What Musk and Zuckerberg Get Wrong About Low Performers—And How We Build a Better World of Work Instead

2025 is shaping up to be the Year of the Low Performer—at least if you believe the headlines.

Mark Zuckerberg slashed 4,000 jobs, claiming it would “move out low-performers” and ensure only “the best people” remain.

Microsoft followed suit, cutting employees with low ratings, some reportedly without severance.

Elon Musk fired federal workershe deemed ineffective—despite evidence that many had strong performance records.

Across corporate America, the message is clear: Perform at the highest level, or you’re out.

But does anyone really believe this builds stronger teams? Better results?

The opposite is about to unfold.

The Real Problem with “Cutting the Weakest Links”

At first glance, the logic seems sound:

Companies want efficiency.

They want the best talent.

They want accountability.

But the research is in abundance out there, from varying perspectives, attesting to the fact that mass firings of so-called low performers don’t actually create better teams. Actually, it fuels the opposite.

Adam Grant points out what we all know is true when we sit back and reflect on the people psychology propblem here: that these purges are often designed to scare employees into higher productivity. The problem? Fear-driven workplaces don’t fuel success—they create anxiety, distrust, and stagnation. People are just holding on for dear life to the boundaries of the job description, hoping that keeps them safe.

Turnover is expensive. Constantly hiring and firing doesn’t just disrupt teams—it costs companies millions in lost productivity and morale. According to the Center for American Progress, replacing an employee can cost up to 213% of their salaryin lost productivity, recruiting fees, and training.

Instead of “weeding out the weak,” great leaders and organizations focus on creating the right enviornment.

What Actually Works? Smarter Talent Strategies.

If we want to build a better world of work, the solution isn’t more layoffs—it’s a fundamental shift in how we think about potential and performance.

1. Performance is contextual.

Most so-called low performance isn’t about talent—it’s about:

• Team fit. Did the company put this person in a team that aligns with their values and skills?
• Leadership. Is their manager providing the right support and guidance?
• Work design. Is the environment setting them up for success or failure?

A study from McKinsey & Company found that high-performing employees in one environment often underperform in another—not because they aren’t talented, but because of leadership, team dynamics, and job alignment.

Before firing someone, companies should ask: Are we leveraging this person’s strengths? Have we provided the necessary training? Are we measuring performance fairly, or just based on short-term outputs?

2. Psychological safety drives results.

Google’s Project Aristotle found that the highest-performing teams weren’t the ones with the best individual contributors, but the ones where employees felt safe to take risks and learn from failure.

Harvard Business Review research supports this: Teams with psychological safety—where employees aren’t afraid of being punished for mistakes—consistently outperform teams with rigid, fear-based cultures.

Instead of creating “fear cultures”through mass layoffs, the best companies:

Encourage open feedback loops

Invest in manager trainingto build supportive leadership

Allow employees to experiment, fail, and grow

3. Hiring-and-firing cycles hurt businesses.

Constant layoffs may create short-term cost savings, but they are disastrous for long-term business health.

The SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) estimates that every layoff can cost companies up to two years of lost productivitydue to morale drops, loss of institutional knowledge, and brand damage.

Harvard Business Review research highlights that frequent layoffs lead to a long-term decline in employee engagement and innovation, making it harder for companies to recover and compete effectively. The study found that organizations relying on layoffs experience a 20% drop in productivity and innovation, as remaining employees operate in fear rather than focusing on growth.

A better approach?

Strategic workforce planninginstead of reactive layoffs

Reskilling & internal mobility programsso employees can shift into roles where they thrive

Career pathing & mentorship to prevent stagnation and disengagementement

The Future of Work: Moving Beyond the “Performance Purge”

The leaders of tomorrow won’t be the ones who cut the bottom 10%. They’ll be the ones who create environments where every employee has the opportunity to thrive.

Yes, accountability matters. But accountability isn’t about instilling fear—it’s about creating clarity, providing support, and ensuring people have the right conditions to succeed.

If we truly want to build a better world of work, it starts here.

Have you been affected by these layoffs? Do you know someone who has?

It’s one thing to be witnessing from the sidelines, another to be caught in the storm. I’d love to hear the real stories behind these cuts—the human side that often gets lost in corporate strategy.