zlacker

I worked in a company like that. Everyone was ranked against their peers, and if you were below ~40% more than two years in a row, you were "counseled out."

I didn't find it stressful. Partly because I was never in danger, and partly because I knew what I was getting into. But I think it's a bad practice, mainly because it just doesn't work. Empirically what I've observed is a bunch of people in the wrong role, not the wrong company.

It's expensive to fire people: companies could save a lot by making lateral moves easier, and doing better internal matchmaking. As in matching people <--> responsibilities, not like... dating :).

>>sjbase+(OP)
How did you find enough new hires to replace the massive attrition? Or did high achievers alternate between working hard and slacking off?

>>plonh+U6
What is the normal tech company attrition? I would think 20-30% seems normalish, but I never had full HR docs of a fortune 500 company or anything to look at. Generally a bunch of people quit after 1 or 2 years - if not you stayed for 10-20. If most of the fired people were the going to quit anyways people, no big change. (But i assume at least some of the low performers are the 20 year vets as they are burned out)

>>plonh+U6
The short answer is that we didn't find enough; we were perpetually understaffed. However: most of that was just because of industry-wide talent shortage in information security.

Generally, you fill in the void with people who recently left competitors (who have the same attrition rates).