[calinet6]

I disagree pretty highly. I've seen it in this order:

1. First are the flight risks. They're likely to split soon after a layoff event anyway, so might as well factor them in.

2. Second are functions that would be otherwise crippled or left unable to do their job well (eg: if you fire a flight risk manager and her team is working on a project that will no longer be needed, might as well cut the rest). Smart companies do the whole layoff this way.

3. Performance based. Highly paid employees are generally highly paid for a reason, and their value in terms of revenue impact generally exceeds their pay. Judgement calls will be made about performance; if the company is old school and still doing performance reviews, they'll be taken into account, but they're most likely incorrect anyway.

Politics will always come into play, but people tend to take layoffs more seriously than either hiring or promotion, and make a huge effort to make the best decisions they can to leave the company with a team that they believe works.

[nsajko]

Why do you lay off someone who is expected to quit soon anyways? Doesn't that just add severance pay to your expenses?

[michaelt]

If they're "expected to quit soon" because they seem bored with the place and they've been planning to move on to advance their career, they'll probably go without a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Of course, if they're "expected to quit soon" because they're seething with rage and angry about everything, the reaction might be quite the opposite!

As to why lay off instead of waiting for them to quit, probably because you've been told to reduce headcount now, not at some indeterminate future date.

[phamilton]

Most layoffs are absolute in numbers (you must lay off %10 of your org). So if you don't lay them off, you have to lay off someone else.