[ljm]

This is straight bulllshit. This is the first source:

> a toxic worker is defined as a worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.

By that definition, you become toxic when you introduce a bug. You become toxic when you make a mistake.

[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

It’s not bad as far as operational definitions go. Operational definitions are intended to be refined over time and to be used as a starting point, not necessarily an ending point. Qualifying the types of behaviors might have been too restrictive of a definition for their study.

For example, if it read “engages in unethical behavior that is harmful”, you then need an operational definition of either ethical or unethical behaviors. It’d be an understatement to call that a difficult thing to define.

Maybe there’s some way they could have incorporated intentionality into the operational definition, but I suspect that it would introduce some gaps as a model of reality.

I’d argue that an intentional pattern of creating bugs would be the toxic thing whereas a pattern of accidentally creating bugs would be incompetence. Isolated or routine cases of bugs being introduced would be the normal course of software implementation.

Business processes and development techniques would be the organizational defense against the introduction of bugs and would probably be the source of the dividing line between when a worker toxically creates bugs and when not toxic.