3 ms·
The article seems to equate "Rock Star" to "toxic". Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive
by chosenbreed37 8y ago
The article seems to equate "Rock Star" to "toxic". Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive for the organisation :-)
- pavel_lishin 8y ago> Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive for the organisation :-) What?
- 010101010101 8y agoIt does the exact opposite of that. The argument is that the focus on finding “rock stars” who act as a positive force is less efficient than a focus on avoiding “toxic” employees who act as a negative force.
- sometimesijust 8y agoThe article compares the return on the cost/investment of hiring a rock star vs NOT hiring a toxic. It acts as guidance on what part of one's hiring pipeline is most worth investment.