I get that companies are compelled to conduct layoffs. It’s disheartening that they can’t simply carry out the layoffs without labeling the employees who may have been affected as low performers. There will always be individuals who are undeservingly categorized. In an employer’s market, this label further complicates the process of finding a new job.

It does seem like unnecessary cruelty, to somebody who is going through one of the lowest points in their life.

Those who know, however, know the truth. Facebook isn't laying off people because the company is in trouble or its people have failed in any way. Ex-Facebook employees are some of the highest-performance people the world has ever seen.

I wonder if this will result in lawsuits that win. A lot of people have won lawsuits over bad references and preventing future employment. Facebook is poisoning the careers of these people, many are high achievers.

It's likely intentional to lower the hiring cost for future employees.

By saying it is performance based, they can immediately hire workers requiring a visa (without waiting periods).

Technically, if you are second you are underperformer.

No - underperformance is relative to a benchmark, be it based on a median plus a set percentage or a set percentile. Only one person can take the top spot in a rank stack, which makes it a poor model for performance measurement. Overperformance is nice, but not sustainable for the majority of employees.

Meaning, a median among different teams in a company could classify a top performer in a team as an underperformer in a company. I like that too, and how the whole performace metrics suck A.