It’s Better to Avoid a Toxic Employee than Hire a Superstar

Superstar employees have long captured the attention of organizations. They are heavily recruited, generously rewarded, and often credited with delivering disproportionate value. Research has suggested that top performers can be several times more productive than average workers and may account for a large share of organizational profits.

However, a recent Harvard Business School working paper argues that another group has an even greater impact on organizational outcomes: toxic workers. According to the study’s authors, Dylan Minor and Michael Housman, avoiding these employees can save firms significantly more money than hiring and retaining superstar talent.

The researchers analyzed data from 58,542 hourly employees across 11 global companies, combining three sources of information: pre-hire job assessment data, detailed attrition records, and daily performance metrics. Roughly 1 in 20 workers in the sample was eventually terminated for toxic behavior, including serious violations such as sexual harassment, workplace violence, or fraud.

When the authors compared outcomes, the contrast was stark. Avoiding a toxic worker saved firms an estimated $12,500 in induced turnover costs, while even a top 1% superstar employee contributed only about $5,300 in added value. The gap grows even wider when accounting for potential litigation, regulatory fines, customer dissatisfaction, and long-term morale damage.

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

The study also identified traits that predict toxic behavior. Employees who were overconfident, self-centered, highly productive, and who claimed that rules should always be followed were more likely to be terminated for misconduct. Exposure mattered as well: workers surrounded by toxic colleagues were 46 percent more likely to later exhibit similar behavior.

Notably, toxic workers often appeared productive on the surface, completing tasks more quickly than their peers. This may explain why managers tolerate them longer than they should. Nonetheless, the authors found little evidence that these employees produced higher-quality work or contributed positively over the long term.

The implication for managers is that hiring and evaluation should extend beyond productivity alone. In addition to performance, organizations must consider a third dimension: corporate citizenship. Employees who undermine colleagues, culture, or trust can erode value faster than even the best performers can create it.

The broader lesson echoes a principle well known in other disciplines: negative forces often outweigh positive ones. By prioritizing the avoidance of toxic hires, firms may achieve stronger, more sustainable performance than by focusing exclusively on finding superstars.