Google AI:


The automatic firing of the bottom 10% of workers, often referred to as "rank and yank" or a "vitality curve," is a performance management system famously championed by Jack Welch during his tenure as CEO of General Electric (GE) in the 1980s and 1990s. The approach aims to ensure continuous workforce improvement by ranking employees and removing the lowest performers, regardless of overall team performance.


Key Aspects of the 10% Firing Rule:
The "20-70-10" System: Welch categorized the workforce into three groups: the top 20% (A players, rewarded with bonuses/promotions), the middle 70% (B players, developed), and the bottom 10% (C players, "yanked" or fired).



Goal: The strategy aimed to constantly raise the bar, replacing underperformers with new hires to foster a high-performance culture.


"Neutron Jack": Welch earned this nickname for his scorched-earth approach to reducing the workforce through this system.


Companies Associated with the Practice:
General Electric (GE): The most famous user of this system under Jack Welch, though it was largely phased out after he departed.


Amazon: Reports indicate that some managers at Amazon use "unregretted attrition" (URA) targets, or a similar "rank-and-yank" approach, to push out a percentage of underperforming staff annually.


Other Companies: Historically, companies such as Microsoft, Ford, Conoco, and others used forced ranking, though many, including Microsoft, abandoned it due to toxic effects on culture.


Intuit: In 2024, the company was noted for cutting ~10% of its workforce, intending to replace underperformers with new talent focused on AI.


Controversies and Drawbacks:
Kills Collaboration: It creates a cut-throat, Darwinian environment where employees avoid helping teammates because helping someone might hurt their own ranking.


Arbitrary Firing: It forces managers to fire people even if the entire team is performing well.


High Turnover/Morale Damage: It creates a culture of fear, leading to high anxiety and disengagement among staff.
Ineffective Long-Term: Studies suggest that this system often does not lead to long-term success and discourages innovation.

While the practice fell out of favor, some reports suggest it is seeing a "quiet comeback," particularly in tech companies that use advanced data analytics to justify the rankings.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:


Never seen or heard of it.

The one I am aware of is the corrup re structure every three years which invariably contains a downsizing component. However this downsize isn't related to performance it relates to managment bonuses based on cost savings..

Companies switch between 3 structures and it is a useful method of justifying managment bonuses. The three year rotation is to maintain balance, the employee numbers are restored by the end of the first year and then maintained the next to avoid the damage from being understaffed. The third year they start agin.

“Arbitrary Firing: It forces managers to fire people even if the entire team is performing well.”

I would suggest that the focus should be on the 60% of public servants in  senior management positions should be culled effectively every 3 months.

Just like uni isn’t the real world nor is sending emails to each other valuable work!?!

Just get rid of them.

It will be like sticking your arm in a bucket of water and pulling it out.


The hole that is left behind is exactly how much they contribute and exactly how much they will be missed!

The work will still be done on the front line.

Just the manager who does nothing but paid six figures will be very sad that they have to find a job where they actually have to be responsible and held accountable.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 4:33pm:


Quote:


It wans't meant as a particularly bad example - it is just the typical standard operating process of most mid size or above businesses.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 5:55pm:



Tax payers money is paying for it -

the RBA is printing money to do it.

The Public service is now bloated and the largest in our history
and so is our Federal and State Debt.

Frank wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 7:07pm:


So you believe that public service numbers are an unemployment statistics ploy ?  Really ???

Sometimes things seem to be dumb just because they are.

Do you need to change feet.