Ranking and firing should both occur at review time, but "Should we fire somebody" is an independent metric from ranking.
The lazy are the easiest. Fire them. They are also the rarest.
The malicious are also easy. Fire them NOW. If I catch you sabotaging somebody or gaming metrics in a way that causes problems, you're gone immediately. I will invoke "at will employment", get rid of you immediately, and I won't tell anybody why so I can avoid the legal nightmare. Fortunately, they are also quite rare.
The next layer are the underperformers. The question here is generally: "Why are they underperforming?" This generally requires a good look in the mirror as well as a look at the employee.
It may be employee issues: divorce, health, etc. At which point you have to judge some level of future expectation with past expectation to balance current performance. You may not decide to get rid of someone like this right away.
However, a LOT of the time, the issue is on the company side. Did this person get hired too high in the chain and now sticks out? (Happens when hiring goes from scarcity to glut) Does this person need extra training? (Got moved to somewhere they don't really belong because of "reasons"). Does this person need extra resources? Are you simply expecting something too far out of line? At this point you need to come to grips with the fact that you are dismissing this person because the COMPANY doesn't wish to expend the money/time/effort to fix the problem. And too many people underestimate the amount of resource they're going to lose to try to get a replacement. Having chosen to train certain employees rather than fire them and hire a replacement has given me some of my best performers and most faithful workers over the years. It's also given me a couple of my biggest bombs--but I'll take the ratio for now. If I really decide I can't expend the resource, I will fire you, but I'll probably give you a nice recommendation as well as some extra time and help to find your next job.
I have also recommended firing people who were above average performers simply because I judged them to be too much of a drag on everybody else. I'm happy to take criticism all day long--I've got a really thick skin. But other people don't necessarily, and I do have to think of the other members of my team. Too much friction, and I'm going to get rid of the abrasive. Sorry, that's life.
IMHO the "lazy" and the "malicious" are the ones making policy. They certainly aren't going to be fired, so - again IMHO - this policy is a non-starter.
It's an explicit recognition that the statement is one of personal opinion. Without the marker, it could be understood differently.
I'd probably not use the IMO or IMHO shorthand in a business setting, but I definitely will qualify a statement of personal opinion in a context where it might be misconstrued.
The lazy are the easiest. Fire them. They are also the rarest.
The malicious are also easy. Fire them NOW. If I catch you sabotaging somebody or gaming metrics in a way that causes problems, you're gone immediately. I will invoke "at will employment", get rid of you immediately, and I won't tell anybody why so I can avoid the legal nightmare. Fortunately, they are also quite rare.
The next layer are the underperformers. The question here is generally: "Why are they underperforming?" This generally requires a good look in the mirror as well as a look at the employee.
It may be employee issues: divorce, health, etc. At which point you have to judge some level of future expectation with past expectation to balance current performance. You may not decide to get rid of someone like this right away.
However, a LOT of the time, the issue is on the company side. Did this person get hired too high in the chain and now sticks out? (Happens when hiring goes from scarcity to glut) Does this person need extra training? (Got moved to somewhere they don't really belong because of "reasons"). Does this person need extra resources? Are you simply expecting something too far out of line? At this point you need to come to grips with the fact that you are dismissing this person because the COMPANY doesn't wish to expend the money/time/effort to fix the problem. And too many people underestimate the amount of resource they're going to lose to try to get a replacement. Having chosen to train certain employees rather than fire them and hire a replacement has given me some of my best performers and most faithful workers over the years. It's also given me a couple of my biggest bombs--but I'll take the ratio for now. If I really decide I can't expend the resource, I will fire you, but I'll probably give you a nice recommendation as well as some extra time and help to find your next job.
I have also recommended firing people who were above average performers simply because I judged them to be too much of a drag on everybody else. I'm happy to take criticism all day long--I've got a really thick skin. But other people don't necessarily, and I do have to think of the other members of my team. Too much friction, and I'm going to get rid of the abrasive. Sorry, that's life.