[CharlesColeman]

> I wonder if they would perform better if they routinely fired the top 10% of their employees (by org chart, not by performance ratings) and let talented new blood bubble upward.

IIRC, the US military follows something like that practice. It's called "up or out":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out#Military:

> ...the 1980 Defense Officer Personnel Management Act mandates that officers passed over twice for promotion are required to be discharged from the military.

IIRC, the idea is to prevent people who lack greater potential from hogging the intermediate positions that others need to advance.

[nostrademons]

I think it's slightly different in that it would only apply to the top 10% of the org chart. A first-level manager passed over for promotion wouldn't be dismissed; only VP or C-level executives would, and they would be regardless of whether they were recently promoted. (In fact, because the positions are periodically vacated, they are guaranteed to have been recently promoted.)

It's much closer to term limits and the elected-office/civil-servant split in a democratic government. That has its own set of problems, but is generally fairly good at discouraging empire-building. It also differs in that civil servants generally can't transition to being elected officials (despite their qualifications, they face a lot of obstacles to winning elections), while here executives would generally be drawn from the ranks of ordinary management, keeping the ranks under them dynamic.

[mkolodny]

Why not apply this to first-level managers, too? I've seen more than one first-level manager who wanted to build an empire. I think all of the issues mentioned here about VPs also apply to managers.

[sangnoir]

> A first-level manager passed over for promotion wouldn't be dismissed

This system will encourage first-level managers to do everything in their power to be "passed over" every single time. I can imagine the ridiculous shenanigans they'd pull, walking the fine line between not being too competent lest you get promoted, without being too incompetent that you get fired outright. Sounds like the making of a truly middling culture: questionably competent-ish, but not ambitious.

I think I'd watch a Office Space/Silicon-Valley-type show based on this premise. The overachiever character perennially delegated to bug triage, doing endless interviews for a perpetually open position on the team and being sabotaged when they manage to put some real work in after-hours (for comic relief. In real life, they'd get fired)

[scarejunba]

Why would you prefer to do this rather than not up-and-out. Your original reasoning seems well-met by up-and-out. Fresh blood comes in, Peter-principle people get kicked out. Looks pretty good.

I do like the idea, though.

[Spooky23]

Lol. These orgs are often defined by great games of empire building.

There’s no meaningful pay differential for senior staff, so ass-count is the measuring stick.

[inimino]

When you reach term limits, you don't get kicked out of the country. It would create a powerful disincentive for people to move up at all, unless they wanted to leave the company soon anyway.

[drdeadringer]

> the US military follows something like that practice. It's called "up or out"

During my time as a DoD contractor, I saw this happen.

One particular case was a mid-range officer [I'm never good with ranks so don't bother asking] who was up for promotion; it was an open secret that if he didn't get it he'd retire into civilian [and presumably commercial//industry] life. He didn't get the promotion, retired from military, and was duly replaced.