> Ok so has that worked out well for Yahoo? I'm afraid it's a question we will never be able to answer. I wonder about it myself. Disclaimer: i've known the Se

> Ok so has that worked out well for Yahoo? I'm afraid it's a question we will never be able to answer. I wonder about it myself. Disclaimer: i've known the Seymel..Bartz yahoo and I've always thought that there was an enormous execution problem amongst employees (myself included). In addition to this, in my field (engineering), I've always kinda felt the culture was rather mediocre. Call me pessimistic, I've never believed it's a company that could be turned over, I remember jokingly letting my friends know back in 2005, when i got hired, that I had just signed up for a sinking boat. Yahoo would not die but would simply not be a landmark internet company but somehow get to a secondary rank. Apologies for the digression. So to get back to the yank and rank strategy that yahoo followed: what's best, a mass layoff or giving people a chance to be in or out? Seems like at yahoo the rank and yank strategy was not implemented state of the art as each team had to get a certain % of employees yanked and ranked. Side effects are very well known, lower performers of high achieving teams get the axe while highest performers of low achieving teams get promotions. People start aiming at the middle to prevent promotion, and more :) Now I still wonder what's the least unfair way to clearly cut a workforce that needs to be cut.