3 ms·
Both. Readers should stop reading when they get to "a toxic worker is defined as a worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization." Could
by codeonfire 11y ago
Both. Readers should stop reading when they get to "a toxic worker is defined as a worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization." Could mean literally anything. Their data is equally ridiculous. It consists of a) lists of people that were fired because management deemed them "Toxic" and b) "daily performance data that represent productivity by measuring the average amount of time an employee required to handle a transaction and customer satisfaction scores." Their conclusion is that people that have self respect are more likely to be fired for being toxic. Ha! My only question is, how the hell do I get paid to write this stuff?
- pkaye 11y agoI've been in people management roles and certainly dealt with a rare few who just couldn't get along with anyone and also a disruption to the productivity of others. In hindsight, what I found is these individuals will tend to have a history of short stays at many companies. Because of the litigious nature of US, the former employers will never disclose anything wrong in a reference check plus they just want to get that person out the door.
- calinet6 11y agoExcellent analysis. This simplifies management down to a black and white, rigid, mechanical chopping block. This isn't fit for anyone doing business in today's world.
- knughit 11y agoHow to get paid? Become a social scientist. The data is boring and irrelevant to reality, so write any narrative you want, and be judged how well you fit your audience's preconceived notions (double credit for publishing opposite conclusions on the same data)
- knughit 11y agoHow to get paid? Become a social scientist. The data is boring and irrelevant to reality, so write any narrative you want, and be judged how well you fit your audience's preconceived notions (double credit for publishing opposite conclusions on the same data)