[_DeadFred_]

It's also dumb from a factory prospective. Our factories did time studies to understand things. What we learned:

Certain lines are primarily made up of barely functioning older people. No one else sticks around in those jobs. Think barely functioning alcoholic or recovering alcoholics that have nothing. However we would also get a few 18 year olds with no idea how jobs/work works and or zero accountability (they just ghost jobs).

From the numbers we should want to build our processes around the high performers. But we can't expand our base of high performers AND they are the most likely to just disappear and not easily have their productivity replaced.

So yes, it was correct that 10% of our people outperformed by 10X, and yes, it was smart to not try to improve that but to understand reality.

[tmpz22]

> From the numbers we should want to build our processes around the high performers. But we can't expand our base of high performers AND they are the most likely to just disappear and not easily have their productivity replaced.

You're failing to retain high performers? Are there perhaps methods for retaining high performers that you have not tried?

AI for Executive performance monitoring would be an interesting social experiment.