No, not dividing, only subtracting. Accounting 101: Income - Expense = Profit. The article gave us two pieces of the data: Income and Profit. If something is neither income nor profit, it is an expense.
Grinding down the details into something like "profit per employee" tells only half of the story; it's like looking at only one side of a balance sheet and basing conclusions on that.
It says nothing about how expensive the employees are
I wasn't implying that any of the top 3 were actually paying 899K or 871K or 863K per head, but if that is the amount of resource expenditure it requires to make X amount of profit, it certainly does reveal a bit about how companies are managing their resources . . . a metric any investor would be interested in knowing.
Edit: P.S. Here's the data if you would like to play with the sorts: http://www.zentu.net/snaps/expsort.ods
I get what you're trying to show, but calling the employees expensive because there happen to be a lot of expenses is misleading. They are only expensive if the expenses actually related to the employees.