How are 'top performers' and 'low performers' being defined in this context?

In my experience, these labels in corporate environments often correlate more with social dynamics and political acumen than actual work output. People who are less socially connected or don't engage in office politics may find themselves labeled as 'low performers' regardless of their actual contributions, while those who excel at workplace networking might be deemed 'top performers'.

The interview process of these kind of companies also often falls into a problematic pattern where interviewers pose esoteric questions they've recently researched or that happen to align with their narrow specialization from years in the same role. This turns technical interviews into more of a game of matching specific knowledge rather than evaluating problem-solving abilities, broader engineering competence or any notion of 'performance'.

Let's be honest: how many people can truly separate personal feelings from performance evaluation? Even with structured review processes in place, would most evaluators give high marks to someone they personally dislike, even if that person consistently delivers excellent work?

> problematic pattern where interviewers pose esoteric questions they've recently researched

The days of the “brain teaser” interview question are gone, at least from the “magnificent 7” and similar big tech companies. Nowadays it’s coding, behavioral, and design, at least for engineers.

I concur with the sentiment that performance ranking has a very significant social component. If you have a bad relationship with your manager, watch out. But also, if your manager has a bad relationship with THEIR manager, or are not adept at representing their employees, you can get screwed too.