[Smilliam]

The issue with this approach is that the company then leaves itself vulnerable to a big brain drain. If the bulk of those volunteers end up being your best seniors/leads who know they can just go down the street and pick up another job at comparable comp all while getting a cozy three month vacation that you're bankrolling...well, it's easy to see how you could be left in a much worse position imo.

[Simulacra]

The high performers, the people who make money for the company, are rarely the first to be let go.

[Smilliam]

Correct, which is why it's not ideal to allow folks to volunteer for severance as the GP suggested. The company wants to choose who to let go to avoid putting themselves in a worse spot afterwards.

[mike_ivanov]

Wrong. People with the highest salary are usually the first to be let go, regardless of their status or contribution.

update: you think rationally, looking from the "greater good" perspective. Decisions are never made like that in reality. The way it happens is the board says "we need to cut expenses by X% or else", and that becomes your new "rational" -- or you lose your CEO job. Nobody cares about long term consequences in situations like that.

[obstacle1]

The point is they might be the first ones to voluntarily leave.