Meta Looks a Lot Like Jack Welch’s GE – Thinning the Herd
Recent reports suggest that Meta is widening the pool of employees rated as low performers in its midyear reviews, just months after laying off nearly 4,000 people it had already labeled as underperformers. Mark Zuckerberg’s directive is clear: move out weak performers more quickly. Meta is asking managers to rank 15–20% of employees as low performers, up from 12–15% the year before.
The Esteemed MBA agrees that it’s important to move on from genuine C-level employees—those who drain time, miss expectations, and weigh down teams. But Meta’s approach feels reminiscent of Jack Welch’s General Electric in the 1980s, when “rank and yank” became the norm and managers were forced to regularly cull the bottom tier of performers, no matter the circumstances. Welch called it “weeding out the slowest buffalo,” but history tells us that GE’s herd lost more than a few strong runners along the way.
The Pressure on Managers
The directive to always identify the bottom 15–20% puts immense pressure on managers. Imagine you manage five people. Even if all are performing well, you’re told to select one to classify as “lowest performing.” By what metric? Were the roles and responsibilities crystal clear from the outset? Did the employee know exactly what success looked like on day one? Were the measures of A+ work defined and tracked consistently?
Without clarity, managers are left with subjective judgments. Worse still, they may end up penalizing capable employees who never had the right guidance, resources, or definitions of success in the first place. In those cases, the fault lies not with the employee but with management.
The Esteemed MBA Approach
In the Esteemed MBA, we teach that the best managers create clarity from day one. Directs know their exact roles, responsibilities, and the behaviors that define A+ performance. They know the weekly measures that indicate whether they are on track or falling behind.
When this clarity exists, performance reviews are not a guessing game. Both the direct and the manager already know the outcome because the expectations were clear and reinforced along the way. In this model, the manager’s responsibility is to help each direct get an A on their test. That means coaching, feedback, and guidance that ensure success is possible.
Meta’s current path risks punishing employees for the failures of unclear or ineffective management. Software engineers, product managers, and analysts may be branded as “low performers” when in reality, they were never given the clarity or support they needed to succeed.
Lessons from GE
History offers a warning. General Electric was a global powerhouse in the 1980s and early 1990s, a leader in electronics, technology, and manufacturing. But Welch’s relentless culling of the bottom tier drove out many talented employees. GE’s decline cannot be blamed on Welch alone, but his “thinning the herd” approach undeniably weakened the company’s long-term prospects.
Meta—and other companies following suit—may find themselves on the same path. In chasing efficiency through forced rankings and layoffs, they risk losing the very talent that could carry them forward.
The Takeaway
Yes, move on from true C players. But don’t confuse poor management clarity with poor employee performance. Trust your A players, empower your B players to become A’s, and be very careful before labeling anyone a C. Your company’s future may depend on it.
