[blsapologist42]

It's not like the firing is random. "Low performers" get a lot of warnings throughout the year. Most people are average or above so they will be completely unaffected, it's not likely you would drop from 50th percentile to 5th.

On the other hand, do you really want to be stuck working with someone who's not very competent? I think we've all had that experience and it's miserable.

[spacemadness]

I love how so many on HN have embraced “low performers” as an unbending metric that isn’t gamed by management to fire people without paying severance. I’ve seen this happen.

[Reubachi]

It's not the perception of "randomness" that is a problem, it's the arbitrary figure attributed to getting fired with no comment on methodology or the attributes that will get you fired.

We assume there would probably be PIP for those individuals in this hypothetical scenario. However even then, saying "10 percent of our workforce will guaranteed be subject to PIP and or firing as a matter of our staffing methodology" instantly turns much of your working time into fluffing your work and backstabbing colleagues.

OR running away at great speed.

OR telling investorts "We do not grow, we abritrarilly trim regardless of market forces."

AKA, GE.

[bradlys]

This is quite disingenuous. “Low performers” in many of these companies aren’t low performers. It’s often whoever the boss likes the least due to whatever reason.

I’ve rarely seen anyone let go and thought the person was a low performer. Most of the time the person was fired because they questioned authority.

[matwood]

I haven't worked in FAANG, but have seen and personally fired people before. All were justified, and in times where I had to do the firing I was always late. And I knew I was late because the team would say, 'about time'.

[par]

""Low performers" get a lot of warnings throughout the year. "

oh you sweet summer child. No, in many cases they absolutely do not.