Sure, you can always deal with individual cases as they come up. You can't ignore that there are differences between the performance and fit of different employ

Sure, you can always deal with individual cases as they come up. You can't ignore that there are differences between the performance and fit of different employees. So hire and fire the best you can. The key is what happens after that. You'll still have a rough bell curve of how people perform. You can keep chopping off the bottom of that bell curve, but the problem is that that practice is in itself demotivational. It's bad for culture, it's bad for your company. Basically it's negative reinforcement for all your employees, and the response to negative reinforcement is—to put it lightly—not optimal. Your bell curve will be sucked backward by the firing black hole and people will start acting out of fear and individual motivations, which include: 1) not being fired, 2) keeping their job at all costs, and 3) looking better than everyone else. Rarely does the fear response motivate people to actually work harder. Instead it leads to a culture of in-fighting, blame, and ladder-climbing games. And in no part of this story are the overall goals of your company recognized, let alone respected or achieved. This is why you don't concern yourself with the slackers. If they really are slacking and not getting anything done, you may fire them—no one is stopping you. But this is not your focus. Your focus should be on moving the entire bell curve up by 20%, motivating people to perform beyond their basic abilities, and empowering them to work. These are fluffy phrases, but they are also true. You start from the top down, make sure everyone understands the overall goals of the company, make sure they are well educated about the means and purpose of their work, and that they are enabled to work as well as they can. This is the essence of W. Edwards Deming's philosophy, and yes, it does work this way. Because, more often than not, your "slacker" is not simply a bad person who can't work. Very few of those exist in reality. He is probably a person who has not learned the right things, encountered the right motivations, or understood the true purpose of his work, or he has confounding factors preventing him from reaching his true abilities (see Maslow's basic needs theory). Most people want their work to be meaningful, because people fundamentally want their lives to be meaningful. This is what I'm saying: it's far more effective to improve the system surrounding your employees than to simply treat your employees as unaffected robots whose performance is static. Again, I'm not saying you can't fire people when they don't work: I'm just saying that it would be dumb to only focus on that strategy as though there were no other variables, and in fact, the system variables are the important ones when you actually look at it. Best business advice of the last few hundred years: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery