the laboratory. After only 6 generations of artificially imposed group selection - breeding from the hens in the best groups, rather than the best individual hens - average days of survival increased from 160 to 348, and egg mass per bird increased from 5.3 to 13.3 kg. At 58 weeks of age, the selected line had 20% mortality compared to the control group at 54%. A commercial line of hens, allowed to grow up with unclipped beaks, had 89% mortality at 58 weeks.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KE8wPzGiX5QPotyS8/conjuring-...

goodpoint3• 7 years ago

the most dominant hen, that pecked its way to the top of the pecking order at the expense of other hens. Individual selection doesn't necessarily work to the benefit of the group

but wait... our entire economical system is based on this.

crimsonalucard2• 7 years ago

It's not just our economy. It's the duality of human nature. We function better as a group yet we are competitive at the same time.

As a result in practice a hybrid system of capitalism and communism tends to work the best aka socialism. See Scandinavia.

FakeComments3• 7 years ago

How so?

Naively, it seems like capitalism is a means of “top group” selection, so long as there is relatively high chance for social mobility and opportunity.

The method which worked better for chickens still involved selecting the best cohort (capitalism), and this improved over open breeding (socialism) or winner-take-all (monarchy).

rjf723• 7 years ago

Imagine I happen to think that social and group dynamic factors are more important than individual competence. So I decide to start hiring prioritizing these characteristics over individual ability. If my hypothesis is correct, I'm going to be able to outcompete other companies in my industry and grow, achieve success, and so on. Having a large array of amicable charismatic employees at my disposal would even help for things such as favorably lobbying government to my benefit. It's win win all around.

This is the nice thing about capitalist systems. It simply selects for whatever works. At times this is not a good thing (e.g. - perhaps convincing people to buy drugs they don't need could be more profitable than making drugs people genuinely need), but in general it tends to be better, and more organic, than what any individual or group might try to dictate as what should be desired.

golergka• 7 years ago

Yes, because farm chickens and human societies are optimized for different things. We value only farm production and don't care about individual feelings of the chickets. In a society, however, we not only value the group effort, but also individual freedom and one's ability to freely compete with others.

There were a couple of leftist experiments when societies were managed like farms, but they are now considered atrocities.

jayd16• 7 years ago

In a perfect economic system, greedy, self interested parties would recognize this and hire accordingly. The reality is far from it, though.

aylmao3• 7 years ago

but wait... our entire economical system is based on this.

Hence our problems. If there's something I've learned to notice recently is that most world issues are or were very profitable for someone. I think we're past the point where "nature" is really that big of an issue, and now it's mostly just us pecking each other down either in the smaller scale, or in large, systematic ways.

aaavl2821• 7 years ago

I don't think that's entirely true. I think the idea that the only way to "win" in business is by pushing others aside is incorrect. This thinking assumes that the economy is a zero sum game and there's plenty of reason to question that assumption. There are certainly elements in the economy that take value from others without creating any value in the process, but there are also people / companies that get wealthy by creating value, then capturing some of that value themselves.

Even at the most level of the most fundamental unit of the economy -- the worker -- being a team player is just as important as being a good individual contributor. For most jobs, "fit" is a huge factor in hiring.

hnuser123457• 7 years ago

Nonsense. The rich do not have larger families, just the opposite. "Our entire economical system" subsidizes and incentives high birthrates among the poor and low ones among the educated and successful.[0]

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

natalyarostova• 7 years ago

Our economic system is based on the ability for Capitalism and Democracy to, together, deliver us the best of Capitalism, with the protections of a democracy.

While we tend to spend more time reflecting on failure modes (in order to continue expanding the necessary protection set), we also take for granted so many protections democratic legislation have provided us from the raw algorithmic selection of capitalism.

HenryBemis• 7 years ago

but wait... our entire economical system is based on this.

This is a difference between those who believe in Scarcity from those who believe in Abundance (at least in theory). The Takers and Makers.

roenxi• 7 years ago

If we can find a better system we'll use it, but this chicken system isn't it. It relies on an all-powerful farmer with the power to arbitrarily reshape chicken society. It isn't based on getting best welfare for the chickens, and from the chicken's perspective isn't optimised for their welfare.

It would be very easy to outperform capitalism if you could find leaders who care more about the output of the system than their personal power. There is no evidence that it is possible to find such leaders, and lots of evidence that capitalism resists bad leaders for extended periods of time.

pvaldes• 7 years ago

This is not because hens are getting more vicious, is because they live crowded.

We had positively selected chicken for agressivity since 1000 years, we have sumatrans, aseels, old english game, cubalayas, the most vicious animals possible for generations and generations of people. All of these are really terrible layers.

There is a lot of variability in character also between different individuals from the same chicken race.

pasabagi• 7 years ago

I guess the rub is, hens aren't adversely affected by being members of underperforming groups, whereas humans tend to feel demoralized.

psadri• 7 years ago

I really like this insight.

However, just to play the devil’s advocate, software engineering is not like chickens laying eggs (a commodity skill). Sometimes, you have problems that most normal people can’t solve on their own and the only people who can solve them happen to be brilliant but toxic.

The existence and importance of these very difficult problems can give rise to a higher ratio of toxic brilliance in a field.

Of course, you can get lucky and have brilliant and nice. I am so grateful to have worked with some of these as well.

Jtsummers2• 7 years ago

It's about costs though, not skills per se. Like the aggressive hens, you'd want to isolate those toxic employees or accept the lower retention rate (higher mortality). At some point the one is not worth the other.

Isolating a toxic employee can be costly (giving them a private office gives a sense of favoritism, do you give offices to the rest or alienate them?). Permitting them in general population causes good, but lower pain threshhold, employees to leave (they know they don't have to put up with it, they can get a job anywhere). You can afford to lose some, but how many is this toxic employee worth?

Sometimes, you have problems that most normal people can’t solve on their own and the only people who can solve them happen to be brilliant but toxic.

If it's occasional, consultants on retainer. They aren't around long enough to drive (many) people away, and if you isolate them to a seemingly nice office/area people know it's temporary.

Jtsummers2• 7 years ago

That is a perfect example of individual part optimization creating a suboptimal system. To optimize a system you have to think globally (all parts).

In manufacturing environments, this might mean running some pieces of equipment or processes at a slower-than-potential rate to reduce errors or variance. Accelerating that process may seem to make things go faster, but increases the amount or frequency of later rework.

AbyormPiranha• 7 years ago

The moral of the story is not that the needs of the many (group selection) outweigh the needs of one (individual selection). The moral of the story is that some incentives come with perverse effects.

In India, the British government issued a law paying people by the weight of cobras they killed. They came back next year and found cobra farms nationwide. That was a perverse effect of their incentive system.

And Yudkowsky jumped to a conclusion prematurely: group selection must be immune to perverse effects because switching from individual selection to group selection eliminated the perverse effects in one singular instance. There are ways perverse effects can emerge from and supervene over group selection.

forgottenpass3• 7 years ago

In the last few years, the metagame strategy of work politicking has evolved to include the act of labeling things "toxic." Article like this are just ammunition in that.

I get that this article is about the trade-off between productivity and a less-easily-quantifiable loss to morale. But only a sliver of the people hearing about the study from this article will be carefully applying the lessons learned in towards their personnel decisions.

harlanji2• 7 years ago

Best to get ahead of the curve and self-identify as toxic.

xkcd-sucks2• 7 years ago

The dose makes the poison, better to self identify as therapeutic

fein• 7 years ago

The "safe space" work environment will end up becoming the new corporate behemoth style office type, and we'll start seeing 2012 style trendy startups looking for "toxic 10xers" or some sort of similar label. Having that edgy ground floor dev ends up being a new selling point.

I do wonder, if your whole team is made up of these "toxic" individuals, does productivity skyrocket as a result of the constant competition?

On an aside, isn't the end outcome of the article just an office full of mediocrity where no one really sticks out? How do you get natural leaders with that kind of situation?

forgottenpass3• 7 years ago

That tech is already months old. There was even a blogpost on HN yesterday where someone humblebragged about controlling their toxicity in code reviews.

brbrodude• 7 years ago

I think thats a toxic article

thegayngler• 7 years ago

I am of the belief that in many cases if not most cases toxic workers are created and that most workers hired are not initially toxic for that work environment. So the question I have is what are the company's doing that turns people from good workers to toxic workers? How do you turn a toxic worker or situation into a positive one? That seems like it would be cheapest solution.

trabant00• 7 years ago

The findings show that avoiding a toxic employee generates returns of nearly two-to-one as compared to those generated when firms hire a rock star"

Why do you need to choose between these two though? Can't an interviewer pay attention to both the technical skills and the attitude of a potential hire? This sounds like a forced dichotomy just to justify a study nobody needs.

While toxic employees are more productive, meaning getting more things done, the quality of that productivity often is less than desirable

If work is not up to standards then it's not done work and can't be considered productivity, can it? Again, do we really need a study to tell us that bad personality people who rush half done jobs to get that KPI are not what you want as employees?

braythwayt• 7 years ago

  > do we really need a study to tell us that bad personality
  > people who rush half done jobs to get that KPI are not
  > what you want as employees?

I suspect this is a rhetorical question, and what you may be saying is, "It's ridiculous that large swathes of business needs to be told this thing over, and over, and over again, and yet they will not learn."

That is my slant on this, because I observe that often times, the incentives in organizations are to do the wrong thing that leads to the local optimum, where we define "local" as, a particular manager's well-being.

If a manager is rated by the measured productivity of their teams, the will hire for the ability to make the number and manage to the number, regardless of whether the number reflects the overall good of the team or organization.

As they say, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game."

In a dysfunction organization, everyone can be individually aware that the organization's management is dysfunctional, but it can't be changed without an overwhelming majority of managers simultaneously cooperating.

Not only that, but some managers actually do better by "quelling rebellion" and enforcing the dysfunction. They will actively undermine any effort to organize change.

You don't need people to be ignorant of things like this, you just need people to be attached to their individual incentives, and you need a culture where those who try to make change are rejected by the host culture.

wppick4• 7 years ago

Leadership and management is probably the biggest differentiator between a successful, growing organization and an organization that is decaying or stagnant. They say people don't quit jobs they quit managers. I've found that the role of manager self selects for people with more ego than brain, or someone who desires to have power over other people. I really agree with that quote, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game." There's a book The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Muller that talks about this. Essentially metrics are the mapping of a complex high-dimensional system into (sometimes) a single number, so that some self-important manager can make an easier decision. Metrics are in my opinion an instrument of power (which could be used for good or ill). The book Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott also has some interesting examples on how metrics and measuring things in general is used to control groups of people, and simplify complex systems.

gwbas1c2• 7 years ago

I liked the article, but I find the definition of a toxic worker difficult. It's more like the article defines a toxic worker by the result, not the symptom.

In reality, what are the symptoms of a toxic worker? What are the causes? What are the situations where someone might be labeled "toxic" but the real problem is something else?

harlanji2• 7 years ago

Example: a person is being singled out by manager and assigned the junk work and not supported. Other employees start using the black sheep as a scapegoat and “othering” them. Scapegoat is unskilled at interpersonal conflict, has few personal boundaries. They start drinking or otherwise coping, because overall they like their job. After 2 years they’re laid off and nobody reaches out to them or responds. Is the laid off employee toxic? Perhaps. Were there ignored warning signs? Is that toxic?

Lots of nuance in judgement. Most people feel toxicity, but there are strong incentives to maintain situational homeostasis and capitalize on others’ blind spots.

Personally I’ve dumped a lot of that programming and am looking for non-judgemental and discerning workplaces, like I remember from early in my career. Hopefully not a pipe dream.

xkcd-sucks2• 7 years ago

Asking that question might itself be "toxic". If "the group" arrives at that decision, consensus is better than correctness etc

pojzon• 7 years ago

When you are blaimed individually for the failure later on, is that also "the group" consensus?

In the long run always individuals are blamed and not groups..

move-on-by2• 7 years ago

This is a good question. I think I was labeled the toxic worker in my previous job. I was a team lead and kept bring up concerns to my manager:

* 'this deadline is unrealistic'

* 'we can't continue at this pace, we have to have time to address some serious technical debt'

* 'I heard marketing saying that we can do X, but it isn't true and to add feature X would destroy our timeline'

* 'Adding more contractors isn't going to speed this up or improve the quality, we need time not warm bodies'

Of course none of those things were what my manger wanted to hear. When things inevitably went south it all came down on me and I was managed out of the company. I'm much happier now, as I see that the job was what was toxic. My manager wouldn't listen to me and I wouldn't drink the kool-aid that all was well. In fact, I saw it as my responsibility to share these concerns and to not just go with the flow. Now that I've had time to look back on it, I just think that is his management style: grind people to the bone for all that they are worth, then throw them out and repeat to the next poor sap.

Anyways, the article is about toxic workers - but if the managers are the ones deciding what is considered 'productive' and who is 'toxic' then that isn't a very complete view of the actual environment.

edoceo• 7 years ago

Seems like the manager was the toxic employee here.

aunty_helen• 7 years ago

Ironically, not drinking the kool-aid makes you toxic.

And managers are technically workers too. There's no reason to put them in an ivory tower and assume they can't hate their job, hate people they work with or want to exact revenge for some wrong done against them.

DoofusOfDeath• 7 years ago

I think I was labeled the toxic worker in my previous job. I was a team lead and kept bring up concerns to my manager

If someone was using the term "toxic" simply because of those behaviors, I'd say they were just using the wrong word.

Based only on what you wrote, another possibility seems to be that some aspect of how you communicated those concerns, or some other aspect of your behavior entirely, is what caused people to consider you "toxic". It would be interesting to hear your former manager's view of things.

In my own experience, I've had plenty of cases where my own view of my conduct was very different from how my coworkers viewed me. The cumulative impact of miscommunication and my occasional lack of self-awareness has caused me some serious grief.

gwbas1c2• 7 years ago

That's why sometimes you just need to go around your manager's head and talk to people up the chain.

If they're all doofuses, it's time to leave!

But, if they're reasonable people, things will change for the better.

tamrix• 7 years ago

You're not toxic, your manager is.

alexandercrohde• 7 years ago

Absolutely, there's a sort of double-speak going on here. If we define toxic as they did "harmful to the org" then HR, or even the CEO can be toxic (i.e. not good for the company). Heck, by this definition, even unions might be "toxic."

But in practice, 9/10 times when somebody says "toxic" they really mean rebellious (i.e. disagreeing with management decisions, calling out dishonest messaging, asking for transparency over management mistakes, sharing frustrations).

The article uses a loaded term to create a false-equivalence between "harmful to company" and "rebellious."

jmrobertson6• 7 years ago

Couldn't disagree more w/ the 9/10 part. That's the sort of thinking self-identified "rebellious workers" who are worried about others (mgmt) perceiving themselves as.

"toxic worker" is a pretty textbook definition now: -horrible team player -plays for the spotlight, claims credit in the spotlight, does little work privately -if in mgmt, verbally/mentally terrorizes subordinates -etc etc

overcast• 7 years ago

Honestly, your 9/10 bit makes you sound like a manager who has been called out for making poor decisions. That isn't what I'd consider a toxic employee AT ALL. If you're making stupid decisions, you should be called out on it. Going by your definition, the manager would be considered toxic to the company as well.

jmrobertson6• 7 years ago

"toxic worker" is a pretty textbook definition now:

-horrible team player

-Unfortunately hugely effective at getting results

-plays for the spotlight, claims credit in the spotlight, does little work privately

-if in mgmt, verbally/mentally terrorizes subordinates -etc etc

It's just a truly poisonous person, who tends to be extremely performant so they can stick around in orgs, whose lack of interpersonal skills in the above realms more or less destroys teams in the long run.

maxxxxx4• 7 years ago

Depending on circumstances this sounds like the description of someone who moves up the ladder. It seems there is a very fine line between this description of “toxic” and “achiever”.

thaumasiotes• 7 years ago

It's more like the article defines a toxic worker by the result, not the symptom.

What does this mean? Symptom and result are the same thing.

Nasrudith4• 7 years ago

Perhaps "underlying" cause was meant / as a symptom of something else. Unrealistic demands with high pressure for results may lead to cultures of misconduct for instance. If the policies lead to the behaviors getting rid of the result won't fix it.

grecy• 7 years ago

In my last company the toxic guy was the one who was extremely loud and obvious, always burning the midnight oil, running around like he was on fire. i.e. squeaky wheel.

In reality he was causing 10x more problems than he fixed, and for multiple years in a row his personal overtime spending was significant in a company of 500 employees.

AllegedAlec2• 7 years ago

Toxic employees don’t care about a company’s goals, nor do they care about building relationships with co-workers. More than just self-centered office bullies, toxic employees are actually strategic and covert.

This sort of describes the sociopaths of the Gervais Principle.

I don't necessarily see how this is a Bad Thing to be. If relationships help you through the day, sure, go for it, but it doesn't help you in your goals. Furthermore, your goals are, unless you are working for your own company, quite often directly opposed to what the company wants.

EDIT: let me expand on this:

Companies want (basically) the following:

- You to do as much work as possible

- You to require as little payment as possible

- Be completely loyal to the company, ie: work whenever they need you to, don't even think about changing jobs, etc etc.

What you (should) want:

- Have job where you'd be most content, which could be at your current job, but probably isn't. Let's be fair: your own ideas for projects would be much more fun to work on then whatever you do for the company.

- Get paid as much for the work you do

- Do as little work as possible, so you have more time for yourself, your family and friends.

I don't really see how their definition of 'toxic' checks all the boxes above. I don't care all that much for the company goals, since they are (to me) much less important than my own goals. I don't care too much for relationships with co-workers; they're my co-workers, they're not the life-long friends I already had before I started this job. Furthermore, given that on average they'll be gone in 2.5 years, spending too much time and energy into creating a relationship with someone who'll be gone by then seems like wasted effort. Furthermore, I am covert about this (since saying these things outright would be bad for my career prospects). However, my input in this company is still a net win (for both parties).

Their definition of 'toxic' is therefore inadequate.

Nasrudith4• 7 years ago

It is a matter of degrees really. Someone merely asocial and there to build up experience so they can launch their own pursuit isn't even really a bad thing. That is accepted as a free market fundamental - people need to get funds and experience from somewhere. The 9-5 guy with dreams elsewhere isn't really a problem.

Someone passionate about their work would be better for the company but well perfect being the enemy of the good. Trying to get all "perfect" employees for everything is usually a "juicero" approach in majorly overspeccing for what could be better handled by the common. Just because rocket science and self driving cars need top talent and passion doesn't mean that your IoT waffle-iron company needs fanatics. Not meantcas elitism but "there are places for all kinds of people - and nobody is entitled to them".

To bring the metaphor to a creepy but apt conclusion the AK-47 was legendary for its reliability with imperfect parts and loose specs while being roughly comparable to more expensive and precise rifles prone to issues in harsher environments. There are many valid approaches to things.

However more pathological in a parasitic dynamic is clearly bad and sadly prevalent high and low in organizationsm

diminoten8• 7 years ago

This is precisely the toxic attitude talked about in the submission. Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team.

Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here, specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life. The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company.

It's not zero sum, and treating work like it is makes a person toxic.

AllegedAlec2• 7 years ago

Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team.

Wait, let's step back there.

I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different. I'm not saying: "well, I think we should have no customers whatsoever, and lose as much money as we possibly can". I'm saying: "If you want me to do deployments outside of business hours, you will have to pay me extra for doing so, since you're eating into my time with friends and family".

Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here

I said 'want to do as little work as possible'. That's something different from doing it. I'm not sitting at my desk browsing the hours away on forums. If I could get paid the same for working 5 hours less a week though, I'd take that option in a heartbeat.

specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life.

Life doesn't come easy to everyone, and a balanced life even less easily. Some people need more time than others to recuperate from a week's work. If it comes easier to you, all the more power to you, but it doesn't to everyone.

The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company.

Sometimes there is no good way that helps you and the company at the same time.

antisthenes2• 7 years ago

Worker goals and company goals are incentive incompatible.

Economics 101.

I see no reason why a worker should ever care about company goals, unless they align with her/his own goals, or that not drinking the kool-aid is a short ticket to get fired. (Or unless they have equity - but this is very rare in the general employment market, compared to HN)

goodpoint3• 7 years ago

How about toxic managers? For example the ones that hire the wrong person, or allow toxic environments to build up? Or the ones that promote people based on optics?

foolsgold• 7 years ago

It's good that we are finally figuring out what Prussian Field Marshal, Helmuth von Moltke (the elder) knew almost 200 years ago. He devised a system to evaluate soldiers, a very simplistic explanation and chart is included with the link below.

Essentially what we define as toxic, he defined as dangerous, and felt those people should be eliminated from the Army at all costs because they cause far more harm than good.

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/05/27/kind-leader/

Von Moltke (the elder) is also considered as the creator of a new, more modern method of directing armies in the field, which is still used today. He also commanded by intention than by direct action, von Molkte felt that strategy needed to be adapted as battle progressed, so rather than having his staff officers be held to rigid direct action orders the had everyone working toward a series of goals, making adjustment along the way, sounds a lot like Agile software development.

Asooka• 7 years ago

A friend told me some time ago that in the German army every person is trained to be able to do the duties of anyone up to 2 levels above him. This is done so any unit, or even just individual soldier, can carry out their mission as intended, rather than as ordered, and so they can keep agile even when communications are down, i.e. they can plan their own strategy based on what the overall objectives are.

tokai• 7 years ago

It's called auftragstaktik or mission command. I experienced it during my conscription (not German, but we apply it in my country as well), and it worked really good. Before the end of the service I'm certain my division could have retained most of its effectiveness, should you have removed all the ncos and the division commander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command

potta_coffee2• 7 years ago

The USMC also trains this way. If your team leader or squad leader is wounded, you're expected to be able to take his place and be effective.

TeMPOraL• 7 years ago

Essentially what we define as toxic, he defined as dangerous,

Are we? To me, it seems that what is meant by "toxic" in the article and this comment thread falls on the "COMMANDERS" square. Smart and lazy.

In full honestly, I believe "toxicity" is orthogonal. Dumb "toxic" people are easy to get rid of. Smart "toxic" people are the ones over which a company may agonize.

rdlecler1• 7 years ago

Sadly, with our irreproducability crisis in research, p-hacking, and agenda driven media I’ve stopped taking articles like this seriously. Sad because you don’t need a lot of bad apples to spoil the well and I’m sure more research is legit and intellectually honest.

mrfredward2• 7 years ago

You need not question their statistics to say the study is of little value. They define a toxic worker as someone who is harmful to an organization, and conclude with the tautology that organizations are better off without these harmful people.

In other news, red apples emit more red light than green apples.

0db532a02• 7 years ago

Apples generally spoil barrels or bunches. Dead animals will generally spoil a well.

leroy_masochist2• 7 years ago

Just read the study itself and am kind of scratching my head. I think the authors really just fail to consider the concept that the real problem with toxic employees is that they usually figure out to have their productivity measured very positively.

The authors build their thesis around a dichotomy between "toxic employees" and "superstars" (not "rock stars" as claimed in the article summarizing the study). The authors rather woodenly make their way through various analyses that make productivity the dependent variable, while also delving into the question of whether toxicity is contagious within workplaces.

Overall I get the impression that the study authors have never actually spent time in toxic workplaces.

The most toxic employees are not those who "[engage] in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people" -- as another commenter mentioned, this is a comically tautological definition. Rather, toxic employees are those who convince their boss that they are a superstar while making the company a worse place to work. A toxic employee isn't, as the study seems to imply, somebody who writes mean graffiti in the employee bathroom -- it's someone who berates junior staffers under the auspices of demanding excellent execution, and who finishes the year with sales growth in his division up 23%.

dasil0032• 7 years ago

Yeah, the problem with this kind of study is that workplace politics are highly contextual to the individuals you are dealing with. And I can think of no situation where citing a study about “toxic” individuals is going to change the mind of any executive. At this level of abstraction senior leaders already have beliefs about the human dynamics in their org and how they should be managed; the way to influence them is with specifics in the context they know rather than broad proclamations based on a raft of dubious assumptions.

diminoten8• 7 years ago

But from a company's perspective, isn't that 23% the only number that matters?

The point of the study (and I have some issues with it too) is that the 23% could be 30% if you dealt with the toxic employee, or at the very least 23% is still doable without them, even though it seems like it isn't because they're better than average.

leroy_masochist2• 7 years ago

I get the concept of what you're saying with, "the 23% could be 30% if you dealt with the toxic employee", but I think that unfortunately is not true in a lot of cases. There are a lot of really talented, hard-working people who are also toxic leaders (some maybe not fully intentionally), and the challenge of dealing with them in an organization is that, as you point out, measurable performance is often all that matters.

I think the cost-benefit in an example like this is usually not so much "replace the asshole and get a 7% bump in growth"....it's more like, "it'll cost you a point or two of sales growth but that'll more than pay for itself in terms of lower turnover because we'll save $200k a year in recruiters fees because we won't have to pay them to find replacements for miserable junior people who don't stick around for very long".

kevingadd• 7 years ago

There are many ways to raise your short or even mid-term numbers that have a net negative effect on the company over the long term. For example, if you want to get monthly active users up over the course of 3-6 months to get a promotion, there are lots of ways to do it - you can do discount promotions, or even pay users to download and install and use your app. But the moment you stop doing that your numbers are going to tank, and in the long run you just cost the company money while also doing damage to how people perceive it. The massive drop in numbers after that is going to demoralize the team, as well.

I've worked on a couple different teams where leadership did short-term-focused things like this to get numbers up and then the company paid for it later (typically after the leadership had exited or been pushed out).

This is a type of superstar toxicity that can be really harmful to your company even if people aren't quitting in droves because of the toxic employee.

Zimahl2• 7 years ago

In college I worked at an environmental testing company. I worked there for 3 summers. The first summer I worked there I worked closely with a woman named Shawn (name not changed because fuck her). I'm not saying she was bipolar, but she would wildly swing from having good days and having bad ones. Good days were fine sometimes really great, the entire department would be productive. Bad days were fucking terrible, she brought everyone down with her attitude, nit-pickyness, and comments (mind you she wasn't a manager).

Fast forward to the next summer, I was dreading working there because of her. But they gave me a raise to come back and I needed the money for college so I sucked it up. Day one - she's not there! She was pregnant, close to her due date, and was taking time off. That summer the office ran like clockwork. A few ups and downs here and there, but very even keeled. I spent another summer there and she never returned, I guess she decided to be a stay at home mom for a while.

Even years later it's hard to pinpoint just what exactly she did that was insanely toxic, it was just a number of things. But it was clear as day it was happening and made it easy to spot at other places where I've worked.

noir_lord2• 7 years ago

The one thing I value in co-workers is consistency, I'd sooner someone be a consistent dick than wildly swing about the place like a wrecking ball, I can route around dickheads when I know where they'll be at that point in time..

sleepysysadmin• 7 years ago

I've worked in a couple toxic MSPs.

There was 1 guy who had been working there for 10 years. He was a 'senior' guy who was more intermediate and took days to work on fixes that would take a couple hours for most others.

Early in my time there I was given a client of his. I was working hand in hand with him. All decisions were bounced off him and agreed upon. The customer complained and when I explained to the boss that I had been working with him all along, he denied it and let me take the fall.

Then another day, couple other techs were given a ticket to work on. They determined a new NAS needed to be deployed because the backups arent working. I was sent onsite to deploy a new nas; that's what I did.

I email everyone involved including him, he was on vacation. He replies all but excludes me; and I'm told he took me down a notch and bad mouthed me badly. Mind you I just did what I was told. He then publicly in front of me told everyone that I was screwing over his client. So I replied instantly, "For the record, I was told to deploy a NAS. I did as I'm told. I did got above and beyond and see if I could get that vmhost back alive; I couldn't and so I agree with the techs who recommended a NAS.

He did this kind of shit often to people; but he was the only person who could work on the internal network. The owners of the MSP loved him. He then got promoted to be the IT manager. This pretty much started the process of literally everyone quitting.

Of note, right after he got promoted. There was another coworker who was beyond angry that he got promoted. He was flipping his lid and tells me that he is going to kill the new IT manager. I report this death threat and I got fired the next day. I was apparently the toxic one.

jmrobertson6• 7 years ago

The mil caught onto this in a serious way somewhat recently, the commissioning sources really lean into preventing this. Great to see this catching on in the business world

happytotoss• 7 years ago

I have recently been labeled a “brilliant jerk” at a FAANG company and threatened with termination. In actuality I now know that I have acted like this (not always but sometimes) and I take ownership of it. In trying to come to terms with it, I’ve been doing a lot of research and I think the research is overly simplistic particularly when it comes to motivation. I am not a psychopath and I am not purely self interested. My motivations have never been money or climbing or anything like that. I’ve wanted to build cool stuff that people say can’t be done but that is also successful. I have always pulled in the direction of the company and not my own (at least in my mind). I have never treated anyone badly simply to treat them badly to make myself feel better or to put them down. I always thought it was best to give people direct and honest feedback. It’s almost never what I was saying that was wrong but how I was saying it. I was too harsh and I ignored emotional data. In trying to be objective, I tried to keep things logical and data based always; I would get upset when people could not follow a logical line of thought. I often used, in a modified way, the Socratic method to show someone that their argument was wrong. This led people to feel I was disrespectful to them because it would force a contradiction. By doing this, I meant to teach them but I was wrong; it simply made people feel foolish. I ignored the emotional side of things and that’s a big problem for me. It’s also not true that I would never concede I was wrong. You just had to have a really strong case.

Up until now this has also “worked” as it’s gotten things done on time. In one case, my work saved a product line that would have failed entirely. It took a lot of courage to stick my neck out and said we had to change direction. The change in direction meant abandoning something I had spent a year designing. Nobody wanted to abandon that work and shift. It was the right thing to do though. I took a huge amount risk and flack at the time and probably was almost fired. So there is good and bad to this. I am working to change but something is going to get lost. I probably won’t stick my neck out like that again.

I am also human. I make mistakes too and I’m trying to learn from all this.

diminoten8• 7 years ago

It's... scary sometimes, reading comments like these.

On one hand, I identify with what you've written here. I too had issues (still have) with working on a team.

On the other hand, I find myself identifying with someone with clear narcissistic tendencies, or at the very least is supremely unaware of themselves.

Why write this little confessional here, a place that's clearly not about you or your specific issue? Why couch it with tons of "but I didn't actually do anything wrong" notes? Why write it in such a rambling, stream-of-consciousness style? Why put these weirdly specific anecdotes, and why would the reader (who is the reader, by the way) even believe you?

I see these comments, and I get scared, because I recognize that this is how some people view me, and that's... not good.

wppick4• 7 years ago

It's... an anecdote. It's very related to the linked article, and adds insight into what the industry is considering toxic. You must be very easily scared if a personal anecdote causes this kind of a reaction from you.

bargl• 7 years ago

I would get upset when people could not follow a logical line of thought.

I think that's one of the biggest things I struggle with and have tried to get in front of for myself.

I know picking one sentence out takes it out of context. But this is the thing I find myself working on the most to not seem like a jerk. Most of the time, if I take the time to try to understand people, then I can teach them. I've been learning this with my wife, when I got way way deep down into something and she has an opinion on it but hasn't researched it like I have, I try to throw information at her until she "sees" what I see. We actually fought about this earlier this week. I was doing what you're talking about right now.

When I catch myself doing this, I have to scale back. Not everyone will get what you are saying at the same level. Find people who do and talk to them, about the details and figure out a way to abstract your ideas for people based on figuring out what they know and how to best simplify the concepts for what they already know. It doesn't work for me all the time, sometimes I still seem like a jerk. But I struggle with this too, although I assume you are probably quite a bit more intelligent than I am.

I also use self deprecation strategically to give people I'm talking to an insight into my faults. Sometimes it helps me build kinship. Always something I believe about myself, but in a way that helps me show I'm not perfect.

I probably won’t stick my neck out like that again. When I find myself in this situation (which I do from time to time) I find something else worth sticking my neck out for.
I make mistakes too and I’m trying to learn from all this. That's what makes you an awesome human.

Good luck.

trhway• 7 years ago

I often used, in a modified way, the Socratic method to show someone that their argument was wrong.

you do know how Socrates was punished for such a behavior ...

The Socratic like approach seems on practice to be "win the battle, lose the war", while, for comparison, Carnegie would be something like "win the war while may be loosing the battle". Being myself that typical "battle winner war looser" with the effect amplified by the typical Russian lack of soft skills, i was at some point given a enlightening talk by a friendly American which sounded something like this "Look, you're a <high compliment of my technical abilities, i mean he is an American after all :) >. You say the technically correct things which you always start with 'No,...' and that doesn't let it to result in the otherwise possible productive effect. "

commandlinefan3• 7 years ago

I have recently been labeled a “brilliant jerk”

Nobody's ever come right out and labelled me that way, but I suspect there are at least a few people in my past who probably would describe me that way (they'd probably backtrack and say, "well, he wasn't all that brilliant - he just knew a lot of stuff is all. But boy was he a jerk!"). Not all, not even most, but at least some. Like I said, this could all be in my head, but I don't think so - see, I've had co-workers who really didn't know how to do their job, and basically demanded my help. I'm not talking about interns who I was in charge of training, I'm talking about people with 10 years experience who had the same title, benefits and perks as I had. And they were completely incompetent. I have to work hard to keep my patience with those people, and I usually give them hints as to what to do (have you tried loading it in a debugger? Have you checked to make sure you're pointed at the right database?), but yeah, I have some disdain for these people and in spite of my best efforts to hide it, they sometimes seem to pick up on it. What's unfair about the "brilliant jerk" label (or the "competent jerk" to be less self-aggrandizing) is that the more competent you are, the more likely you're going to get the label, no matter what you do.

hnick• 7 years ago

Oh I know that too well. Having to explain that when the system says file not found, it means your program is trying to use a file that is not there. Or pasting error messages into google and summarising the first result for them.

At one point it was so bad I felt like I was just tech support, and was in a reactive not a proactive mode because the next question is surely coming soon so I'd better not start any deep work.

honkycat• 7 years ago

I am not convinced you have actually learned your lesson here. You still sound extremely condescending. This sounds like a post from /r/iamverysmart.

Leadership and emotional intelligence are part of intelligence.

Have you thought that maybe, instead of all of your coworkers not understanding, that YOU are the one that doesn't get it?

In actuality I now know that I have acted like this (not always but sometimes) and I take ownership of it.

Have you taken ownership? In this post, you are still trying to justify your abusive behavior by building it up with some kind of pseudo-intellectual BS.

"As the genius-king of (random FAANG), I must be gentler with my subjects. I can see now why the NPCs were upset by my mental lashings."

Also, you still cast a lot of the blame on your co-workers for "not being smart enough" instead of owning up to your own antisocial behaviour.

I was too harsh and I ignored emotional data.

Emotional data? Do you mean the feelings and thoughts of the people around you?

"Ignored emotional data" - I didn't care about how my co-workers felt, just that I ended up being the person who looked the smartest in the end.

In trying to be objective, I tried to keep things logical and data based always; I would get upset when people could not follow a logical line of thought.

I seriously doubt that at a FAANG people "could not follow a logical train of thought." Maybe you just were not as convincing or clear as you thought you were.

Or maybe people were just tired of you and the way you treated everyone, and you burned all good-will when trying to get your agendas passed.

Also, here, you still make it other people's fault. "I would get upset because they were dumb." No. It is not their fault you struggled to communicate. It is not their fault you cannot control your emotions. That is your YOUR problem.

You can kick and scream all you want, but YOU have to go to the world, the world will not come to you.

I often used, in a modified way, the Socratic method to show someone that their argument was wrong. This led people to feel I was disrespectful to them because it would force a contradiction. By doing this, I meant to teach them but I was wrong; it simply made people feel foolish. I ignored the emotional side of things and that’s a big problem for me.

This is the big one for me. "using the Socratic method to show someone that their argument was wrong" is incredibly pretentious. You are not their professor, these are not students. These are adults with degrees and jobs. Who have been through tragedy and triumph and built up at least a nugget of wisdom ( hopefully ). Not your peons to whip with "Socratic method" that makes you feel oh-so-smart. People have pride, and what your describing completely ignores that. In fact, it seems like it is seeking to HARM their pride.

"using the Socratic method to show someone that their argument was wrong" - Is that what you were doing? Or were you forcing people to play your weirdo sociopath games for longs periods of time? It sounds like you would trap them in a room and be an unpleasant sociopath instead of just explaining your reasoning like an adult.

You really do not seem to value other people or consider their thoughts AT ALL. You seem to think you are the only person with a brain. Me, personally: I would have seen through the Socratic method BS immediately, I would have found it extremely condescending, and it would have pissed me off.

It’s also not true that I would never concede I was wrong. You just had to have a really strong case.

So you would just argue until you won. Contgratulations. You sound like a lot of fun to work with.

lkfjjfkdkdk2• 7 years ago

Although I understand your point of view, you are being as condescending as you claim he is.

lkfjjfkdkdk2• 7 years ago

I had the same experience. My manager refused to see what was in front of him. After I left that jobs, my mental health greatly improved because I no longer had to deal with unrealistic deadlines from my incompetent manager. The next time I run into this situation again, I know not to voice my concerns and just start looking for a new job. There is no point disagreeing because it is alway you that will lose no matter the outcome. People like sweet talkers, not naysayers. Let them find out themselves when the hard way.

P.s. after I left, my manager couldn’t ship anything for 1 full year. It turns out, I was the only one keeping the boat afloat.

xsmasher• 7 years ago

I appreciate your comment; it gives me hope that formerly toxic people can change.

EDIT: toxic might be too strong; let's say difficult to work with.

superkuh• 7 years ago

"Toxic" is a meaningless word used by people to identify themselves with particular social movements. I mean, of course it does have it's original meaning. But that's not in use here.

vemv• 7 years ago

Exactly; happy someone said this before me.

'Toxic' is just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying 'big mean jerk' (i.e. something completely subjective and open to interpretation).

rahimnathwani• 7 years ago

"Toxic Workers Are More Productive"

Isn't this just an instance of Berkson's paradox? [0]

You might keep someone around because they're nice, or because they're productive. So if they're neither nice nor productive, then they wouldn't be hired/retained. So 100% of surviving not-nice people are productive, whereas the nice people is a mix of productive and non-productive people.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox

bduerst• 7 years ago

I think you're talking about survivor bias, not Berkson's paradox.

Also the study intentionally focuses more on the cost-benefit of retaining a specific population - productive toxic people - and doesn't care about non-productive (toxic or non-toxic) people since they don't factor into that specific C/B equation.

shkkmo• 7 years ago

I think the reference to Berkson's paradox is spot on:

The most common example of Berkson's paradox is a false observation of a negative correlation between two positive traits, i.e., that members of a population which have some positive trait tend to lack a second. Berkson's paradox occurs when this observation appears true when in reality the two properties are unrelated—or even positively correlated—because members of the population where both are absent are not equally observed.

But you are also correct, survivor bias can lead to Berkson's paradox.

ThePadawan• 7 years ago

You might also keep someone around because there are not enough candidates to fill all positions, never mind hire a replacement for them.

kartan• 7 years ago

Toxic Workers Are More Productive,

Not my personal experience. I have seen that they are perceived as better as they have less self-doubt and sound more authoritative. But, the ones I have work with were bad.

Usually toxic workers seen as more productive and bad/inexperienced management go hand with hand.

wppick4• 7 years ago

There will always be people with high ambition that want to perform and grow, and those people will likely be in contention with another type of person who wants a relaxing, stable, fun, and sustainable work environment. It's the job of leadership to match the right people together and set values and boundaries so that both of those employee types can satisfy their desires. It's lazy to just start labelling people as toxic. It's an oversimplification. Imagine putting a high performance athlete who is driven by the need to push themselves and compete with a bunch of lazy couch potatoes who just want to socialize and get a light workout.

anon4242• 7 years ago

There seems to be a conflation of toxic and productive which I don't think is necessarily true. In my case the most toxic coworker I ever had was one who was notoriously unproductive but managed to kiss upwards and kick downwards in ways that made it take a while before management noticed.

quadcore• 7 years ago

What is a 'toxic worker'? Can the 'toxic worker' of somebody be the perfect employee for someone else? Does everyone refer to the same thing when referring to a 'toxic worker'?

I don't think that's appropriate. Flagged.

wppick4• 7 years ago

If it floats, it's a witch

I highly doubt that 'toxic worker' has a consistent definition. Humans are tribal animals, and if you look through history I'm sure you can find see examples of 'toxic' members of tribes. Maybe at one point being left-handed made you a 'toxic' member of your tribe. It all comes down to what values and truths exist in the hive mind, and whose agenda is being served

mrfredward2• 7 years ago

The word toxic is far too subjective to be meaningful. To a toxic boss, the employee who says "no I won't work 80 hours a week and lie on the reports" is being toxic (insubordination). If that employee tells other workers to stand up for themselves or act ethically, well know he's undermining his boss and sabotaging the company, and is considered really toxic.

When person A calls person B toxic, the only thing we can really conclude is that A really dislikes B. The study gets around this subjectivity by defining toxic to mean "harmful to an organization," but this definition make the study's conclusion a tautology: firing people who harm an organization is beneficial the organization.

true_tuna• 7 years ago

Net negative is the correct description.

kazinator• 7 years ago

This article doesn't say anything.

I'm left to imagine what exactly is a "toxic worker", what it means for them to be "productive", and how that definition of productivity allows some metal shop in Pennsylvania to become more profitable ("value of shipments per labor hour jumping from $85-90 to $123) after losing these so-called productive employees.

No definitions of "toxic", or "productivity" are given, nor any concrete (or even vague) examples of behavior or work output from which these definitions could be deduced.

yowlingcat2• 7 years ago

I'm beginning to notice a trend with these kind of organizational pop psychology pieces. There is usually (especially in this piece) a bias towards overvaluing the risk contribution of an individual and a devaluing of the risk contribution and ownership of the leadership structure.

This piece is, to borrow a term, "not even wrong." There's no proof that "toxic workers" are more productive. By all accounts, toxic workers come in all shapes and sizes -- and what is a toxic worker, really? Is it someone who is physically and psychologically harmful to everyone in their lives and should probably seek rehabilitation before being reintroduced to society? Okay, that's one thing.

Is it someone who is not being managed properly, pushed into the wrong role, not given the right tools to do their job? Are they stuck in a dysfunctional culture run by sycophants, idiots and bullies? Are they unintentionally paving a road to hell with the best of intentions and the worst of consequences?

What I'm trying to get at here is the necessity of supervision. Organizations have command structures and hierarchies, whether implicit or explicit. The risks and consequences of those structures ultimately lies with management and leadership -- after all, it's with them that the true agency lies!

If it's not the job of management and leadership to train, manage out or fire misfits within the organization, what exactly is their job? After all, it's not individual contribution. There's sales, marketing, fundraising -- but except for the last one (and even that's a stretch), these are all team efforts. You maximize output from your team by removing unnecessary friction. If that can't happen passively, active changes need to be made.

Of course, such a brain-dead thinkpiece never couches with such responsibility or collectivist realities. They're comforting kernels of individualist tactics, sold to give the illusion of control. They're as attractive as a trendy new diet built on poor foundations, but about as effective: that is to say, not at all.

Nothing can kill a company as quickly as poor leadership. As a company gets larger, logistics rears its ugly head. Pragmatic structuring can mitigate that, and good leadership can bring about directional change towards that. But, nothing can stop bad leadership until it wants to improve.

HillaryBriss2• 7 years ago

If it's not the job of management and leadership to train, manage out or fire misfits within the organization, what exactly is their job?

I personally agree with this.

But, there's this other school of thought out there (which I'm tired of, frankly) that seems to believe management is supposed to "hire the best", pay them well and stay the hell out of their way. The reasoning is that "all these geniuses we've hired" will create a vast new pool of profitability through unfettered innovation, deep insight, and wild creativity. Or something. I believe that Google and Facebook think they are doing this with their hiring practices.

yowlingcat2• 7 years ago

I sympathize with your disdain. I prefer to reject this school of thought directly when I can, because it is a cultural abetting of incompetence. A company that practices this will atrophy and lose to a competitor which doesn't, even if that takes a while. Hiring the best requires hiring teams, not individuals. A group of star ICs that don't mesh well together could form a mediocre team, and a group of otherwise unremarkable (being a bit hyperbolic for the sake of discussion here) ICs who work well together could mesh together to form an all-star team.

Of course, I'm being hyperbolic when I say that because I think that part of what makes a star IC is someone who's good at assisting the team -- that's part of what makes great teams so devastatingly effective. That's part of what makes me very skeptical of that school of thought -- if you're really naive to believe that great teams come when you group a bunch of star ICs together (hint: it doesn't), how would you even know if you ended up screwing it up and it came out dysfunctional? You wouldn't, because you're not incentivized to. Your job as a manager and leader ended when you hired them.

I find this kind of laughable, honestly.

Tomminn• 7 years ago

They define a rockstar as someone in the top 1% of productivity. In order to know how many average employees that equates to, you need to know something about the distribution of productivity across employees. Only then can you judge whether the harm caused to normal employees by the "toxic rockstar" is worth the price.

jmchuster• 7 years ago

This just sounds like the same as the nice guy paradox. If girls are looking to date guys who are both nice and good-looking, you only date guys who are assholes if they are really good looking.

Same thing with a "rockstar" asshole engineeer. If you weren't an awesome engineer on top of being an asshole, you wouldn't even be employed and we're not talking about you.

It's not because there's this magical correlation between being a "rockstar" and an asshole. This is just an outcome of sampling.

zeroname• 7 years ago

Can't you just have team made up of only "toxic" people? Do "toxic" people negatively affect the productivity of other "toxic" people?

I personally wouldn't want want to give up entirely on all the socially inept assholes whose in-depth knowledge on crap that I don't care to know about (but rely on) seemingly knows no bounds. More specifically, I do want to keep the IT department.

HillaryBriss2• 7 years ago

this is one of the very best articles i've ever found on HN.

it addresses the most important aspects of the toxic employee syndrome which i personally have encountered in multiple working environments. every manager should read this article.

Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

Related Stories