I was reading a WSJ article ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020349970457662255032523326... ) on management (a mixed bag, to be sure) from a year ago online this morning, and it got me thinking about time and energy spent on stars versus bad apples.
"...negative interactions can pack a much bigger wallop than positive ones. The reason is simple: "Bad is stronger than good," as psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues put it. The negative thoughts, feelings and performance they trigger in others are far larger and longer lasting than the positive responses generated by more constructive colleagues."
The article seems to imply that too much time is spent with star employees and not enough time in dealing with problem ones. This seems to contradict MT core advice. Though, to be fair, they do argue that the hiring process is the best and most important wall to keep out troublesome employees.
"It's crucial for leaders to screen out bad apples before they're hired—and if they do slip through the cracks, bosses must make every effort to reform or (if necessary) oust them."
I also thought the advice went a bit off the rails toward the end when suggesting that a hybrid star/destructive employee ought to be isolated or given special treatment to shield the remainder of the group -- seems like rewarding bad behavior. What are your thoughts on this issue from your experience?