He seems to suggest not just getting rid of them, rather letting them know where they stand in the hope they move on or take it upon themselves to improve.

> You've got a bad take on it. It's letting the bottom 10% know where they are and then giving them a chance to move on. About 70% (of the bottom 10%) leave on their own. Who wants to be on the bottom once they know it? You don't fire them. That's being mean.

Though of course firing is always an option especially in the USA.

From that article the key point I found was that he would rather expend company resources nurturing top performers instead of salvaging the bottom performers. He believes it's a much better investment.