
Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High - tarunupaday
https://www.tlnt.com/toxic-workers-are-more-productive-but-the-price-is-high/
======
Symmetry
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-...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KE8wPzGiX5QPotyS8/conjuring-
an-evolution-to-serve-you)

~~~
goodpoint
> 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.

~~~
aaavl2821
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.

~~~
zawazzi
US Productivity grows by 2% a year which suggests in aggregate, most people
are playing a zero sum game.

~~~
sjjshvuiajhz
I think productivity is better conceived as the first derivative of value wrt.
time. So productivity growth is the second derivative. It’s good news if that
number is positive at all.

------
blue1379
[https://news.harvard.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/16-057_d...](https://news.harvard.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf)

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.

~~~
unknowns
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.

~~~
5trokerac3
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.

~~~
unknowns
A talented employee can be rude and disruptive to a team? but lower valued
employees play beer pong.

My unbelievable straw man is looking great in your yard. Along with the many
things I "seem" to say versus the things I actually say.

~~~
5trokerac3
I think you need to take a walk and cool down from internet conversation. If
this is how you talk to your coworkers when confronted with disagreement then
I don't think you're the "non-toxic" one in your office.

------
leroy_masochist
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%.

~~~
diminoten
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_masochist
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".

~~~
munchbunny
This isn't exactly what you were talking about, but one of the best pieces of
advice I've heard was this:

It's never worth promoting a potentially toxic manager into a managerial role,
even if they're great in their current role. If you do, the whole team
suffers. If you don't and they leave because you didn't promote them, they
weren't going to let you keep them as an IC anyway. Best case is you reform
them, but do that _before_ and not after you promote them.

I've seen this pattern more than I'd like.

------
happytotoss
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.

~~~
honkycat
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.

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

------
rahimnathwani
"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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox)

~~~
bduerst
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
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.

------
gwbas1c
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?

~~~
move-on-by
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.

~~~
aunty_helen
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.

~~~
arcticbull
The truth is somewhat more nuanced IMO, and it’s mentioned somewhere here —
behavior is contagious. Keeping upbeat and positive to your coworkers will
make them upbeat and positive even if they’re not naturally. Positivity like
negativity is contagious, but the latter is the steady state for many while
the former requires continuous effort. The issue here is the
won’t/can’t/stop/oh god in heaven. Showing up at your managers desk ready to
listen and propose solutions and iterate is much more positively viewed. I’m
confident the manager sees the issues for themselves, what they need are
solutions.

Check out the difference a little wordsmithing makes:

* 'this deadline is unrealistic' — “id love to be able to get all this done for you, and with 8 weeks left, I’m only going to be able to get through half of this; let’s sit down and figure out what we can deprioritize without compromising the core of our next release”

* 'we can't continue at this pace, we have to have time to address some serious technical debt' — “I’ve noticed im having trouble moving quickly in the codebase with the level of testing we have right now, I’d love to lead an effort to improve testing and testability. Let’s resdefine ‘performance’ to include velocity, and with this new metric I’m sure we can find some time! Happy to do the leg work here.”

* 'I heard marketing saying that we can do X, but it isn't true and to add feature X would destroy our timeline' \- same as 1: “I’d love to be able to get X out for you in the next release, and to do so requires we cut a few weeks scope elsewhere in the product — let’s sit down and see what we can deprioritize without compromising quality!”

* 'Adding more contractors isn't going to speed this up or improve the quality, we need time not warm bodies' — what will? “Let’s see if we can save the company some money by finding a way to work more efficiently! I’ve noticed x and y, and I’d love to take the lead on it. Let’s define some metrics to show this is as good as or better than bringing in some more contractors! The finance team is going to love our proposal.”

------
foolsgold
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/](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
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
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-type_tactics)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command)

------
superkuh
"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
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).

------
jmchuster
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.

------
goodpoint
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?

------
forgottenpass
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.

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

~~~
fein
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?

------
kazinator
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.

------
rdlecler1
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.

~~~
mrfredward
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.

------
wppick
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.

------
forgottenpass
>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
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

~~~
EpicEng
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.

~~~
mfoy_
It is _not_ obvious or tautological that removing a bad employee is more
valuable than acquiring a superb employee.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
A bad employee can affect the whole department quickly - its so easy for
corrosive attitudes to spread. But a good employee? It takes time and effort
to build goodwill and teamwork.

It is better to remove a bad employee, than hire a better one. More urgent
anyway.

~~~
goodpoint
> so easy for corrosive attitudes to spread

citation needed

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Lifetime of experience. If you have other observations, feel free to make
them.

~~~
diminoten
One person's experience is basically useless, statistically speaking.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
How about one person, experiencing the same thing dozens of times?

~~~
diminoten
Dozens is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

------
quadcore
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.

~~~
mrfredward
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.

------
kartan
> 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.

------
trabant00
> 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

      > 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.

<insert citation to game theory and cooperating vs. defecting>

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.

~~~
wppick
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.

------
yowlingcat
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.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> 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.

~~~
yowlingcat
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
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.

------
anon4242
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.

------
jmrobertson
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

------
AllegedAlec
> 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.

~~~
diminoten
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.

~~~
AllegedAlec
> 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.

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

and

> I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different.

Are in conflict. It's possible you only think of goals as in, "Grow by 50%
this quarter" and not, "Maximize the productivity of my team," but that's
incorrect. If the company has a goal of "deploy during off hours", it can be
done in a way that benefits the employee and the employer. CI/CD for example.

The thing is, even the productivity goal can be done in a mutually beneficial
way, but your philosophy doesn't allow for that, and that makes the "zero sum"
or "as little as possible" philosophy a toxic one.

------
HillaryBriss
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.

------
true_tuna
Net negative is the correct description.

------
zeroname
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.

------
chosenbreed37
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 :-)

~~~
010101010101
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.

