I'm going to put aside the question of whether it is "evil" or not (it is, IMO). I don't believe there is anyone putting a gun, or a huge check or whatever, to

I'm going to put aside the question of whether it is "evil" or not (it is, IMO). I don't believe there is anyone putting a gun, or a huge check or whatever, to the CEOs head, or the HR director's head and telling them they have to play enabler to a serial harasser, even once. And it doesn't matter whether it's a sexual harasser or an abusive supervisor, the person should be out either way. The idea that being an a-hole is what gets the job done is just a relic, if it ever was true. People do their best work when they aren't being harassed or having to put up with alot of useless BS. I would bet that if you look at the actual results, you would see that their employees are getting the job done in spite of these tactics, or maybe that they're not performing as well as they could, and that the toxic person is also sabotaging other teams to such an extent that their group looks better by comparison. Bottom line, either the people who should be making the right decision and firing people for toxic behavior don't care, or they are not allowed to do their job and get rid of them because the people above them won't let them. Which just leaves them doing damage control. Neither option is acceptable.