Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

Post by ramblerouser » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

unknowns wrote: post #82

blue1379 wrote: post #8

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 l…

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 y…

Post by zeveb » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

chimprich wrote: post #73

tomp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's a single company's management system, but our economic system selects for best companies == groups of people. So, no, the point was completely wrong.

If you consider the hens in the analogy to be companies (rather than people) I think it holds. We select for companies that can outcompete other companies rather than ones that contribute the most to the system.

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

jmrobertson wrote: post #87

maxxxxx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I am looking at it from the employee perspective. If you want to advance it’s probably better to risk being called toxic instead of being a good team player who never gets anywhere.

That takes some faith that being an unselfish team player will in fact get you somewhere. From a mgmt perspective, assuming a good manager, it does. If your team/org doesn't approach it that way, the solution is find a high performing team that does approach it that way, not become toxic yourself. 10/10 high performance, long term successful teams approach things this way (source: this study, and people who have expe…

Post by 5trokerac3 » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

unknowns wrote: post #82

blue1379 wrote: post #8

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 l…

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 y…

Post by potta_coffee » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #69

lordnacho wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do people get promoted on the basis that they will make the team better? Have you ever heard of that? How often do you hear "the IT guys kept things running well, enabling the sales people to bring the money in, so they get a piece of that?" Most of the time people who get stuff are the ones who have been attributed the most output individually.

Right, that's a single company's management system, but our economic system selects for best companies == groups of people. So, no, the point was completely wrong.