[rybosworld]

This is easily fixed by giving management attrition targets. Some companies (Amazon) say "you need to let go of ~6% of your headcount every year."

Others will flip this and say: "you need to retain 94% of your headcount every year."

The effect on salaries is more or less the same. If you know you need to keep employees, you give salary increases to the one's most at risk of leaving. If you know you need to let go of employees, you don't provide salary increases to the one's you want to get rid of.

Many companies don't have an attrition target at all, though.

[xyproto]

Teams start to battle to have low performers on their team in a climate like that, though, as an insurance from being let go. It's absurd.

[xethos]

But a rank stack is cause for insurance because somebody is being let go. Needing to keep at least 94% of headcount, with no penalty to management for being above (and possibly a bonus for staying above the minimum) sounds like the opposite.