[chrisdhoover]

I think .20 is an underestimate. Under performers are likely in the .25 to .35 percent range. It is hard to find the right people and so there is an acceptance of good enough. The PIPs start with the most egregious or if cash flow is tight. An owner I worked for called it trimming the dead wood. From the business side it is best to get rid of some people. Its best for the remaining people too.

[scruple]

> Its best for the remaining people too.

It sure doesn't feel that way to me, as someone who has seen lower-performing (I'd hesitate to label them under-performing, these people simply never should've been hired into the role they were put into in the first place, but those are anecdotes for another time) be PIPed and ultimately let go, because all it means is my own workload is going to go from fucked to even-more-fucked.

[therealdrag0]

That’s a bad management issue. Your workloads shouldn’t be drastically impacted by how many coworkers you have. If you lose a coworkers it’s your managers job to rebalance the roadmap or negotiate with other other managers and their manager to get a up to speed backfill.

[icedchai]

I agree. The low performers drag down the rest of the team. Generally, they're not only slow, but the quality of work is poor, requiring constant attention from other team members. Often, the individuals are totally unreliable. They don't respond to messages, won't do PR reviews in a timely manner, resulting in cascading frustrations. You can't give them anything critical or it becomes a blocker...