Also, their analysis that avoiding toxic workers is twice as good as hiring a superstar makes no sense, because it doesn't account for the fact that some jobs h

Also, their analysis that avoiding toxic workers is twice as good as hiring a superstar makes no sense, because it doesn't account for the fact that some jobs have vastly more leverage than others. The obvious example is software developers, whose work easily scales at least 100x as much as emissions testers. But even basketball coaches are a good example. (Mark Cuban anyone?) I'm not claiming that we hiring toxic workers is a good bet by any means, but the analysis also doesn't make any sense. For what it's worth, I've found that quantitative economics research coming out of Harvard tends to be complete nonsense. I have no idea why this would be the case, it's just something that I've observed.