At a time when trust, fairness and psychological safety are emerging as the gold standard of modern leadership, Meta’s latest moves on performance reviews feel like a throwback to the dark ages of corporate management.

In a memo leaked earlier this month, the company reportedly instructed managers to designate 15% to 20% of their teams as “Below Expectations” in the upcoming mid-year review cycle, beginning 16 June. This is a sharp uptick from the 12% to 15% range applied in 2024. Behind the scenes, it’s clear this isn't just a recalibration of standards – it's a calculated cull masquerading as performance management.

Meta is no stranger to workforce pruning. Early this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to shrink headcount by 5%, framing it as a drive toward efficiency and a new era of high performance. “I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster,” he wrote. But the numbers – and the tactics – suggest something less principled and more tactical is underway.

A velvet glove over an iron fist

Rather than announcing another round of company-wide layoffs, Meta is now empowering its managers to quietly trim their teams using the performance review process.

The internal memo, posted on Meta’s internal forum on 14 May, stated plainly that mid-year reviews are “an opportunity to make exit decisions”. While couched in the language of business-as-usual HR practice, the intent is plain: to reduce headcount without the headlines that come with large-scale layoffs.

This signals a strategic shift in Meta’s talent playbook. Mass terminations are out; performance-managed attrition is in. Managers have been handed the scissors and told to snip away – subtly, selectively, and under the guise of objectivity.

It’s not just those with underwhelming KPIs who should be worried. According to Business Insider, the criteria for landing in the “Below Expectations” bucket have quietly expanded.

Now included are employees who have recently exited under what the company calls “non-regrettable attrition” – a catch-all for anyone deemed dispensable.

Also in the crosshairs are those given a “Below Expectations” rating this cycle, anyone disciplined in the last six months, or those entangled in an Employee Relations case earlier in the year – the corporate equivalent of a yellow card.

In short, the net is wider, and the targets are not always the ones dragging down team performance. When even high performers can find themselves on the chopping block for the sake of reaching downsizing quotas, it’s no longer about talent but optics and operational cost.

Read: Meta job cuts: Hurting high performers sparks a crisis of trust

A trend cloaked in business speak

Meta is not alone. The broader tech industry is in the throes of its own reckoning. Since the start of the year, more than 130 technology companies have slashed over 61,000 jobs, according to Layoffs.fyi. Amazon’s Andy Jassy has spoken of “speed and agility,” while Intel is planning significant headcount reductions in the second quarter of 2025 to “simplify operations.”

But what makes Meta’s approach so concerning is the performative nature of the process.

This isn’t just about cost-cutting but about control. And more worryingly, it’s about shifting responsibility. Rather than owning the tough decision to reduce headcount, leadership is turning the dial on review systems and placing the burden squarely on managers’ shoulders.

For team leads, this introduces a minefield of ethical and operational dilemmas. They’re being asked to play executioner while preserving morale, to label more people as underperformers even when overall output may be stable or improving. And for employees, even glowing past reviews are no shield.

Yesterday’s “strong contributor” may be tomorrow’s redundancy statistics.

A culture under pressure

Meta’s new review structure is less a talent assessment tool than a velvet hammer – wielded not to uplift or develop staff, but to quietly edge them out. It’s hard to square this with the company’s continued investment in emerging tech and moonshot projects. 

Meta owns and operates some of the most widely used platforms on the planet – Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – and continues to double down on AI and smart hardware.

Yet behind the curtain, the people responsible for building these technologies are facing an increasingly hostile performance culture.

If this is Meta’s idea of being “performance-driven,” then it’s a slippery slope. A workplace where reviews are weaponised can quickly become a pressure cooker – one where innovation takes a backseat to survival. It erodes trust, breeds cynicism, and strips managers of the very discretion that makes performance feedback meaningful.

More worryingly, it creates an illusion of meritocracy while practising quiet attrition. A game of musical chairs where more seats are removed each round – and employees don’t realise until the music stops.

Performance or purge?

The line between managing performance and managing perception is growing dangerously thin at Meta. While the tech giant may reframe its actions in terms of strategic realignment, agility and excellence, the truth is plainer: this is a backdoor layoff strategy, engineered to keep investors happy and headcount low without the reputational risk of pink slips en masse.

Leadership teams in other companies should take note. Raising the bar is admirable – but rigging the scale only leads to broken trust.

Performance reviews should be a compass, not a cudgel. When used with integrity, they guide growth and drive excellence. But when manipulated, they become little more than a smokescreen for cuts and consolidation.