4 ms·

> The findings show that avoiding a toxic employee generates returns of nearly two-to-one as compared to those generated when firms hire a rock star" Why do yo

> The findings show that avoiding a toxic employee generates returns of nearly two-to-one as compared to those generated when firms hire a rock star" Why do you need to choose between these two though? Can't an interviewer pay attention to both the technical skills and the attitude of a potential hire? This sounds like a forced dichotomy just to justify a study nobody needs. > While toxic employees are more productive, meaning getting more things done, the quality of that productivity often is less than desirable If work is not up to standards then it's not done work and can't be considered productivity, can it? Again, do we really need a study to tell us that bad personality people who rush half done jobs to get that KPI are not what you want as employees?

braythwayt 8y ago
> do we really need a study to tell us that bad personality > people who rush half done jobs to get that KPI are not > what you want as employees? I suspect this is a rhetorical question, and what you may be saying is, "It's ridiculous that large swathes of business needs to be told this thing over, and over, and over again, and yet they will not learn." That is my slant on this, because I observe that often times, the incentives in organizations are to do the wrong thing that leads to the local optimum, where we define "local" as, a particular manager's well-being. If a manager is rated by the measured productivity of their teams, the will hire for the ability to make the number and manage to the number, regardless of whether the number reflects the overall good of the team or organization. As they say, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game." In a dysfunction organization, everyone can be individually aware that the organization's management is dysfunctional, but it can't be changed without an overwhelming majority of managers simultaneously cooperating. <insert citation to game theory and cooperating vs. defecting> Not only that, but some managers actually do better by "quelling rebellion" and enforcing the dysfunction. They will actively undermine any effort to organize change. You don't need people to be ignorant of things like this, you just need people to be attached to their individual incentives, and you need a culture where those who try to make change are rejected by the host culture.
- wppick 8y ago
  Leadership and management is probably the biggest differentiator between a successful, growing organization and an organization that is decaying or stagnant. They say people don't quit jobs they quit managers. I've found that the role of manager self selects for people with more ego than brain, or someone who desires to have power over other people. I really agree with that quote, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game." There's a book The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Muller that talks about this. Essentially metrics are the mapping of a complex high-dimensional system into (sometimes) a single number, so that some self-important manager can make an easier decision. Metrics are in my opinion an instrument of power (which could be used for good or ill). The book Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott also has some interesting examples on how metrics and measuring things in general is used to control groups of people, and simplify complex systems.

braythwayt 8y ago

> do we really need a study to tell us that bad personality > people who rush half done jobs to get that KPI are not > what you want as employees? I suspect this is a rhetorical question, and what you may be saying is, "It's ridiculous that large swathes of business needs to be told this thing over, and over, and over again, and yet they will not learn." That is my slant on this, because I observe that often times, the incentives in organizations are to do the wrong thing that leads to the local optimum, where we define "local" as, a particular manager's well-being. If a manager is rated by the measured productivity of their teams, the will hire for the ability to make the number and manage to the number, regardless of whether the number reflects the overall good of the team or organization. As they say, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game." In a dysfunction organization, everyone can be individually aware that the organization's management is dysfunctional, but it can't be changed without an overwhelming majority of managers simultaneously cooperating. <insert citation to game theory and cooperating vs. defecting> Not only that, but some managers actually do better by "quelling rebellion" and enforcing the dysfunction. They will actively undermine any effort to organize change. You don't need people to be ignorant of things like this, you just need people to be attached to their individual incentives, and you need a culture where those who try to make change are rejected by the host culture.

wppick 8y ago
Leadership and management is probably the biggest differentiator between a successful, growing organization and an organization that is decaying or stagnant. They say people don't quit jobs they quit managers. I've found that the role of manager self selects for people with more ego than brain, or someone who desires to have power over other people. I really agree with that quote, "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game." There's a book The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Muller that talks about this. Essentially metrics are the mapping of a complex high-dimensional system into (sometimes) a single number, so that some self-important manager can make an easier decision. Metrics are in my opinion an instrument of power (which could be used for good or ill). The book Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott also has some interesting examples on how metrics and measuring things in general is used to control groups of people, and simplify complex systems.