[ci5er]

I'm not a fan of firing the bottom 10% of annual 360 reviews, but, do you think that having a 10% false-positive rate on interviewing/hiring is outside the realm of possibility?

EDIT: Just so you know ... the cumulative quarter average (done annually) cull of the bottom 10% (people who have been put on improvement plans 3 quarters ago), is done by people that have nothing to do with interviewing/hiring. You'd probably be firing the wrong folks.

[Avshalom]

Outside the realm of possibility? No. But if 10% of my work (I'm a warehouse worker) had to be thrown out I'd have been fired within a month.

[nostrademons]

Your work is a lot more predictable than that of either the folks doing the hiring or the folks being hired.

Well over 99% of my work has been thrown out. (I'm a software engineer & entrepreneur.) I think I calculated that when I was at Google, the half-life of my code was roughly 1 year, i.e. after a year, half of my code would be ripped out and deleted. So after 5 years there, 97% of it was gone. The remaining 3% had made a few hundred million dollars in revenue. It's been similar (but worse) in the startup world, where I had 4 ideas that all failed in my startup before Google, and 10 so far in the startup after.

[Avshalom]

Actually not fired because then Target might actually have to pay out on unemployment, I would simply have been scheduled for 4 hours a week in perpetuity.