-horrible team player
-Unfortunately hugely effective at getting results
-plays for the spotlight, claims credit in the spotlight, does little work privately
-if in mgmt, verbally/mentally terrorizes subordinates -etc etc
It's just a truly poisonous person, who tends to be extremely performant so they can stick around in orgs, whose lack of interpersonal skills in the above realms more or less destroys teams in the long run.
From a mgmt perspective, assuming a good manager, it does.
If your team/org doesn't approach it that way, the solution is find a high performing team that does approach it that way, not become toxic yourself. 10/10 high performance, long term successful teams approach things this way (source: this study, and people who have experienced this approach luckily).
From my experience in most cases it's not getting you anywhere. You will just be taken as granted.
That's why literature on toxic workplaces tends to not define toxic workers as "achievers" but as "high performers."
Frankly, that confusion is why this study exists. Orgs have to learn to figure out what who is "achieving," and who is "toxic working and getting results." It's a really common confusion point, but is only solved by education and good leadership.
Put another way, it's 10000% possibly to be a high achiever, and do none of that type of behavior.