On 11/29/19 3:25 PM, coderman wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 11:18 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
> ...
>> yeah, I asked for 'sources' not controlled by the pentagon(mierdagon) and got reddit. Hilarious.
>
> quick, what they don't want you to see! https://www.removeddit.com/r/all
>
> (i must give Punk-Stasi 2.0 credit where due; on brand as never satisfied...)
>
>
> best regards,

>This is rich. From a 'talent management' site > "TIL a Harvard study
found that hiring one highly productive but toxic worker does more
damage to a company’s bottom line than employing several less productive
but more cooperative workers.Unoriginal Repost(tlnt.com)"
https://www.tlnt.com/toxic-workers-are-more-productive-but-the-price-is-high/

Is there a definition of "toxic worker"? And is it possible to quantify how "toxic" a given worker is?

I found this: https://www.tlnt.com/toxic-workers-are-more-productive-but-the-price-is-high/ From that:

"A 2015 study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor published by the Harvard Business School defines a “toxic” employee as: “A worker that engages in behavior that is harmful to an organization, including either its property or people.” "

How much "toxic"? How "harmful"? Do you/they mean "burn down the entire factory" harmful? Or "smoke once in the bathroom" harmful?

This sounds like an argument about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

http://www.searchquotes.com/search/How_Many_Fairies_Can_Dance_On_The_Head_Of_A_Pin/

Jim Bell

>It's more important to 'get along' than excel at the job. This describes
everything wrong with US industry today and is one of the reasons why
it's literally collapsing, but it's good for the billionaires.

Rr