Couldn't disagree more w/ the 9/10 part. That's the sort of thinking self-identified "rebellious workers" who are worried about others (mgmt) perceiving themselves as.

"toxic worker" is a pretty textbook definition now: -horrible team player -plays for the spotlight, claims credit in the spotlight, does little work privately -if in mgmt, verbally/mentally terrorizes subordinates -etc etc

Yeah, too bad in many cases in companies where people play politics, the term toxic will be used as it suits best the person in power and their personal agenda, regardless of the textbook definition.

People took the notion of a fluid language and took it too far, by letting words mean whatever they think they mean and refusing to get corrected and/or abide by a standard definition.

Well yes, those instances would be companies that aren't on the train quite yet of understanding what a toxic worker actually is.

Which is the whole point of these sorts of studies: education

In areas where "toxic working" is ID'd as the risk it really is (i.e. this study is old, old news), it's never a term thrown around as a political term like you're concerned about. It's a specifically cancerous, horrible way of working that's seriously easy to identify. It's like trying to play politics with the term "water leaking" to describe anything other than water leaking.

Honestly, your 9/10 bit makes you sound like a manager who has been called out for making poor decisions. That isn't what I'd consider a toxic employee AT ALL. If you're making stupid decisions, you should be called out on it. Going by your definition, the manager would be considered toxic to the company as well.