[jmrobertson]

"toxic worker" is a pretty textbook definition now:

-horrible team player

-Unfortunately hugely effective at getting results

-plays for the spotlight, claims credit in the spotlight, does little work privately

-if in mgmt, verbally/mentally terrorizes subordinates -etc etc

It's just a truly poisonous person, who tends to be extremely performant so they can stick around in orgs, whose lack of interpersonal skills in the above realms more or less destroys teams in the long run.

[maxxxxx]

Depending on circumstances this sounds like the description of someone who moves up the ladder. It seems there is a very fine line between this description of “toxic” and “achiever”.

[jmrobertson]

False, there is a very distinct line b/t descriptions of "toxic worker" and "achiever," assuming "achiever" is something to be emulated, is positive, and is good for the company.

That's why literature on toxic workplaces tends to not define toxic workers as "achievers" but as "high performers."

Frankly, that confusion is why this study exists. Orgs have to learn to figure out what who is "achieving," and who is "toxic working and getting results." It's a really common confusion point, but is only solved by education and good leadership.

Put another way, it's 10000% possibly to be a high achiever, and do none of that type of behavior.

[Sharlin]

Isn't that the point of the study? The system is broken if individually productive but net counterproductive people are labeled "achievers" and promoted.

[maxxxxx]

I guess I am looking at it from the employee perspective. If you want to advance it’s probably better to risk being called toxic instead of being a good team player who never gets anywhere.

[jmrobertson]

That takes some faith that being an unselfish team player will in fact get you somewhere.

From a mgmt perspective, assuming a good manager, it does.

If your team/org doesn't approach it that way, the solution is find a high performing team that does approach it that way, not become toxic yourself. 10/10 high performance, long term successful teams approach things this way (source: this study, and people who have experienced this approach luckily).

[maxxxxx]

"That takes some faith that being an unselfish team player will in fact get you somewhere."

From my experience in most cases it's not getting you anywhere. You will just be taken as granted.

[Sharlin]

There are many unethical things you might be prepared to do if your goal is "getting somewhere". Where do you draw the line? Or is it a case of not hating the player but hating the game?

[maxxxxx]

It’s certainly about hating the game it also accepting that if you want to make some money you probably have to play it.