Amazon has forced attrition rates (someone has to go every year)
I once worked at a company where the new CIO came out and said very plainly that the attrition rate was too low. The implication under the circumstances was that there were too many low competence long-timers. This was followed up with a ham handed campaign of making everybody miserable by dramatically increasing the sense of stress and &quot;urgency&quot; that everyone assumed was designed to increase the attrition rate. That in turn was followed by a small exodus of many of the better engineers (since that&#x27;s who is able to leave easily when things go south.)<p>Five years later that company is now two CIOs removed from the original attrition warrior who left presumably to help the attrition rate even. The company still has a ton of long-timers that they seemingly can&#x27;t get rid of. Why are companies so bad at coming up with a system that keeps more competent people and eases out less competent people but that also doesn&#x27;t hurt morale by being a dystopian nightmare?