> Nobody likes low-performers, even when you're flush with cash. Fixing their mistakes is demoralizing for your high-performers. If you define performance as c

> Nobody likes low-performers, even when you're flush with cash. Fixing their mistakes is demoralizing for your high-performers. If you define performance as change over time then this would seem to have nothing to do with mistakes. From what I've read about the space shuttle programmers, they would have been classified as low performance (low change over time) but who also made with very few mistakes (as I understand their process). At the other end you could have high performing programmers (lots of change) with high defects that they're always fixing (which could in turn qualify as still more change).