> "Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back." Then fire them. It's als

> "Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back." Then fire them. It's also important to note that the 2-3 who suck suck in relation to a consistent standard, not in relation to the other employees. There is a fundamental disconnect between the justification of stack ranking and the actuality of stack ranking. In a sufficiently large population of employees you get some duds - that's a statistical certainty. The giant leap and non sequitor is that relatively ranking will expose said duds better than measuring against a consistent, non-relative bar. Where I work right now we've had the displeasure of having hired some duds. Very few mind you, but in all cases they were let go soon after it became apparent they were duds and could not be reasonably improved. All of this was done without the need for stack ranking, and (thankfully) outside the scope of some annual remove. If you've hired someone who's actively detracting from your company, why in the frell are you waiting a whole year to remove them?!