LATEST DEVELOPMENT
Major tech CEOs embrace aggressive performance management, but research shows "management by fear" consistently undermines company success.
INDUSTRY TALK
"There's a big difference between being demanding and being demeaning. Demanding is about saying: 'Look, we have extremely high expectations. We hired you because we believe you're capable of meeting them.'"
BY THE NUMBERS
Research indicates:
31% spike in voluntary turnover after just 1% layoffs
50%+ drop in Microsoft market cap during stack ranking era
4,000+ employees laid off in recent Meta purge
High performers leave at disproportionately higher rates
Companies slide in Fortune's "most admired" rankings after layoffs
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Performance management cycles show:
Taylorism (1900s): Fear-based factory management
1950s: Shift to engagement and motivation
1980s: "Rank and yank" popularized by Jack Welch at GE
2010s: Microsoft abandons stack ranking; abandoned in 2013
2025: Tech firms return to punitive approaches
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Evidence demonstrates fear-based management:
Increases short-term productivity at expense of quality
Significantly reduces innovation and creative thinking
Impairs cognitive functioning through "threat-rigidity response"
Drives away top talent with most options
Ultimately damages long-term profitability
EXPERT PERSPECTIVES
The article quotes several experts, including:
Adam Grant (Wharton): These approaches are "very shortsighted decisions" that may "shoot your organization in the foot"
Sandra Sucher (Harvard): "If Mark Zuckerberg thinks this is inspiring people to do a better job, he needs a primer on how people are motivated"
THE BOTTOM LINE
Despite overwhelming evidence against fear-based performance management, tech CEOs are reviving discredited practices that research consistently shows damage innovation, quality, talent retention, and long-term profitability