Why Firms Should Eliminate Toxic Rainmakers

The Hidden Risks of Star Performers

Across all industries, “rainmakers”: high-revenue, high-profile talent, are often celebrated, protected, and, in some cases, treated as untouchable. These individuals bring in marquee clients, close deals, and help drive the top line. But when these same stars exhibit toxic behaviors such as disrespect, humiliation, discrimination, or the abuse of others, they erode the very foundations of organizational performance and value.

Many law firms tolerate such toxicity in the name of revenue generation. In doing so, they ignore or underestimate the long-term cost to talent retention, organizational culture, and even regulatory compliance.

Is it time for firms to eradicate such toxicity?

The Myth of the Portable Star

The idea that talent is innate, portable, and the ultimate driver of success traces back to McKinsey’s 1997 “War for Talent,” which encouraged aggressive recruitment and retention of so-called “A players.” This talent model is largely intact today, reinforced by media coverage and compensation bidding wars for star performers. HR teams have also been built around a primary goal of attracting and retaining key talent.

But research by Harvard Business School’s Boris Groysberg challenges this orthodoxy. In “Chasing Stars”, Groysberg showed that when high-performing equity analysts moved firms, their performance typically fell sharply and stayed lower. The same pattern held in medicine: senior consultants delivering identical procedures achieved different outcomes across different hospital settings.

The implication is clear: much of a star’s success, Groysberg estimates as much as two-thirds, is embedded in their organization’s systems, teams, networks, and culture. Daniel Muzio’s work in the legal sector echoes this finding. Muzio recently showed that importing star lawyers diminishes, rather than enhances, team performance (except in firms already heavily invested in hiring similar skilled, top talent).

This evidence has significant implications. Talent does matter, but not by as much as many people believe. If performance is heavily context-dependent, then investing in the cultural and systemic health of the firm, not individual “brilliance”, should be leadership’s top priority.

Five Dimensions of Toxic Talent Risk

If star talent is more easily replicated than currently realised, what if their behaviour is also toxic? High performers are not just revenue generators with a benign influence. They are often role models. With toxic rainmakers, this influence causes harm and has a dramatic impact across a firm. It can also be measured across at least five dimensions:

1. Talent Attraction and Retention – Toxic behavior repels candidates and accelerates turnover. A recent social media post garnered attention by explaining how a senior and “star” law firm partner’s behaviour at a hiring interview had upset applicants. Legal strategy expert Elena Folkes stated that: “Twenty years in this industry and I don’t see nearly enough has changed to weed out toxic culture and retain talent. And by talent, I largely mean brilliant females in law and legal tech.”

Some people want to work with stars. But how many don’t? And how many people leave firms and the legal sector because of toxic behaviour? The full value impact of replacing staff can amount to 2-3 times base salary, and toxic rainmakers are often plagued by high staff turnover. So, how much does this cost a business? One highly valued, senior associate on $150k could cost a firm nearly $1/2m to replace.

2. Human Risk: most firms assess people risk through the lens of attracting and retaining talent. Very few assess wider but equally material risks, so the impact of toxic behaviour is never properly evaluated. What should firms be considering?

• Workforce voice – toxic cultures are often characterised by fear. People do not raise issues or concerns if the work environment is not “psychologically safe”. Every CEO should worry if their firm stifles feedback and communication. Many organisations have failed and even collapsed as a consequence.
• Wellbeing – toxic work environments affect wellbeing, particularly mental health. Firms with suboptimal levels of well-being carry risks in work quality, productivity, and burnout. Is this being measured?
• Cooperation – toxicity breeds mistrust and lower levels of cooperation. Law Firm Maturity Index data highlights the link between trust, strategic cohesion, and collaboration. With many firms espousing core values of collaboration, teamwork, or cooperation, how does this affect performance in terms of client service and work quality?

Table 1: Law Firm Trust, Cohesion, and Cooperation (Source Law Firm Maturity Index)

3. Human Value and Discretionary Effort: Toxic talent fails to realise human potential. Toxicity undermines trust, limits professional growth, and its impact on discretionary effort and human value is significant. Table 2 below highlights the close alignment between levels of trust and human value. People don’t go the extra mile for people they don’t trust or respect. They are more likely to withdraw and cause harm.

Table 2: Law Firm Human Value and Trust By Gender (Source Law Firm Maturity Index)

4. Improvement and Innovation: Continuous improvement starts with caring for staff. Firms that differentiate themselves from their peers embed a relentless pursuit of adaptation and change. This is simply impossible where toxic behaviour exists.

5. Reputation and Regulatory: Toxic talent can get you into trouble. From bullying, harassment, to discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. No firm wants regulatory involvement or the publicity surrounding legal claims made against it.

Building Systems, Culture, and Teams

What should legal leaders be doing to address toxic talent? In short, keeping star performers is important but only if they fit with your firm’s systems and culture – one that should aim to be both high-performing and healthy.

Let’s take a footballing example. There’s a strong consensus that the superstar trio of Neymar, Kylian Mbappé, and Lionel Messi contributed to a toxic environment for PSG’s team cohesion and, ultimately, failed to deliver the one trophy the club sought most: the UEFA Champions League.

The star trio collectively created instability within PSG. Their extraordinary talent didn’t gel, and often worked against collective discipline and cooperation. Ultimately, they undermined the team’s performance. Once PSG replaced the three stars and established a team-centred ethos under Luis Enrique, the club delivered the long-coveted Champions League title. It also evolved a new playing style that few others have been able to cope with, validating the pivot to Enrique’s new approach and philosophy.

How can this example be applied elsewhere?

The Leadership Imperative: Stop Trading Culture for Revenue

Firms must stop excusing or ignoring toxic behavior because it comes packaged with high revenue numbers. Legal leaders should:

• Integrate cultural and system fit into performance evaluations for all talent, including rainmakers.
• Investigate where toxic behavior may be creating high risks by tracking and quantifying staff turnover, disengagement, and possible reputational harm.
• Operate a zero-tolerance approach to toxic behaviour and act quickly if it arises.
• Foster trust and psychological safety so that issues of toxicity are raised and addressed early.
• Shift the entire performance curve upward, not just for high performers and high potentials.
• Build systems that recognise and reward success across teams rather than concentrating efforts and investments on certain individuals.

In a knowledge economy, sustainable advantage comes from the combined capability of people working in a healthy, aligned system, not from a few high-profile stars. Firms that cling to toxic rainmakers risk their future for short-term gains.

The call to action is urgent: audit your top performers not just for revenue contribution, but for their impact on culture, trust, and team performance. Where toxicity outweighs value, dare to act decisively. The future health and competitiveness of your organization depend on it.