[001sky]

This is one of those papers where the title sounds vaguely legitimate, but the underlying analysis is only tangentially related to the topic. Also, consider

"less attention has been paid to the question of how to manage those workers on the opposite side of the spectrum: those who are harmful to organizational performance."

Which is complete rubbish--GE placed a huge focus on doing performance reviews and culling the "bottom 10%". A practcice which started a trend (called forced ranking) that grew to include many of the fortune 500, in cluding perhaps famously Microsoft.

Its either a bafflingly careless omission or a cynical gesture to pretend this topic is somehow "under the radar" in business school or corporate HR departments.

[_delirium]

The GE-style ranking is looking at something else, people with poor productivity. This is looking at people who are productive in their jobs by the usual metrics you'd use, but are a liability for the company, due to a propensity to cut corners, break laws, embezzle, etc.