zlacker

>>kisna7+(OP)
In general, performance reviews are great in theory, but fall down in application. Theoretically, a review is a time to talk about the great work you did, what you learned, and what your goals are. Your manage can respond will honest feedback and a merit increase.

The reality is reviews are a part of a process, and your rank in them depends in part on the quota set by HR. Most of the time, HR wants employees to fit within a bell curve for rankings. In some extreme examples, people's reviews were based on a predetermined track and not on actual performance.

Netflix's policy is just HR marketing. If all you do is keep your 4 and 5, then what makes those people 4 and 5 will start to become 2 and 3. It's a moving goalpost, and sounds like an effort to increase productivity without increasing compensation.

I may be jaded.

>>Delman+K8
If you fire all the 1's, 2's, and 3's, you have to hire people to fill in those positions. And in one year, the whole group gets re-evaluated, including the new hires. I'd think it would take quite a few cycles before the people who were 4's and 5's became 2's and 3's, while maintaining their same levels of productivity.

I think GE was well known for doing a similar practice under Jack Welsch and they still had plenty of long-term employees. I don't think the system is particularly desirable though.

>>ssharp+Se
Culling the bottom 10% is great when you measure accurately and you have 15% dead weight. But what about when those conditions are not met?