The "overpaid" bucket is a risk at Amazon that some don't think about. Some manage to hack the performance process and then get tossed out because they're then ranked against senior people and how long you've been senior doesn't factor in.

But as far as not doing too poorly, how sure will you be that you're not in or close to that 10%? For a lot of people who aren't completely assured of themselves, this is a constant source of anxiety. Couple that with the leverage your manager has to casually place you in that bucket twice a year if you haven't done enough groveling, and this is where a lot of the toxicity at Amazon corporate comes from. People don't want to help each other because they have to look out for themselves.

Over time I saw three kinds of people thrive in that environment:

1) highly competent, productive people who managed the culture and workload with ease.

2) people who have Amazon as part of their identity and will sacrifice their well-being or personal life to meet the bar

3) typical corporate sociopaths that are non value-add

In my opinion they are growing bucket (3) the fastest.

I thought the military also used a variant of this - interesting that is "such a strange concept".

Yes, see [0].

They also seem to be about to change this [1].

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out#Military

[1]https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/24/up-or-ou...

How so? The military doesn't fire people that I know of.

The 1980 Defense Officer Personnel Management Act mandates that officers passed over twice for promotion are required to be discharged from the military.

So yes, if you are not promoted, you don't get to stay - you are actually fired.

They have modified this for some positions like flight instructors who they want to keep. But in general it's up or out in military - that means fired before you get your pension.

Isn't that what the "stack ranked" system is about?

Wasn't that a Microsoft invention?

It's been around a long time.

It was actually a GE invention and adopted by companies across a wide swath of industry. These were the days when Jack Welch was the prophet of business leaders and if he did something, it must be good.

Several companies in Silicon Valley also used stack ranking, for example.

edit:typo

I was taught in business school (early 2000s) that it was good that GE fired the lowest 10% performing employees b/c the employees were not actually happy or content at GE or they would perform better. Therefore firing them is good b/c they'll find a better career fit elsewhere.

But I actually think it is terrible. It pits co-workers against each other and makes taking credit for an accomplishment more important than doing what's best for the organization.

It's probably good if it's done once every four years. But companies do it every year if not multiple times a year. So at that point, without new blood coming in, you end up cutting into the meat of a high performance org.

IIRC employed during a period where GE was burning the furniture to heat the house. And it was only supposed to be employed temporarily.

That makes sense. I worked there, back when "Neutron Jack" was in charge. I don't remember that, but they probably didn't come out and say it (also, I rated fairly high -they even gave me an award, after I left the company. I still have the plaque, upstairs).

Sadly it is still mandatory system in Accenture and other big "consulting" companies.

The up or out is not a strange concept in the realm of professional sport.

Though the culling should only apply to those at the bottom, not the top.

The culling is necessary to maintain top performance.

In sports you have multiple divisions. It is rather "up, down or stay".