>if people could genuinely identify low performers every single time without causing collateral damage, I'm not sure about collateral damage, but that's what I

>if people could genuinely identify low performers every single time without causing collateral damage, I'm not sure about collateral damage, but that's what I meant by a solid metric. If the metric isn't worth shit, then you're probably not doing much better than random selection, and perhaps worse, selecting on a trait you didn't mean to, or didn't want. e.g. power-hungry. But if you believe in the metric, the strategy is sensible (and its probably safe to assume such managers do indeed believe in their metric). Probably the bigger problem is there's no strategy in place to test the metric