> If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done? The assumption with you guys is always three parts: 1. That the company act

> If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done? The assumption with you guys is always three parts: 1. That the company actors know what good performance is, therefor they can determine underperformance 2. That underperformance is meaningful in the context (taking care of a sick kid for a month is underperformance, but not meaningful when the kid is no longer sick) 3. That the company actors are being truthful about the reason When in reality I know that company actors rarely understand good performance or thus underperformance, they rarely consider meaningfulness, and rarely are they actually telling the truth about the reason.