Here are some unintentional consequence of this policy,<p>- Due to the URA targets managers have to keep getting rid of people. If everyone on a team gets a "A+" grade, they have to get rid of the person getting "A-". Many times the "A-" person had a difficult period in their personal lives such as a medical emergency, depression, anxiety, pandemic induced anxiety, birth of a child, death of a family member.<p>- This has a detrimental impact on team morale.<p>- The people who stay long enough realize that its every person for themselves.<p>- So code isn't written with maintainability or customers in mind, its written with promotion and impact metrics in mind. As long as one can hit those metrics targets, it doesn't matter what was compromised in the process. Ask anyone at amazon about the internal tooling.<p>- Tech debt, and bugs are the problem of the person who's on-call, they can write Correction of Error document if things go terribly wrong.<p>- There are metrics for the number of comments / revisions on a code review, if someone receives too many comments, or has too many revisions on their code review, then its counted against them. On the other hand senior engineers have figured out that putting out nitpick comments, and getting a junior engineer to go through multiple revisions results in the senior engineer having a better chance at being at top of the stack rank during OLR season. Too many isn't a clearly defined metric, its arbitrarily applied based on the manager's judgement.<p>- PMs get the same treatment on their documents; nitpicks, frivolous comments, spending hours and hours fine tuning every single word in a document.<p>- In a world where everyone is looking out for themselves, and has to operate in fear of being put on their manager/skip-level's hit-list, people are merely working towards their ultimate goal of staying long enough to see their vesting schedule complete, or their Permanent Residency approved.