Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

tlnt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 229 posts

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#191

Post by dzhiurgis »

aylmao wrote: post #124
goodpoint wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

> most world issues are or were very profitable for someone

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#192

Post by diminoten »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #140
diminoten wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 ha…

> 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.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#193

Post by diminoten »

wppick wrote: post #101
diminoten wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Yes, I am easily scared by strangers on the Internet espousing clearly deranged, off-tilt rants that remind me of some of the shit I say.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#194

Post by mmmBacon »

diminoten wrote: post #193
wppick wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I am easily scared by strangers on the Internet espousing clearly deranged, off-tilt rants that remind me of some of the shit I say.

Judging by your comment I'm guessing maybe the GP's comment hits a little too close to home.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#195

Post by diminoten »

mmmBacon wrote: post #194
diminoten wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am easily scared by strangers on the Internet espousing clearly deranged, off-tilt rants that remind me of some of the shit I say.

Judging by your comment I'm guessing maybe the GP's comment hits a little too close to home.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Seeing it laid out such as it is disconcerts me.

Does this trouble folks? Went from +2 over an hour to -3 in like 30 seconds.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#196

Post by JetSpiegel »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #191
aylmao wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> most world issues are or were very profitable for someone Can you elaborate a bit more?

Where to start? Wars? Global Warming?

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#198

Post by HillaryBriss »

yowlingcat wrote: post #171

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 work…

> 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.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#199

Post by AngryData »

aaavl2821 wrote: post #137
goodpoint wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 b…

Over an undefined time span it isn't zero-sum, but on a day-to-day or year-to-year basis it might as well be zero-sum unless you can somehow get the world economy to grow faster than a few percentage points at a time. Especially when so much of that growth is tied up with not very liquid capital assets of a much smaller demograph of wealthy people.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#200

Post by yowlingcat »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #198
yowlingcat wrote: post #171

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 work…

> 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…

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.

Post reply on HN