That only applies if the bad employees are uniformly distributed amongst all teams in the company. Otherwise it makes more sense to chop the worst 10% teams.
At Amazon, the target was between 4 to 6% when I was there, but it was applied at the larger department level, not individual teams. It was perfectly fine to have a team of 10 where nobody was on a PIP (yes, such things exist!), but when it came to my entire 250-person department, all of the managers were in a room together ranking every employee they had and using "data" (peer reviews and results delivered, mainly) to fight over which employees got into the top and bottom tiers.
Yep. This creates a lateral sabotage, work stealing and kiss up culture.
W. Edwards Deming posited that management was responsible for more than 85% of the causes of variation. If this is true, I modestly suggest replacing the CEO in roughly 4 out of every 5 months.
(Somehow stack ranking logic never gets applied that way.)
That actually makes way more sense. Cutting teams that don’t perform and reforming makes lots of sense