zlacker

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+(OP)
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?

>>plonh+11
Legend has it that Vancouver's billionaire tycoon Jim Pattison ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pattison

... used to have a policy in effect in his car dealerships that the worst producing salesman would be fired every month.

For instance, this is remarked upon in this National Post article:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=fb5f68f1-5946-4b46...

(search for word "salesman"). I think, no conditions were applied. Worst just meant not as many sales or as much revenue as the second worst salesman.

>>kazina+Aa
Can you volunteer as tribute, though?