I know we're supposed to reflect on how this is some commentary on today's society and whatnot, but I can't help but think about how you'd go about fixing this

I know we're supposed to reflect on how this is some commentary on today's society and whatnot, but I can't help but think about how you'd go about fixing this perverse incentive. Let's assume that 95% of hires are "good" and 5% are "bad." Let's say a manager hires 3 people a year, and currently oversees 100 people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the point of URA is to make sure managers fire the portion of that 5% who don't quit voluntarily. If the voluntary portion is 2%, then we'd expect the manager to fire 3%, or 3 people in our example year. If 100% of those fired were of the 3 that were most recently hired, then obviously there's a problem. We'd expect each of new hires to only have a 5% chance of being "bad." The thing to do is to track what percent of the manager's hires within, say, the last year were part of that URA. If it passes some threshold, then either the manager is doing a poor job of hiring or they're trying to game the system.