Harvard study on "toxic workers". Who are they?

[ChocolateMoose123]

The link below has audio as well incase you're lazy. I heard this while driving. The study defines what a toxic worker is.

Surpising results. It's not who you might think. Are you that toxic worker at your job? Do you know someone like this? If so, how do they/you respond to them or how do you see these traits if you have them?

Harvard Business School Study Highlights Costs Of Toxic Workers : NPR

 

[á´…eparted]

This quote from the article is important:

But once they're currently there, it's very important to look at workers in more of a multidimensional basis. I find that many managers are focused on the productivity end.

This kind of stuff pisses me off. SO much. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is toxic, but people won't get rid of them because they are "productive". Sure, they're productive, but they are crappy ass to work with. That matters a ton.

If someone is shitty and toxic, it should be more than enough grounds to get rid of someone.

 

[ceecee]

This quote from the article is important:



This kind of stuff pisses me off. SO much. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is toxic, but people won't get rid of them because they are "productive". Sure, they're productive, but they are crappy ass to work with. That matters a ton.

If someone is shitty and toxic, it should be more than enough grounds to get rid of someone.

Yes but there are a lot of toxic workers in management. They are productive. They get promoted.

 

[Tilt]

Yes but there are a lot of toxic workers in management. They are productive. They get promoted.

They can also provide some intangible value to the higher ups which is not clearly seen by others. I have learned that each level has its own set of rules and expectations

This quote from the article is important:



This kind of stuff pisses me off. SO much. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is toxic, but people won't get rid of them because they are "productive". Sure, they're productive, but they are crappy ass to work with. That matters a ton.

If someone is shitty and toxic, it should be more than enough grounds to get rid of someone.

This sounds so stereotypically 3 but I keep finding this to be true: connections, money, and/or how well you present to the "right" people.

Other times, it's PITA to try to get people out of companies if there are unions, specific rules and regulations.

It can just be a bit time-consuming to find a equally competent worker because that "overconfidence" can sometimes translate itself to passion and effort moreso than the more laid-back workers.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This quote from the article is important:



This kind of stuff pisses me off. SO much. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is toxic, but people won't get rid of them because they are "productive". Sure, they're productive, but they are crappy ass to work with. That matters a ton.

If someone is shitty and toxic, it should be more than enough grounds to get rid of someone.

I was brought in to manage a troubled restaurant by the owner. When I got there, I saw two employees that I deemed "bad apples". They had the highest sales usually. They also had the most complaints AND compliments from customers, also.

They would often point out others weaknesses instead of teach or build and because they wanted and got the best shifts because they deserved them (higher sales) their presence was overbearing. Their behavior was rewarded on an unbalanced scale.

I wanted these two people out of there. As I saw them as toxic and not team players. They didn't care about the restaurant. Their co-workers. Only themselves. When I told the owner, her first response was, "but x and y have the highest sales!" Didn't matter they had high numbers of complaints.

I quit that restaurant 10 months in because I wasn't allowed to get them out. She wanted me to fix a problem without fixing the problem. Sometimes hands are tied.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Often productive workers step off the backs of others to reach the top. The ones that are really valuable are ones that go under the radar but are always consistent with their level of work. It may not ever be great, like that toxic worker, but it is solid and it is never terrible. I liked those employees.

 

[á´…eparted]

This sounds so stereotypically 3 but I keep finding this to be true: connections, money, and/or how well you present to the "right" people.

Other times, it's PITA to try to get people out of companies if there are unions, specific rules and regulations.

It can just be a bit time-consuming to find a equally competent worker because that "overconfidence" can sometimes translate itself to passion and effort moreso than the more laid-back workers.

Of course it's true; doesn't make it right.

I've also found that if you make yourself an example of being a good worker (assuming you have someone above you in your court), it works even better than if you took the toxic path.

 

[Tilt]

Of course it's true; doesn't make it right.

I've also found that if you make yourself an example of being a good worker (assuming you have someone above you in your court), it works even better than if you took the toxic path.

Yeah, that would be ideal. However, I wonder how many of these toxic workers actually see themselves as "toxic" in order to change to a "good worker". Overconfidence tends to lend itself to hyping up one's positive traits and downplaying the negative ones.

 

[Bilateral Entry]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] Not everyone is strongly driven by 'right' and 'wrong'. And ideas of right and wrong are subjective.

E.g. What's more of a priority, shareholder value, or happy workers? Sometimes the two priorities align (happy workers = more productivity and less turnover) but sometimes the overall profit maximizing decision will make workers less happy.

And if it's a big company, a hiring manager may be a low level supervisor or a middle manager. A hiring manager might be focused more on making their own lives easier, as opposed to maximizing overall value to the company. Say the manager has a choice between hiring an average worker who's going to stay in that department for a really long time, or a superstar who's going to be promoted very fast and change departments, the manager may choose the average worker to minimize training costs of their own department. Is it 'right' for a manager to put their own numbers ahead of that of the overall company? Probably not. But if their own numbers are bad, it's their ass on the line. Is the manager to blame, or the performance measurements that are used to blame?

So sure, in isolation, if someone's acting like a dickhead, it would be 'right' to fire them because... well... because you do not approve of that behavior. But that decision may or may not align with the best BUSINESS decision. What if the dickhead is my wife's brother? I gotta catch flack from my wife, and endure strained family relations for firing her brother? Is that right? What if the dickhead comes from a wealthy family, who gives the company tons of business? I'm supposed to lose millions in revenue standing up for some 'principle' that someone with a rotten attitude should be fired?

My point is, right and wrong is not so black and white. Not everyone will (nor should they be expected to) move heaven and earth and eat shit to stand up for a principle. That might be the case when it comes to something like civil rights or human rights, but some dickhead in the work place? Come oooonn...

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=16388]Bilateral Entry[/MENTION]

The interesting thing about this study was that the toxic worker cost the company more than they brought in but the workplaces were only looking at one or two criteria to determine value.

I'm sure it's not always like that, which is what you're describing but when a toxic worker comes in, they found turnover increases. So, does this account for slowly deteriorating revenues over time as these superstar 1% workers are part of the turnover? If that is the case it wouldn't be good for the business by a monetary standard. Interesting thought.

 

[Bilateral Entry]

Man, I mean... bae... that kinda thing is sooooo hard to quantify with numbers. What constitutes a toxic worker, how they came up with the numbers, how they measure how much value a worker brings in.... super hard to quantify. In theory, it's easy to swallow that perhaps the average toxic worker causes more problems than the value they bring. But how is this actionable on a case-by-case basis? Because some toxic workers will bring in more value than the problems they bring, and it's up to the individual manager to assess the situation case-by-case. I believe the recommendation is just for managers to be aware of the hidden cost of having a toxic worker on board.

Really, I was just ragging on Hard for taking a principle approach, as opposed to a business approach.

[MENTION=16388]Bilateral Entry[/MENTION]

The interesting thing about this study was that the toxic worker cost the company more than they brought in but the workplaces were only looking at one or two criteria to determine value.

I'm sure it's not always like that, which is what you're describing but when a toxic worker comes in, they found turnover increases. So, does this account for slowly deteriorating revenues over time as these superstar 1% workers are part of the turnover? If that is the case it wouldn't be good for the business by a monetary standard. Interesting thought.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure I've known toxic workers so much as workers who are totally unaware of the consequences of their actions for themselves and others and cant be brought to an awareness of that by anyone else, certainly not anyone they dont trust and they arent liable to trust either management or their colleagues.

Then it goes hand in hand with projecting, so someone flags an issue with them, even so little as asking what they are doing that moment, and it becomes "what about them?", "what about everyone else?" or worse still they decide that its actually not a comment on or to them but intended for everyone else and they obviously are only being asked to convey it. I mean I've seen people who've had something pretty specific to themselves addressed with them and they immediately put it on the record for everyone else's attention for everyone else to action immediately.

Some of these individuals are amazing at seeking to avoid any sort of culpability or accountability, I've known people to plead stress induced dyslexia when I suspect they merely refuse to write anything or create any sort of lasting record of their thinking or decisions which would be difficult to deny at a later date. Entire business and management cultures can become easily infected with this sort of thing, it goes aways beyond the idea of making rapid but easily reversible decisions which I know is a thing in some business and management seminars.

So far as toxic individuals go I've not really known any, only one or two out and out psychopaths which go beyond being toxic to being criminal. Its mad how those individuals survive in workplaces, or merely remain at liberty and at large without being apprehended for something. Although the criminologists do say that the prisons and criminal justice system is just occupied with dealing with the stupid and prototypical offenders as opposed to hardened types.

 

[C.J.Woolf]

This kind of stuff pisses me off. SO much. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is toxic, but people won't get rid of them because they are "productive". Sure, they're productive, but they are crappy ass to work with. That matters a ton.

If someone is shitty and toxic, it should be more than enough grounds to get rid of someone.

Managers of toxic but productive workers are in a bind. They have to make a good case to fire them; they have to prove to higher management that their obvious positive impact of the bottom line is exceeded by their not-so-obvious negative impact. If they can fire them, then they will have to find somebody to take up the slack. Unfortunately, among the first people driven away by toxic workers are productive workers who won't put up with their bullshit. So I wouldn't expect those who remain to be very productive.

 

[Bush]

So we can compare that to the toxic worker. In one area they have good measures - these companies I studied - is the cost of turnover. And so a toxic worker, as it turns out, as they enter a team, the turnover goes up, and so we can measure, what is that increased cost? And so that increased cost of turnover tends to be about $12,000 for a toxic worker.

Increased cost of turnover -- this is key.

Upper management understands costs of new hires and training. So toxic workers are a net negative on the bottom line.

 

[á´…eparted]

Managers of toxic but productive workers are in a bind. They have to make a good case to fire them; they have to prove to higher management that their obvious positive impact of the bottom line is exceeded by their not-so-obvious negative impact. If they can fire them, then they will have to find somebody to take up the slack. Unfortunately, among the first people driven away by toxic workers are productive workers who won't put up with their bullshit. So I wouldn't expect those who remain to be very productive.

My point is you shouldn't need to make an objective case to fire someone who is qualatatively shitty. If multiple complain that an individual is creating a toxic environment for reasons x y and z, that should be enough. I'm happy to say my work environment is mostly like this. The only road block is tenure; basically nothing punches through that. I understand tenure's purpose though. It's a double edged sword.

Increased cost of turnover -- this is key.

Upper management understands costs of new hires and training. So toxic workers are a net negative on the bottom line.

There you go. Something objective to convince them. What's amazing is how often a blind eye is turned to this sort of thing. It also explains why work places where workers are seen as "replaceable" often harbor so many shitty people.

 

[Bush]

My point is you shouldn't need to make an objective case to fire someone who is qualatatively shitty. If multiple complain that an individual is creating a toxic environment for reasons x y and z, that should be enough. I'm happy to say my work environment is mostly like this. The only road block is tenure; basically nothing punches through that. I understand tenure's purpose though. It's a double edged sword.

Hell, if I were an upper manager on a mid-to-large team, I'd take the number of complaints filed as a solid quantitative-ish metric as well.

Not that this is the specific case here -- but I mean, where one couldn't take "We don't like this guy because he's annoying" as a case to fire someone, they could probably take "Look at all of these complaints. Just look at 'em. Here, read through them and see what sort of human garbage the team thinks this guy is."

It also explains why work places where workers are seen as "replaceable" often harbor so many shitty people.

Pretty much. People get treated like commodities? They become commodities. They wind up seeing themselves as commodities. Can you motivate a tape dispenser to put in 110%?

A close friend of mine worked oncology. At one point, the practice was collapsing and people were leaving in droves. "Welp, it's just that oncology has a high turnover rate," the managers would say.

 

[prplchknz]

Hell, if I were an upper manager on a mid-to-large team, I'd take the number of complaints filed as a solid quantitative-ish metric as well.

Not that this is the specific case here -- but I mean, where one couldn't take "We don't like this guy because he's annoying" as a case to fire someone, they could probably take "Look at all of these complaints. Just look at 'em. Here, read through them and see what sort of human garbage the team thinks this guy is."
Pretty much. People get treated like commodities? They become commodities. They wind up seeing themselves as commodities. Can you motivate a tape dispenser to put in 110%?

A close friend of mine worked oncology. At one point, the practice was collapsing and people were leaving in droves. "Welp, it's just that oncology has a high turnover rate," the managers would say.

if you're an engineer probably can figure out how to get the tape dispenser to perform at 110%

 

[Poki]

if you're an engineer probably can figure out how to get the tape dispenser to perform at 110%

You create a bunch that defines what 100% means. Then create one that does 10% more. If you move them all over it becomes that standard and is back to 100%

 

[Bush]

if you're an engineer probably can figure out how to get the tape dispenser to perform at 110%

I very well could. I'd slap a servo on that sucker, or use narrower tape, or.. or..

But that's me forcing the tape dispenser anyway

 

[C.J.Woolf]

A close friend of mine worked oncology. At one point, the practice was collapsing and people were leaving in droves. "Welp, it's just that oncology has a high turnover rate," the managers would say.

There is a confounding factor there. Losing a high percentage of your patients causes burnout. Of course, that means managers need to be more conscious of other causes of turnover, not less.