[beeworker]

What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.

[AnimalMuppet]

I've been around long enough to see what a toxic superstar can do. It's really easy to look at the "superstar" and see it as an asset, but forget how much liability to associate with the toxic - and therefore to conclude "net win" when it isn't.

Not saying it could never happen, but it tends to leave your company a prisoner. You can't lose the superstar, but you can't attract other top-level talent because the superstar is toxic, which leaves you even more dependent on the superstar...

[mikeash]

You implied that if he's really good at his job then he must necessarily be a very valuable asset. My point is that he could easily be a liability even if he's excellent at his job, and not because of "outrage culture."