Why Toxic Employees Keep Their Jobs

One person can hit every target and still poison the room and the worst part is that keeping them can look “logical” on a spreadsheet. We dig into the real reasons toxic employees stay employed, from the at-will employment myth to the HR documentation gap that turns obvious bad behavior into a legal gray area. If you have ever stared at a teammate like “Why is Dave still here?”, you are not alone and your manager is probably navigating risks you cannot see.

We walk through three invisible handcuffs that slow everything down: fear of wrongful termination claims, the subjectivity trap (toxic is not a policy violation), and the confidentiality iceberg that hides discipline and coaching from the rest of the team. Then we hit the high performer dilemma head-on. Great results do not cancel out harmful behavior, and tolerating a “rainmaker” can quietly train your culture to accept disrespect as the price of performance.

You will get tactical tools you can use immediately: a simple documentation rule (if you cannot observe it, measure it, or quote it, do not write it), a clear formula that makes behavior defensible (date and time, specific behavior, business impact, witnesses), and a word-for-word script for the hardest conversation in management. We also cover how employees can help without becoming the next problem and why protecting your own mental health and career trajectory matters if leadership will not act.

If you found this helpful, subscribe, share it with a manager or coworker, and leave a five-star rating and a comment so more people can find the show.

Transcript

Legal Disclaimer And Ground Rules

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only, and should not be considered formal legal advice. Please note that the policies of your company and laws in your country may vary. Also, the views expressed by the host or his guests do not necessarily reflect the views of any other company or entity.

The Three Invisible HR Handcuffs

The High Performer Hostage Dilemma

Documenting Toxicity Into Hard Facts

The Results Versus Behavior Script

Action Steps And Protecting Yourself

Comments Ratings And Where To Connect

SPEAKER_01 0:27

Welcome to the My Friend and HR Podcast, part of the My Friend and HR family where we are rolling back the corporate gloss off of HR and putting a human back into human resources. Our job here is to provide you with impactful information that can make your career and your workplace just a little bit better. In this episode, I'm going to show you the invisible handcuffs that keep toxic employees employed, the legal and HR traps that your boss is navigating that you will never see. But if you're a manager and you're listening to this, I have a warning for you. In this episode, we're going to do the math on exactly what Dave is costing you. And I'm gonna give you the exact script word for word to have the hardest conversation in management, telling a high performer that they might get fired because of their bad attitude. Because here's what I see constantly managers trading their team's long-term culture for one person's short-term results. And employees, you're over there burning out for someone who should have been gone months ago. So let's break down why this happens, what's it costing, and how to actually fix it. We all know Dave. Dave is that weak link in your team's chain. He's the one that always rolls his eyes in meetings. He sighs loudly when asked to do his freaking job. He undermines your ideas in front of clients. And you, the high performer, you're actually performing the work of two people just to cover for him. And then you turn around and look at your manager and you scream internally, What the hell? Are you blind? Why is he still here? Why don't you just fire him? But here's the hard truth no one tells you. Your manager probably hates it as much as you do, but they aren't firing Dave because they're terrified. First, I'm gonna talk to the employees who are frustrated, exhausted, and wondering why management seems to be doing nothing about the Dave on your team. Why does it take months, sometimes years to get rid of an obviously toxic employee? It isn't because your boss is necessarily weak or doesn't care. Let me break down the three invisible handcuffs that slow everything down. Number one, the at-will myth. You hear this a lot. You hear at-will employment and think, great, they can fire anyone for any reason. This is so wrong. Here's what HR hears. They can sue us for any reason. If your boss fires Dave today because he has a bad attitude, Dave can turn around and say, no, you fire me because I'm over 40, or because of his race, or his religion, or because he filed a workers' comp claim six months ago. Without documentation proving the termination was for legitimate performance or conduct reasons, it becomes a he said, she said lawsuit. Just because a state is at will doesn't provide the company with an ironclad defense against a wrongful termination lawsuit. And here's what most employees don't realize: it costs a company an average of$50,000 just to defend against such a wrongful termination claim. Even if they win. Even if Dave has no case whatsoever, the legal fees, the HR time, the management distraction, it all adds up. So your manager isn't just thinking, should I fire Dave? They're thinking, can I defend this in a decision in court if Dave's lawyer asks me to prove it? That's why this process takes time. Issue number two is the subjectivity trap or the translation problem. This is where most managers fail. You see toxic. HRC's personality conflict. Being a jerk is not illegal. Being annoying isn't a policy violation. Having a bad attitude isn't grounds for terminations in the eyes of the law. To fire Dave, your manager has to translate he's mean into he violated code of conduct section 4.2 respectful workplace policy. They have to turn your complaint that Dave is toxic into something legally defensible. So let me show you a little bit about what I mean. What an employee typically reports is something like this Dave has a bad attitude and he's difficult to work with. But here's what HR needs to see. On Tuesday, October 15th at 2 p.m. during a client strategy meeting, Dave interrupted Sarah three times while she was presenting the Q3 forecast. When Sarah asked him to hold his questions until the end, Dave rolled his eyes, crossed his arms, and said, This is a total waste of time. The client ended the meeting 20 minutes early and emailed later and asked if there was some kind of internal issues they should be concerned about. See the difference? One is subjective opinion, the other is documented behavior with business impact. Most managers don't know how to do this translation. They write down Dave has a bad attitude. That is next to useless in court. They need to write, Dave's behavior in the October 15th meeting caused a 20-minute loss of client time and damage to client relationship. This takes time to capture, unfortunately. This takes multiple incidents to establish a pattern or trend. That takes coaching conversations, hidden warning, former improvement plans. Yeah, you know those pips? Yeah, it takes those two. And all of that is happening behind closed doors. These are the things that employees do not see, whether it's happening or not. Handcuff number three is what I call the iceberg illusion. And this is a thing that most employees don't necessarily realize. Silence does not mean inaction. Just because you don't see Dave getting yelled at, or you don't see a written warning sitting on his desk, doesn't mean it's not happening. HR processes are strictly confidential, or at least they should be. Your manager cannot legally tell you, hey guys, good news, Dave is on the final written warning, and if he screws up one more time, he's gone. They can't say that. It's a violation of Dave's privacy. It opens the company up for defamation of character lawsuits if they discuss its disciplinary status with other employees. So while you're sitting there thinking, management just doesn't care, your boss might be in their 10th meeting with legal trying to get approval to pull the trigger. They might be documenting every single incident. They might be working with HR to build an airtight case. They might be waiting for one more documented violation to complete the progressive discipline process. Often, the silence isn't permission, it's just due process. And look, I know it's frustrating. I know you want to see immediate action. But the alternative, firing Dave without proper documentation, is how companies lose six-figure lawsuits. Now, managers, I see you. I know exactly why you're hesitating to deal with Dave. And it's not just illegal or HR paperwork. Sometimes it's because Dave is your rainmaker. And this goes into what I call the high performer dilemma. And this is one of the hardest scenarios in business for managers to deal with. The employee who is toxic but has the best results. Maybe they're your top sales rep bringing in about 40% of the department's revenue. Maybe they're the only engineer who understands the legacy code that runs this entire freaking project. Maybe they're the lead surgeon with the best patient outcomes in the hospital. They hit every target, they exceed every KPI. Their performance reviews show nothing but green check marks. But they leave bodies in their wake. They make other employees cry in the bathroom, they undermine the team's decisions, they create a culture of fear where nobody wants to speak up in meetings because they will eviscerate them. And Mr. or Mrs. Manager, you think, I can't fire him, the department numbers will crash, the board of directors will kill me, and I will lose my own job. So you make what you think is a pragmatic business decision. You tolerate the behavior because you think you can't afford to lose the results. And that is what I call a false choice. I need to ask you a serious question, manager. When in the world did we decide that we have to choose between great results or great behavior? Since when is that a trade-off? When he yells at people, but he closes the deals, well, she's abrasive, but she's the best coder we have. Well, he makes nurses quit, but his surgical outcomes are the top five in the country. No, one of your primary obligations as a manager is to communicate and reinforce what good looks like. And good is not just what you get done, it's how you get it done. And if you are allowing someone to terrorize the team just because they hit their quota, then you aren't managing, you're being held hostage. You've created a culture where the message is clear. As long as you produce, you can treat people however the hell you want. And guess what happens? Your other high performers, the ones who are both talented and decent human beings, they see this. They learn that culture doesn't actually matter, that values are just words on a website. And you know what they start doing? They start looking for the freaking exit. So let's do the math about what you're ignoring. Let's calculate what I call the cost of Dave. You keep Dave because he brings in$200,000 in sales annually. He's 40% of your team's revenue. Losing him feels catastrophic from a numerical perspective. But here's what you're not calculating. Because of Dave, your number two and number three top performers are burned out. They're picking up the slack from the team members Dave is demoralized. They're doing the emotional labor managing around his outbursts. They're spending mental energy anticipating his reactions instead of focusing on their work. If one of them quits, here's what it costs you. Maybe it's a recruiting fee of about$30,000, assuming 20% of their$150,000 salary. Lost productivity during vacancy could be another$60,000 if it lasts more than six months. Training costs for the replacement, let's just throw in$20,000 for that. And then the institutional knowledge loss. Now that is immeasurable. But what we can count has cost you over$110,000. You just wiped out more than half of Dave's annual contribution in one resignation. But it gets worse. Because Dave doesn't just cause one person to quit, he causes multiple team members to quit because toxic employees have a multiplier effect. There's research from Harvard Business School that found that a toxic employee increases turnover rate of the entire team by nearly 54%. One toxic employee can cost you three to four good employees over time. So that$200,000 Rainmaker is actually costing you$300,000 in turnover, lost productivity, and damaged team morale. The equation is simple. One toxic employee is less than three top performers. You're trading your team's long-term culture and sustainability for one person short-term results. And eventually, not if, but when, Dave will cost you more than he brings in. Alright, let's get tactical. Because whether you're a manager trying to build a case or an employee trying to help your manager see the problem, you need to know how to translate toxic behavior into fireable facts. This is what I teach manager in some of my HR trainings, and I'm gonna give it to you right now. The rule is simple. If you can't observe it, measure it, or quote it, don't document it. So here's some examples of things that just don't work when you try to document. Dave is toxic, or Dave has a bad attitude, or Dave is difficult to work with, or maybe even Dave brings down team morale. Those are feelings. They can be subjective, they won't hold up under legal scrutiny. Here's some examples that actually work. What specifically did Dave do or say? What was the measurable result of that behavior? When did it happen and who saw it? So let's take it a step further. Let me show you how to translate some toxic behaviors into documented facts. So let's say Dave is disrespectful. What doesn't help is just saying Dave was rude in a team meeting. Going back to the example we used earlier, an example of strong documentation would be during the October 15th team meeting at 10 a.m. when Sarah presented the Q3 marketing strategy, Dave interrupted her three times within the first five minutes. When Sarah asked him to hold the questions until the end, Dave said, this is a waste of everybody's time, then crossed his arms and turned his chair away from the screen. Sarah ended her presentation early. Two team members, Jennifer and Marcus, approached me after the meeting to express concerns about the interaction. See the difference? Here's another example. Dave undermines leadership. An example of weak documentation for this would be Dave doesn't support management decisions. A stronger documentation statement would be: On October 20th, I announced the new project timeline in our all-hands meeting. Within 30 minutes, Dave sent a message to the team and Slack channel stating, leadership clearly doesn't understand how this actually works. This timeline is impossible. This message was seen by all 12 team members. I received three separate messages from team members asking if the timeline was realistic or if management was setting them up to fail. Example number three, Dave causes people to quit. An example of weak documentation would be just saying, Dave's behavior is making people leave. Strong documentation looks like this. In exit interviews conducted over the past six months, three departing employees, Jennifer Smith, Marcus Johnson, and Lisa Chen, specifically cited Dave's behavior as a contributing factor to their decision to resign. Jennifer stated, I can't work in an environment where I'm constantly belittled. Marcus stated on his exit interview that Dave's outbursts make it impossible to have productive meetings. And Lisa stated, I've been looking for other opportunities because the team culture has become toxic. So here's the formula you need to use every single time, managers. Date and time plus specific behavior plus business impact plus witnesses. Get that? So now that I talked about documenting it, at some point you actually have to have a conversation with Dave. So how do you actually deliver this? How do you tell a high performer that they might get fired because of their attitude? Most managers avoid this conversation for years because they're nervous and they don't know the words. So I am going to give you the exact script for what I call the results versus behavior meeting. Step one, the validation. And this is kind of the initial setup. Dave, I want to talk to you about your performance. When we look at the what, your sales numbers, your project completion rate, your technical output, you are an A plus player. Outstanding. You exceed your targets consistently and your work quality is excellent. Now, why do you start off like this and why does this work? Because you're establishing credibility. You're showing him that this is not about the numbers. You are acknowledging their strengths so they can't dismiss the feedback as my boss doesn't appreciate me. Step two, and this is the hard pivot, or aka the freaking truth. However, when we look at the how, how you interact with the team, how you handle feedback, how you communicate in meetings, you're currently performing at a C minus level. And that's being a little bit generous. Here's what I mean specifically. In the past three months, I've documented five separate incidents where your behaviors created problems. And then you follow the formula that I mentioned earlier. Date and time plus specific behavior plus business impact. In the past three months, I've documented five separate incidents where your behaviors created problems. And what you then do as the manager, you go with incident one with the date and impact, incident two with the date and impact, incident three with the date and impact. Now, I want to mention something. Earlier when I said documentation, I said add the witnesses. You do not bring up the witnesses in your conversation with Dave. That is for HR only. Now, you've talked about the incidents with the date and the impact, and here's why this matters. At this company, 50% of your job is the result, and 50% is the behavior. Both matter equally in your performance evaluation. You literally cannot succeed here by only doing half your job. Now, managers, why does this work? You're not saying you have a bad attitude. You're citing specific documented incidents. You're showing that this is a pattern, not a one-time thing. You're establishing that behavior is equally weighted with the results. Now, you move on to step three with your conversation with Dave and you go into the business impact. Now, Dave, let me be very direct about the business impact of this behavior. We've had two team members resign in the past four months. In both exit interviews, they specifically mentioned difficulty working with you as a contributing factor. We nearly lost the Johnson account because of the October 22nd call where you raised your voice with the client. Team productivity in meetings has dropped because people are hesitant to share ideas when you are in the room. Your results are excellent, but your behavior is costing us talent, client, and team effectiveness. And that is unsustainable. Now, managers, why does this work? It's because you're showing that this isn't just feelings. There are measurable business consequences. Resignations cost money, lost clients cost money, reduced productivity costs money. And now we move on to step four, the ultimatum. And this is where you provide clarity. So, Dave, here's where we are. My goal is to keep you here because your talent is undeniable and your contributions are valuable. But I cannot and I will not accept the friction you're creating with the team. Going forward, I need your behavior to match your performance numbers. Specifically, I need to see no raised voices or aggressive language in meetings, no undermining team members' ideas in front of clients or in public channels, and active participation and respectful team collaboration. So I'm gonna put this in writing, Dave, and we're gonna meet again in 30 days to review progress. If I see improvement, then we'll move forward together. But if I continue to see these behaviors, we'll be having a very different conversation about your future here. Can you commit to these changes? Okay, so why would this work with Dave? It's because with this script, you are giving him clear expectations. You're establishing a timeline. You're documenting this conversation, you're offering a path forward, but you're also making it clear that the path backward leads to termination. Step five, the close. And this is where you hold Dave accountable. Dave, I want you to succeed here. I am invested in your success, but I need you to be invested in the team's success, not just your own numbers. Do you have any questions about what I've outlined today? And here you want to listen to their response. Take notes. Document the conversation immediately after. So let's wrap this all up with immediate action and step for both employees and managers in terms of how to deal with your Dave. For managers, you gotta start the clock. Stop waiting for the perfect time. The perfect time was yesterday. Use the fact not feeling method we just covered. Date, time, specific behavior, business impact, and witnesses. Create a running document. Every incident needs to get logged. Not to be vindictive, to be prepared. Action two, you gotta have the conversation. Use the script I just gave you. Schedule it this week. Don't delay on this. The longer you wait, the more normalized the toxic behavior becomes, and the harder it gets to actually address. Action three, you know, partner with HR. Go to your HR business partner today and say, I have a high performer whose behavior is impacting the bottom line through team turnover and client relationships. And I need help expediting the performance management process. Use those exact words, impacting the bottom line. That always gets HR and legal's attention. And in action four, protect your high performers. While you're managing Dave, you need to be actively retaining your good people, checking with them individually, acknowledge what they're dealing with, let them know within legal boundaries that you're addressing the problem. Now, you cannot say that Dave is on a pip, but you can say, I'm aware of the team dynamics and I'm working on it. I value you and I don't want to lose you. You'd be surprised how just that bit of verbal recognition would actually help your employees make it through these difficult times. Now, for employees, you can actually help the situation by actually providing some ammunition. If you want to help your manager speed this up, stop venting and start documenting. Action one, stop the emotional emails. Quit spreading the toxicity by sending emails by saying Dave is annoying and Dave is toxic and I can't work with Dave anymore. Those do not help your manager build a case. Action two, send factual business impact emails. Instead, send something like this Hey manager, I wanted to flag that I'm currently blocked on the Q3 report because I'm still waiting on Dave's data analysis, which was due last Tuesday, per the project timeline. This is the third consecutive deadline Dave has missed on this project, which is now putting our client delivery at risk. The report is now due to the client in three days, and I don't have time to complete my portion if I don't receive Dave's input by the end of the day tomorrow. Please advise on how to proceed. See what you did there? You gave your manager specific incidents with dates, a pattern of behavior, business impact, and a clear problem that requires managerial intervention. That's documentation your manager can use. Action three, save everything. If Dave sends you hostile emails, screenshot them. If Dave undermines you in Slack or Teams, save the thread. If Dave has an outburst in a meeting, send a follow-up email to your manager documenting what happened. Create a paper trail. Make the business impact undeniable. The more business facts you give your manager, faster HR and Legal will approve determination. Let's be careful here. You're not supposed to be spending half of your time being an investigation agency. Because if you're not careful, you will eventually become the toxic employee that you're trying to get rid of. Make sure it's within the scope of your role. Make sure it's within the realm of your job. Do not go out of your way to try to make Dave look bad because then the manager has two toxic employees to deal with. Remember, remember, remember, be mature about this. If it's impacting you and it's creating a toxic environment for you, document those. But don't go out of your way to try to dig up dirt on Dave. Number four, know your worth. While your manager is working through the process, you need to be protecting yourself. Update your resume, make sure you know your market value, have your exit strategy ready. Because sometimes, despite your manager's best efforts, the company simply won't pull the trigger. And you need to be ready to make a decision about your own career. Remember, your mental health and career trajectory are worth more than covering for Dave indefinitely. Look, folks, firing someone is the hardest part of a job. Nobody enjoys it. I've done it so many times in my career, and I gotta tell you, it never gets easier. But protecting the culture is the most important part of the job. If you're a manager, you have to choose the discomfort of a difficult conversation or the pain of losing your best people. Choose wisely, because I promise you. Your high performers are already updating their LinkedIn profiles. They're already taking recruiter calls. They're already halfway out the door. And when they leave, they won't be citing compensation or career growth in their next exit interview. They'll be citing dates. Don't let one toxic employee destroy the team that you've built. So look, I want to hear from you in the comments. Have you worked with a high performer who was totally toxic? Did management do anything about it? Are you a manager who's dealing with this right now? Drop a comment and let me know about your experience. And on a final note, if you've been enjoying the conversation here and you find value in what we're building together, do me a favor. Throw your friend here a quick five-star rating and drop a comment. It goes a long way in helping this community continue to grow. And if you want even more My Friend and HR content, come hang out with me on YouTube where you'll find tons of video about this and other topics to help you achieve your dream of career fulfillment. You can also connect with me on Instagram at MyFriendHR, where we laugh at corporate quirks and share career gems. And of course, you can always find me on LinkedIn under Jasani Courtney. So folks, until next time, be well. Not just to others, but to yourself. And remember that your job is meant to support your life. Your life is not meant to support your job. Until next time, my friends.

SPEAKER_00 23:18

This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be considered formal legal advice. Please note that the policies of your company and laws in your country may vary. Also, the views expressed by the host or his guests do not necessarily reflect the views of any other company or entity.