Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High
by antisthenes on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @02:08PM
(#19210933)
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.
Re:Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High
by jmrobertson on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @03:31PM
(#19211674)
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.
"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