3 ms·

> Toxic employees don’t care about a company’s goals, nor do they care about building relationships with co-workers. More than just self-centered office bullies

> Toxic employees don’t care about a company’s goals, nor do they care about building relationships with co-workers. More than just self-centered office bullies, toxic employees are actually strategic and covert. This sort of describes the sociopaths of the Gervais Principle. I don't necessarily see how this is a Bad Thing to be. If relationships help you through the day, sure, go for it, but it doesn't help you in your goals. Furthermore, your goals are, unless you are working for your own company, quite often directly opposed to what the company wants. EDIT: let me expand on this: Companies want (basically) the following: - You to do as much work as possible - You to require as little payment as possible - Be completely loyal to the company, ie: work whenever they need you to, don't even think about changing jobs, etc etc. What you (should) want: - Have job where you'd be most content, which could be at your current job, but probably isn't. Let's be fair: your own ideas for projects would be much more fun to work on then whatever you do for the company. - Get paid as much for the work you do - Do as little work as possible, so you have more time for yourself, your family and friends. I don't really see how their definition of 'toxic' checks all the boxes above. I don't care all that much for the company goals, since they are (to me) much less important than my own goals. I don't care too much for relationships with co-workers; they're my co-workers, they're not the life-long friends I already had before I started this job. Furthermore, given that on average they'll be gone in 2.5 years, spending too much time and energy into creating a relationship with someone who'll be gone by then seems like wasted effort. Furthermore, I am covert about this (since saying these things outright would be bad for my career prospects). However, my input in this company is still a net win (for both parties). Their definition of 'toxic' is therefore inadequate.

Nasrudith 8y ago
It is a matter of degrees really. Someone merely asocial and there to build up experience so they can launch their own pursuit isn't even really a bad thing. That is accepted as a free market fundamental - people need to get funds and experience from somewhere. The 9-5 guy with dreams elsewhere isn't really a problem. Someone passionate about their work would be better for the company but well perfect being the enemy of the good. Trying to get all "perfect" employees for everything is usually a "juicero" approach in majorly overspeccing for what could be better handled by the common. Just because rocket science and self driving cars need top talent and passion doesn't mean that your IoT waffle-iron company needs fanatics. Not meantcas elitism but "there are places for all kinds of people - and nobody is entitled to them". To bring the metaphor to a creepy but apt conclusion the AK-47 was legendary for its reliability with imperfect parts and loose specs while being roughly comparable to more expensive and precise rifles prone to issues in harsher environments. There are many valid approaches to things. However more pathological in a parasitic dynamic is clearly bad and sadly prevalent high and low in organizationsm
diminoten 8y ago
This is precisely the toxic attitude talked about in the submission. Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team. Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here, specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life. The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company. It's not zero sum, and treating work like it is makes a person toxic.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  > Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team. Wait, let's step back there. I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different. I'm not saying: "well, I think we should have no customers whatsoever, and lose as much money as we possibly can". I'm saying: "If you want me to do deployments outside of business hours, you will have to pay me extra for doing so, since you're eating into my time with friends and family". > Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here I said 'want to do as little work as possible'. That's something different from doing it. I'm not sitting at my desk browsing the hours away on forums. If I could get paid the same for working 5 hours less a week though, I'd take that option in a heartbeat. > specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life. Life doesn't come easy to everyone, and a balanced life even less easily. Some people need more time than others to recuperate from a week's work. If it comes easier to you, all the more power to you, but it doesn't to everyone. > The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company. Sometimes there is no good way that helps you and the company at the same time.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    > Sometimes there is no good way that helps you and the company at the same time. and > I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different. Are in conflict. It's possible you only think of goals as in, "Grow by 50% this quarter" and not, "Maximize the productivity of my team," but that's incorrect. If the company has a goal of "deploy during off hours", it can be done in a way that benefits the employee and the employer. CI/CD for example. The thing is, even the productivity goal can be done in a mutually beneficial way, but your philosophy doesn't allow for that, and that makes the "zero sum" or "as little as possible" philosophy a toxic one.
antisthenes 8y ago
Worker goals and company goals are incentive incompatible. Economics 101. I see no reason why a worker should ever care about company goals, unless they align with her/his own goals, or that not drinking the kool-aid is a short ticket to get fired. (Or unless they have equity - but this is very rare in the general employment market, compared to HN)

Nasrudith 8y ago

It is a matter of degrees really. Someone merely asocial and there to build up experience so they can launch their own pursuit isn't even really a bad thing. That is accepted as a free market fundamental - people need to get funds and experience from somewhere. The 9-5 guy with dreams elsewhere isn't really a problem. Someone passionate about their work would be better for the company but well perfect being the enemy of the good. Trying to get all "perfect" employees for everything is usually a "juicero" approach in majorly overspeccing for what could be better handled by the common. Just because rocket science and self driving cars need top talent and passion doesn't mean that your IoT waffle-iron company needs fanatics. Not meantcas elitism but "there are places for all kinds of people - and nobody is entitled to them". To bring the metaphor to a creepy but apt conclusion the AK-47 was legendary for its reliability with imperfect parts and loose specs while being roughly comparable to more expensive and precise rifles prone to issues in harsher environments. There are many valid approaches to things. However more pathological in a parasitic dynamic is clearly bad and sadly prevalent high and low in organizationsm

diminoten 8y ago

This is precisely the toxic attitude talked about in the submission. Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team. Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here, specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life. The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company. It's not zero sum, and treating work like it is makes a person toxic.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
> Your goals shouldn't be opposed to the company's goals, and if they are, you're creating a problem on the team. Wait, let's step back there. I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different. I'm not saying: "well, I think we should have no customers whatsoever, and lose as much money as we possibly can". I'm saying: "If you want me to do deployments outside of business hours, you will have to pay me extra for doing so, since you're eating into my time with friends and family". > Doing "as little work as possible" in particular would immediately put you in the category of "toxic" here I said 'want to do as little work as possible'. That's something different from doing it. I'm not sitting at my desk browsing the hours away on forums. If I could get paid the same for working 5 hours less a week though, I'd take that option in a heartbeat. > specifically because it's completely unnecessary to living a balanced life. Life doesn't come easy to everyone, and a balanced life even less easily. Some people need more time than others to recuperate from a week's work. If it comes easier to you, all the more power to you, but it doesn't to everyone. > The only person that helps is you, as opposed to what a healthy person does, and that's find ways to help both themselves and the company. Sometimes there is no good way that helps you and the company at the same time.
- diminoten 8y ago
  > Sometimes there is no good way that helps you and the company at the same time. and > I didn't say I'm opposed to the company's goals. That's something different. Are in conflict. It's possible you only think of goals as in, "Grow by 50% this quarter" and not, "Maximize the productivity of my team," but that's incorrect. If the company has a goal of "deploy during off hours", it can be done in a way that benefits the employee and the employer. CI/CD for example. The thing is, even the productivity goal can be done in a mutually beneficial way, but your philosophy doesn't allow for that, and that makes the "zero sum" or "as little as possible" philosophy a toxic one.

antisthenes 8y ago

Worker goals and company goals are incentive incompatible. Economics 101. I see no reason why a worker should ever care about company goals, unless they align with her/his own goals, or that not drinking the kool-aid is a short ticket to get fired. (Or unless they have equity - but this is very rare in the general employment market, compared to HN)