4 ms·
>A 2015 study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor published by the Harvard Business School defines a “toxic” employee as: “A worker that engages in behavior tha
by forgottenpass 8y ago
>A 2015 study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor published by the Harvard Business School defines a “toxic” employee as: “A worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.”
If this is how they defined toxic, then the findings of the study are simply tautological.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- andylei 8y agothe study finds that > avoiding a toxic worker (or converting him to an average worker) enhances performance to a much greater extent than replacing an average worker with a superstar worker
- EpicEng 8y agoPer their definition: >avoiding a (worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people) (or converting him to an average worker) enhances performance to a much greater extent than replacing an average worker with a superstar worker Well yeah, of course it does. A harmful worker causes harm. Duh.
- mfoy_ 8y agoIt is not obvious or tautological that removing a bad employee is more valuable than acquiring a superb employee.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoA bad employee can affect the whole department quickly - its so easy for corrosive attitudes to spread. But a good employee? It takes time and effort to build goodwill and teamwork. It is better to remove a bad employee, than hire a better one. More urgent anyway.
- goodpoint 8y ago> so easy for corrosive attitudes to spread citation needed
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoLifetime of experience. If you have other observations, feel free to make them.
- diminoten 8y agoOne person's experience is basically useless, statistically speaking.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoHow about one person, experiencing the same thing dozens of times?
- diminoten 8y agoDozens is a drop in the proverbial bucket.