Sept. 19--Toxic employees aren't just a drag to have around. They can be a major drag on the bottom line.
New research led by Dylan Minor, an assistant professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, found that companies can save far more money weeding out toxic workers than investing in hiring superstar employees.
Specifically: While a superstar who performs in the top 1 percent saves a company about $5,300 annually in wages by doing more work than the average employee, replacing a toxic worker with an average one saves about $12,800 by reducing turnover.
But it isn't always easy for managers to detect toxicity. Such employees tend to be more productive than average, though the quality of their work isn't as good.
"Managers might look the other way if they are producing big numbers," Minor said.
Minor's research, based on a data set of some 58,000 workers at 11 companies, defined a toxic worker as someone who was terminated from his or her job for harming another employee or the firm through behaviors such as sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing or fraud.
The data, provided by talent management software firm Cornerstone OnDemand, which co-wrote the working paper with Minor, included employees in customer service, sales and tech support jobs.
Minor, a visiting professor at Harvard Business School, said the data allowed him to track workers from their hiring to termination, giving insight into how managers might stop toxicity in its early stages.
Overconfidence was a strong predictor of toxic behavior, as measured by employees' self-assessments of their skills compared with later tests of their actual abilities. It suggests they might also overestimate their ability to get away with bad behavior, Minor said.
Another was a disregard for the needs or concerns of others, which plays into the finding, from customer reviews, that the quality of their work tends to be sub-par.
"My take is that there's a consistent theme that these workers don't care about the people around them," Minor said. "They just want to get things done, they're not helping build the reputation or the culture or morale of the organization."
A third predictor was if they declared themselves rigid rule followers, an indication of dishonesty, as most introspective people will admit that there are times when it doesn't make sense to follow the rules, Minor said.
Avoiding hiring such people, who can seem good on paper, can save a company a ripple effect of headaches, as toxicity spreads like a contagion. A person is 47 percent more likely to be toxic if they work in a group with a high density of toxic employees, Minor found.
But before you start writing the pink slip for that sour guy in accounting, Minor cautioned that it isn't always an intrinsic or irreversible trait.
People's personalities accounted for about 70 percent of the outcomes in his data, but environment accounted for 30 percent. Specifically, if someone is put in a job that is a bad fit for them, the frustration and lack of satisfaction can lead to becoming toxic, Minor said.
Minor is starting follow-up research examining the continuum of toxic workers -- people whose bad behavior may be affecting their peers but is not illegal or bad enough to get them fired -- and how the physical layout of a workspace might cut down on their toxic influence.
"There's hope for some reform," he said.
aelejalderuiz@tribpub.com
Are you a toxic employee?
Asking these questions can help screen for toxic employees, according to a working paper co-written by Kellogg School of Management professor Dylan Minor.
1.Which statement do you agree with more?
a.The rules should always be followed.
b.Sometimes you need to break the rules to get the job done.
2.You prefer most to:
a.Ask others how they are doing.
b.Move on from the past.
3.At work, do you see yourself more as:
a.An innovator.
b.A customer advocate.
Answers that indicate someone is less likely to become toxic: 1. b; 2. a; 3. b.
