# The $12,489 question you've never asked
## Hook
What if I told you that your highest performer is costing you more than your lowest?
## The insight
There's a question nobody asks in talent reviews: "What is this person costing us in people we've lost?"
Harvard researchers Michael Housman and Dylan Minor studied 58,542 workers to answer a simple question: Is it more profitable to hire a superstar or to avoid a toxic worker?
The answer should terrify every board in the country.
A top 1% superstar generates about **$5,303** in surplus value per year. Impressive.
But a toxic worker — someone with high productivity but low empathy — costs **$12,489** in induced turnover alone. That's before litigation, regulatory fines, or reputational damage.
**The ratio: Avoiding toxicity is 2.3x more valuable than finding excellence.**
Here's the trap: toxic workers are often MORE productive than average. On a standard performance dashboard, they look like your best investment. But they're a negative-carry asset — their individual gains are offset by the teammates they drive away.
Wells Fargo learned this the hard way. The pressure to perform, coupled with tolerance for unethical behaviour, created massive short-term productivity gains. The long-term cost? Billions in fines, destroyed brand, and a case study in how superstars can bankrupt you.
## The question
The next time you're in a talent review, don't ask "Who are our top performers?"
Ask: **"Who's driving our best people to quit?"**
That's the $12,489 question. And the answer might surprise you.
## Related
- [[research/the-greenhouse]] — The full human-centric framework
- [[research/greenhouse-evidence-brief]] — All the data, board-ready
- Feature: "Why the most expensive person in your organisation isn't the CEO"
## Tags
`#newsletter` `#clarity-tenet` `#growth-tenet` `#greenhouse`