Choose Your People Wisely

We have known since kindergarten that who you sit next to matters. If we are honest with ourselves, we have known it at school and at work too. The kid or adult you sat beside likely played a role in shaping your habits, your focus, and occasionally your detention record. Maybe that explains my school performance. Or maybe I was that kid.

It turns out that dynamic does not disappear with age.

Research from the Kellogg School of Management confirmed it about a decade ago with some fairly staggering findings. They found that if you sit within roughly 25 feet of a high performer, your own performance can increase by about 15 percent. Their habits, pace and standards spill over into the people around them.

That is the good news.

The sobering news is this.

If you sit within similar proximity to a toxic coworker, the negative impact can be roughly twice that magnitude. In other words, the downside created by toxic behaviour is significantly stronger than the upside created by excellence.

And separate “bad apple” research backs this up, showing that one toxic individual can reduce overall team performance by 30 to 40 percent. Yep, not good.

So proximity is not neutral. It influences standards, behaviours and ultimately outcomes.

And this is where the myth of the “toxic genius” starts to unravel.

We have all seen this movie. The technically brilliant individual who hits their numbers and delivers impressive output, but leaves a trail of damaged relationships, lowered morale and frustration behind them. The person who is tolerated because “they get results,” as if results exist in isolation from the system around them.

But the toxic genius is just one archetype there are many other corrosive styles that also impact performance. The truth is simple. You are not a high performer if you do not make other people better.

If your presence consistently reduces the performance, wellbeing or standards of the people around you, the negative impact on the business is real, even if your personal metrics look fine.

Now, before we start labelling every difficult colleague as toxic (and I get it, it is tempting…), it is worth slowing down. Not everyone who disagrees with you, challenges you or has an off day is a rodent to be exterminated. We all have moments where we are stressed, abrupt or less self-aware than we would like.

One of the studies defined toxic workers as those whose behaviour was serious enough to warrant dismissal. The other highlighted recurring patterns such as being aggressively dismissive of others’ ideas, consistently letting others carry the load while contributing very little, or repeatedly injecting doubt and pessimism into the team’s ability to succeed.

In other words, not someone who irritates you. Someone whose behaviour, over time, erodes the standards and cohesiveness of the group.

The Kellogg research then went on to talk about the importance of managing seating and proximity. And yes, you could technically move desks. But no, I am not encouraging we use this research to put toxic Johnny 26 feet away from all high performers and call it a day (although wouldn’t that be so much easier...) 

Unfortunately culture is not solved with an updated seating plan (damn..) It is a set of norms that are reinforced every day through what we tolerate and what we challenge.

We need to deal with Johnny.

So what do you actually do?

Before you rush to remove someone, there are some uncomfortable but necessary questions to sit with.

Are they coachable? Do they genuinely understand the impact their behaviour is having on others, or do they explain it away as everyone else being too sensitive? This speaks to self-awareness. Some people, particularly those that haven't had lots of feedback before can make really positive strides once they are aware and get some guidance.

The next question is whether they actually want to change?

Because unless someone truly understands their impact and wants to adjust how they show up, there will be no shift. It is very hard to help someone evolve when the behaviours causing the damage are the same behaviours that once helped them succeed. Sometimes those patterns were reinforced early in their career. Sometimes they were shaped long before work (even as a child), and thus embedded deeply in how they learned to navigate the world. At that point you are trying to unpick something which is part of their identity.

As a leader, this is one of the hardest challenges you will face. People can change. With insight, ownership and the right support, real progress is possible. But for deeply ingrained identity type behaviours it is rarely quick or easy. The danger is not in believing someone can improve.The danger is in persevering for too long when the evidence of change simply is not there. You keep backing the individual, you keep investing time and attention, and gradually it begins to occupy more of your thinking than it should. A lot of the work I do with leaders is helping them determine where that line is, because situations like this absorb a disproportionate amount of mental bandwidth and leadership energy. And that’s before we even talk about the opportunity cost. Every hour spent managing what isn’t shifting is an hour not invested in strategy, growth or the wider team. And time, once it’s gone, is gone. You have to know where that line sits.

And then the harder question. Even if they could change, has too much damage already been done? Has trust eroded to the point where recovery will be extremely difficult, no matter how much effort is applied?

That's why early feedback is crucial. Not just about the behaviour itself, but about what you start to notice around it. Often it begins with a feeling rather than a formal complaint. Or perhaps a couple of people mentioning something that doesn’t quite sit right with you.

If you’ve led for any length of time, you know that intuition. That small internal voice that something is off.

That is usually the moment to lean in, not lean back.

One of the biggest mistakes we make as leaders is hoping it will sort itself out. I have done it. Most leaders who have been around long enough have done it. You tell yourself that the person is just adjusting and its ok to ruffle some feathers. You wait for something clearer. Meanwhile the pattern strengthens and the impact spreads.

The longer behaviour and the reactions to it go unaddressed, the harder it becomes to shift. Early, honest conversations may be uncomfortable, but they are far easier than repairing a team dynamic that has already absorbed months of erosion. Not only that, but an early conversation is the best way to help that individual succeed.

Of course, sometimes you are not the leader in the situation. Sometimes the toxic influence sits above you in the form of a boss, a board member or a senior stakeholder whose behaviour steadily erodes your effectiveness and drains more of your energy than it should. That is a much harder position to navigate, and you have my sympathies if you find yourself there. You may not be able to move them or meaningfully shift their behaviour, but you can still make a decision about yourself. If the pattern is persistent and the values misalignment is clear, it is worth asking whether staying is costing you more than leaving. It is a little like living next to a bad neighbour. At first you tolerate it, then you try to reason with it or change it, but over time you realise that peace of mind has a value. In those situations, the most strategic move is often not trying harder to change them, but taking responsibility for your own next move.

The best leaders I know do not surround themselves with people who simply deliver results for them. They build teams full of people who are strong in different ways, people who stretch thinking and make the standard higher for everyone. That takes confidence, and it takes clarity about the culture you are trying to create.

And this is not just a leadership conversation.

For students choosing friends, for young professionals picking flatmates or teammates, the same principle applies. If you consistently spend time around people who complain, blame and lower expectations, over time that becomes normal. Not because you lack backbone, but because we adapt to what is around us.

Equally, spend enough time around people who take responsibility and push themselves, and you will find yourself doing the same.

Who you sit next to shapes you more than you think.

Talent influences others over time. Toxic behaviour can undo that influence much faster.

So it might be worth quietly looking around your desk, your friendship circle or your leadership team and asking yourself a couple of questions.

Not just who is physically within 25 feet of you, but who is close enough to shape your standards, your habits and your thinking. Some sit beside you. Some appear on Zoom. Some live with you. All of them count.

Who are you actually surrounding yourself with?

And if you are leading, ask who on your team is showing early signs of behaviour that could become corrosive if left alone?

You could try waving some sage around the office and hoping the energy shifts. It might make the place smell impressive for half an hour. It might also be quite fun albeit people would think that you have become totally unhinged (although if you are surrounded by too many toxic people, maybe you actually have…)

You will usually get better results by trusting your intuition early, having the conversation sooner than feels comfortable, and being clear about the standards and behaviours you are willing to protect, whether that means raising the bar with others or making a decision about your own next move.

The people around you are always setting a standard. At work or in life, the real question is whether they’re lifting you up, or slowly lowering the bar.