I don't think the article proves that. I think these policies can be a bit of a McNamara fallacy[1]. When things go wrong, the benefits of aggressive terminati

I don't think the article proves that. I think these policies can be a bit of a McNamara fallacy[1]. When things go wrong, the benefits of aggressive termination are clear. But when things don't go wrong (vast majority of time), the alternative's benefits are not so clear — employees have more time to hand-off their work, document things that are in their head, better good-will towards the company and its management, etc. So, because one approach has a clear, measurable benefit (avoid some disasters), and the other approach has un-clear hard-to-measure ones, people sometimes dismiss the hard-to-measure side as unimportant. That's the fallacy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy