There is a social media cult following for Gary Vaynerchuk, chairman of his communications company VaynerX and a self-described “serial entrepreneur” who offers a distinctive brand of mentoring for those eager to succeed. Vaynerchuk burst onto the business scene 10 years ago when he cofounded Resy, winning a Crains 40 Under 40 and a Forbes 40 Under 40 award for his tech and digital marketing expertise. While I’ve enjoyed some of his online video presentations, I tend to find Vaynerchuk—known to his fans and nearly six million followers on LinkedIn as “Gary Vee”—presenting vague generalities rather than specific strategies. That’s not unusual, since one size never fits all when it comes to business consulting. But in one recent offering, I felt that Vaynerchuk gave advice that will never fit anyone.
In a mid-October LinkedIn post titled “Why You Might Need to Fire Your Most Talented Employee,” Vaynerchuck opined “Cutting toxic employees, regardless of their skills is always the right move. Speed in business comes from great internal culture. The biggest things that will make your company go fast are 1) continuity and 2) lack of politics. That’s why it doesn’t matter how ‘great’ an employee’s numbers are if he or she makes all the other employees miserable.”

It sounds like great advice, until you realize Vaynerchuk neglected to define “toxic.” If this is about someone who is verbally abusive to colleagues, then obviously no one wants to have such an insufferable person in the office—though it might make sense to work with the person to smooth out their prickly edges rather than just abruptly fire them and lose your best performer.
But what if “toxic” is a synonym for a top achiever who continually outshines a mediocre workforce? Remember, Vaynerchuk is pontificating about firing “your most talented employee” rather than “your most obnoxious, incompetent employee.” If that person is racking up super sales, bringing in new business, proposing ideas for new revenue streams, or winning professional awards for their achievements, why would you sacrifice profits and industry standing by getting rid of them?
In Vaynerchuk’s scenario, it seems the problem is not the ultra-talented employee who outpaces his or her colleagues in job performance. Instead, it appears “great internal company culture” is not set up to accommodate overachievers.
Perhaps the toxicity exists because the corporate culture embraces mediocrity, and management has improperly bestowed praise and rewards on workers whose output is quotidian or worse: When someone who genuinely deserves praise produces eyepopping results, there is an obvious imbalance. If that’s the culture, the individual who outperforms the others is the odd person out—the “toxic” one who upsets the status quo.
And if that is the environment Vaynerchuk envisions, the overachiever in question is not only disliked by colleagues who cannot compete, but it also viewed with trepidation by managers who are cognizant of an employee that could probably do their job if given a chance—and do it better. Rather than scapegoating the best employee, the serious manager must look at the bigger corporate picture to determine where improvement is truly needed and where the toxicity really stems from.
Related: Industry Outlook: Advanced Manufacturing in Westchester County