This is basically an HR approved Netflix puff piece.
If the Mikes can be ousted from RIM, you can bet your rear that Hastings can be ousted from Netflix. And once "maximizing shareholder value" becomes the goal, "culture" becomes an afterthought.
Can't say I've ever heard of an organization where that's true. Typically, adequate performance means no promo, and being first in line for dismissal if the order comes down to cut staff.
Firing someone who is trying and doing sort of OK-ish but not actually well sounds hard. I would expect all but the hardest of hearts to be reluctant to dismiss a lowish performer, preferring to hope that experience and mentoring will yield a turnaround. People have empathy, after all. (Well, except for the sociopaths...)
In fact, to actually get managers to get rid of the merely adequate, you'd probably have to institute something like an up-or-out system, so managers could blame the system rather than themselves or the workers when the merely adequate got shoved out the door.
- If I don't know them, they have little incentive to tell me the truth.
- If it's not private, then selection bias: glowing affirmations (or pseudo-critique: "Yeah we have our problems, but...") will obviously be the voices we hear. Not only are those maybe rewarded, but cold enough critiques are swiftly punished. For obvious reasons.
- If they're not sharply critical types, they miss what should be obvious, because they drink the koolaid or are just plain fine with whatever silliness.
(Why the emphasis on critique? Because one's job is solving problems, and real companies have such egregious problems. I'll accept fairly wrong critique in preference to correct bragging, because critique's usually missing and at least something not-too-wrong is a string to pull on during research.)