Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.harvard.edu&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.harvard.edu&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;16-057_d...</a><p>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.<p>It seems to be using a tautological definition:<p>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.<p>They also state they don&#x27;t consider &quot;productivity spillover&quot; 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.<p>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 &#x27;proving&#x27; that teamwork trumps uncharismatic productivity, despite the study saying nothing about that.<p>If one wanted to truly study these costs, they&#x27;d also be looking at charismatic unproductive people who, despite all making each other feel good, don&#x27;t actually bring any value to an organisation.