Don't Focus on Hiring a Superstar. Just Avoid Toxic Workers

Hiring managers often fixate on finding rare, high-performing “superstar” employees who also fit the company culture. New research suggests this approach misses a far more valuable opportunity: avoiding toxic employees altogether.

A working paper from Harvard Business School analyzed data from 50,000 workers across 11 firms and found that steering clear of a toxic employee delivers twice the financial return of hiring someone in the top 1 percent of productivity.

The study argues that “bad” workers can have a stronger and more damaging effect on an organization than “good” workers have a positive one. Toxic employees create costs that ripple far beyond their own performance, including increased turnover, lower morale, customer loss, and reputational damage.

The authors define a toxic worker as someone who engages in behavior harmful to the organization or its people. At one end of the spectrum, this can mean poor fit and early termination. At the extreme, it can involve fraud, harassment, or violence—behavior that can expose firms to massive financial and legal risk.

Even routine toxic behavior carries a steep price. Based solely on the cost of replacing employees who quit because of a toxic colleague, the study estimates an average loss of $12,489 per toxic hire. By comparison, a worker in the top 1 percent of productivity generates an estimated $5,303 in value.

“Avoiding a toxic worker (or converting them to an average worker) provides more benefit than finding and retaining a superstar,” the paper concludes.

The researchers also identify traits that increase the likelihood of toxic behavior, including overconfidence, excessive self-regard, and an insistence that rules should always be followed. Ironically, toxic workers often appear highly productive, which helps explain why organizations tolerate them longer than they should.

The takeaway for leaders is clear: optimizing hiring decisions isn’t just about maximizing upside. Proactively minimizing downside—by screening for and addressing toxic behavior—can deliver greater financial and cultural returns than chasing superstar talent alone.