Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High by chosenbreed37 on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:21AM (#19207955)

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 :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High by 010101010101 on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:29AM (#19208027)

It 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High by sometimesijust on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:31AM (#19208035)

The 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High by pavel_lishin on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:27AM (#19208012)

> Whatever the definition of a Rock Star employee is surely, well...by definition, they must be a net positive for the organisation :-)

What?

[ Parent | on HN ]