The definition surprised me. I mean the actual definition, as it is used later, not the one presented in the beginning. First they say someone who does more bad than good is a toxic worker, but then they have some quite strange attributes to that, like someone being fired for toxicity (which often means he&#x27;s annoying to the boss, not that he&#x27;s toxic), or someone who steals office supplies (I don&#x27;t know anybody who would even complain about that, as long as it&#x27;s not in exceptional ammounts).<p>And finally they conclude you should always try to cut losers instead of fighting for winners. There is no game (in the sense of game theory, not child&#x27;s play) in which &quot;always&quot; really makes you better than average. Sometimes everybody knows that someone is toxic but you can&#x27;t cut him lose, because he is in a very specific position (e.g., the brother of your most important customer). Another time having that one super-star will put you forward by a dimension, not just a few bucks. &quot;Instead of always do A better always do B&quot;? No, both is wrong. Don&#x27;t &quot;always&quot;.