To that last anonymous poster who attributed PPSC's success, in part, to a sort of capitalistic Darwinism, there is another way, you know. I mean, they could actually manage. They could realize that most of the people they hire don't walk in the door with the right skills, attitudes, values and motivation to succeeed and, well, that's what management is for. I'm thinking right now of that great scene in A Few Good Men where Jack Nicholson's character says that officers are supposed to train their men. "Yes, I believe I read that somewhere" he says sarcastically. The point I'm trying to make is that PPSC could just keep turning and burning the new hires until they find that occasional rare "survivor" who can figure out how to succeed without any management intervention at all or they could actually manage people and instill the right values and skills and attitudes and motivation in their new hires. What , exactly, is the value add of managers if they can't actually increase the odds that a new hire will succeed in his job? If managers won't manage, why have them? Why not just cut out the middleman and have all the reps and drivers and CSRs report directly to Peter Kelly? What, exactly, is it that so-called managers actually bring to the table if they don't accept responsibility for the new hires' success? Why do managers think they're being paid the big bucks if not to manage? Management without the accountability is measurement, not management. Yes. managers do have to measure things and one of the things they have to measure is employee performance but if all they do is measure and then they don't manage the employee to optimize performance, what are they good for?