Also, deciding the bottom 10% is not always as straightforward as it seems. That's exactly right and the biggest problem with a rank and fire policy is that th

Also, deciding the bottom 10% is not always as straightforward as it seems. That's exactly right and the biggest problem with a rank and fire policy is that there are so many pitfalls in quantitatively judging relative performance. In the case of a high performing or highly specialized group, the question comes down to who does the measuring and how much power would she have to say letting someone go isn't necessary. I'm just speculating, but my guess is that the powers up high at Enron wouldn't have let that slide. We should also remember that this article was published just 6 months before Enron filed bankruptcy. While ranking and fire sounds sane in principle, we have to wonder how much this sort of hire-fast-fire-fast policy contributed to the systemic and ethical break downs that have made the company infamous.