I read this study via the article http://qz.com/563683/turns-out-toxic-coworkers-are-more-expensive-than-superstar-hires/ http://qz.com/563683/turns-out-toxic-

I read this study via the article http://qz.com/563683/turns-out-toxic-coworkers-are-more-expensive-than-superstar-hires/ http://qz.com/563683/turns-out-toxic-coworkers-are-more-expe... which pointed out the net savings between hiring a superstar vs firing a toxic employee, and I was more shocked that the numbers were so low for superstars. That a Top 1% person in their field can only deliver $ 5303 worth of extra value to their company over their whole period of employment? I mean I'm no superstar, but that seemed pitifully low just from my own experience of the right action at the right time by the right person being able to secure deals worth a lot for the company. As per the paper: "To generate a straightforward comparison of the value of each of these focuses, we quantify the value of a star performer by identifying the cost savings from her increased output level. That is, a superstar is a worker that adds so much value that without her a firm would have to hire additional workers (or pay for additional hours from existing workers) to achieve the same level of output as when they have that single superstar worker." "We calculate the percent in increased performance for each of these performance levels and multiply it by the average worker salary, based on company records." "For comparison, we report in the "Avoid a Toxic Worker" column the induced turnover cost of a toxic worker, based on company figures. Induced turnover cost captures the expense of replacing additional workers lost in response to the presence of a toxic worker on a team." "Top 1% Superstar: $ 5,303 Avoid a toxic worker: $ 12,489" "The data were obtained from a company that builds and deploys job-testing software to large employers. Many of these companies are business-process outsourcers (BPOs) that themselves provide a variety of business services (e.g., customer care, outbound sales, etc.) to their clients. The employees included in the dataset are all engaged in frontline service positions and paid on an hourly basis." So these stats are coming from call center staff and telemarketing where there's a lot more priority on people following the script/process than showing flashes of brilliance. But all of that gets lost when it gets breathlessly repeated in the abstract or in articles referencing it.