When it comes to workplace dynamics, the quest for productivity often leads companies to seek out so-called “rock star” employees—those who appear highly productive and capable of driving the company forward. However, a study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor published by the Harvard Business School offers a stark warning: the cost of employing a single ‘toxic worker’ can far outweigh the benefits of adding even several less productive, cooperative workers to your team.
Toxic employees are defined in the study as “A worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.” Their impact on the workplace is multifaceted and deeply detrimental. From driving up employee turnover to diminishing the productivity of colleagues, toxic workers generate significant hidden costs for their employers.
One of the critical insights from the study is the financial benefit of avoiding toxic hires. “By avoiding the hiring of a toxic employee, companies will save an average of $12,489,” the study finds, accounting for savings in potential litigation, reduced employee morale, and other factors. In contrast, the perceived value of hiring a top 1% ‘rock star’ worker can be quantified at around $5,300 in savings for a company.
The numbers are telling: the returns of avoiding a toxic worker are nearly two-to-one compared to hiring a rock star. This challenges the prevalent belief in the corporate world that a high level of productivity can compensate for the negative consequences of toxic behavior.
The Harvard study also touches on the contagious nature of toxic behavior. Dr. Housman elaborates, “Behavior is contagious… we find that when a toxic person joins a team, others are more likely to behave in a toxic fashion.” This revelation highlights the systemic risk posed by just one individual, capable of altering the behavior and attitudes of an entire team.
Management plays a crucial role in either curbing or fostering this toxicity. Without policing toxic behaviors, management can inadvertently create an environment where negative behavior seems permissible, if not rewarded.
When it comes to dealing with toxic employees, the choices are tough but clear. Candida Seasock, founder of CTS & Associates, suggests that “The toxic employee either needs to be terminated or isolated.” If termination seems too drastic, especially for high performers, a separation of the toxic employee from the rest of the workforce may be necessary to allow them to focus on their strengths while minimizing their harmful impact.
The story of a Pennsylvania metal shop underscores the real-world consequences of these decisions. After finally letting go of a highly productive, but toxic worker and his team, the company witnessed a 40% jump in the value of shipments per labor hour, signaling a significant boost in overall productivity and morale, unshackled from the toxic influence.
Relevant articles:
– TIL a Harvard study found that hiring one highly productive ‘toxic worker’ does more damage to a company’s bottom line than employing several less productive, but more cooperative, workers.
– Harvard Study Says One Toxic Worker Is Worse Than Multiple Less Productive Employees, Times Now
– Harvard Study Says One Toxic Worker Is Worse Than Multiple Less Productive Employees, Times Now
– Unveiling the Hidden Dangers Within Organizations: The Impact of Toxic Employees on Company Culture and Morale – Insights from Real HR Experiences, linkedin.com