It's Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee than Hire a Superstar

They calculated that avoiding a toxic employee can save a company more than twice as much as bringing on a star performer – specifically, ...

Avoiding a toxic employee can save a company more than twice as much as bringing on a star performer.

Which Matters More: Hiring Superstars or Removing Toxic ...

Yet avoiding a toxic employee — defined as “a worker that engages in behavior harmful to an organization, including either its property or ...

Harvard Business Review article | Ron J Stefanski posted on the topic

... work. It's Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee than Hire a Superstar. hbr.org. 7 1 ...

Leaders, Stop Rewarding Toxic Rock Stars

... hiring to performance management to team interactions to goal setting and more. ... It's Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee than Hire a Superstar ...

Avoiding Toxic Employees May Be More Beneficial Than Hiring ...

the benefits of employing superstar employees. The study defined “toxic employee” to include “a worker that engages in behavior that is harmful ...

Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High | TLNT

Productivity or toxicity? The Harvard study found evidence that toxic employees are more productive than the average worker. This helps to ...

It's Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee Than Hire a Superstar - LinkedIn

A new study, “Toxic Workers,” by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor, published by Harvard University, argue talented and productive people who engage in behavior ...

Is it more important to hire the best employees or fire toxic employees?

But how important is it to avoid working with toxic employees ... toxic employee has been added to its collection. More efforts to ...

It's Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee Than Hire a Superstar

But according to a recent working paper from Harvard Business School, another group can have an even greater effect on organizations: toxic workers. These are ...

Study: Avoiding Toxic Hires is Better than Hiring Superstars

According to a paper published in November 2015 from Harvard Business School, avoiding toxic employees can save businesses $12,500 per year.

Study: Dodging a Toxic Hire Is Better for Business Than Onboarding ...

Study: Dodging a Toxic Hire Is Better for Business Than Onboarding a Superstar Companies who avoid hiring these problem employees end up ...

Would You Rather Hire a Superstar or Avoid a Toxic Employee ...

... better spent on not hiring toxic employees rather than on hiring superstars. As detailed in this article from the Harvard Business Review ...

Hire a Superstar or Dump a Toxic Worker? - Kellogg Insight

“So I think it is a conservative estimate.” Predictors of Toxicity. The researchers' work uncovered several predictors of toxic behavior. One ...

It's Better to Hire a Pleasant Employee Than a Superstar, According ...

Though hiring a superstar certainly has its benefits, hiring employees who are pleasant and steer clear of toxic behavior is more advantageous.

Don't Focus on Hiring a Superstar. Just Avoid Toxic Workers - Fortune

That's because toxic workers actually tend to be more productive than their peers. “This could explain why toxic workers are selected and are ...

Harvard Research Proves Toxic Employees Destroy Your Culture ...

... more than $5,300 in cost savings to a company. Avoiding a toxic hire, or letting one go quickly, delivers $12,500 in cost savings. Article ...

Got a toxic employee? Hiring a superstar may not be the solution

Indeed, avoiding a toxic worker may do more good than replacing an average worker with a superstar. The researchers studied 50,000 workers ...

Toxic Workers - Harvard Business School

We also explore the relationship between toxicity and productivity, and the ripple effect that a toxic worker has on her peers. Finally, we find that avoiding a ...

Are toxic workers more cost effective than superstars?

In addition to screening candidates for potential traits and risks of being toxic, hiring managers must beware of how toxicity relates to ...