If I have to push out X number of low-performing people every year, I'm going to damn well make sure I have X low-performing people around to push out so I don'

If I have to push out X number of low-performing people every year, I'm going to damn well make sure I have X low-performing people around to push out so I don't have to get rid of anyone I value. The first one or two times a manager is asked to do this, there may be adequate dead-weight around that has accumulated "naturally". After that, a significant number of managers will game the system -- they'll attract and retain people for this very purpose. Meanwhile, general employees will realize what's going on and you're going to have political games. I don't see how this works for a company as a policy. It's too rigid. Meanwhile, a great way to get your attrition rate up is create a generally miserable environment. I can see executives patting themselves on the back for achieving their attrition goals even as their better employees are leaving for greener pastures. This makes so little sense I would doubt it could really be true. Except I've see it myself, and worse (not at Amazon).