[IG_Semmelweiss]

User serf already covered, but I'll go into detail.

1 - because even during a mass layoff, theres always a threat of a lawsuit. Sure, it may not go anywhere, but as already mentioned, defending is costly. An employee that decides to leave on their own volition is no risk. Plus, laying off people has in some states some remuneration and compliance requisites. Unemployment hearings that tie up senior staff and can be a time drain. Then theres fringe benefits. And of course, there's morale, reputation, and other intangible costs like IP loss and making an unwanted enemy or even encouraging a scrappy conpetitor. Its infinitely cheaper and desirable to get someone to leave vs termination.

2 - Please see serf's post. In addition - High performers can also be those that actively prevent product from actually shipping, ensnaring the org in turf wars, and similar (typical) large org roadblocks.

To be clear, my worldview was that this premise was insane. I still think it is strange -based own personal experience- but im far less certain of its invalidity, and I am forced to acknowledge that the CEO has better information than I have. Perhaps I need to reconsider my position.

[hn_throwaway_99]

But your number 1 still makes absolutely 0 sense with this particular conspiracy theory, which premises that the goal is to get people to resign by having multiple rounds of layoffs.

That is, the conspiracy theory presupposes that the company is already going to have lots of layoffs. So you're saying it's arguing that companies want to avoid the negative consequences of layoffs - by having a lot of layoffs???

The whole idea is nonsense.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

I may not be expressing myself well. Sorry. I'll try again.

If the layoff announcement is t0, and every layoff round is t1, t2 ...t(n), the company is banking on:

-employees do not know n

-employees only have standing to sue (AND benefits) at T(n+1)

-employee anxiety level will not tolerate waiting to T(n)

- notice that even if n = 1, it still has the same effect as n=5 since (n) is unknown to employee.

Therefore, Opco announces layoffs, but to lower the t0 cost of terminations, it moves terminations to (n). Note t0 is most expensive scenario for the employer. This is the hard thing to accept because its counterintuitive, and does not generalize (I.e. cutting the cord now,and moving on).

[hn_throwaway_99]

Folks that believe in the insane complexity of this have never been in management in my opinion. People really just don't put that much devious thought into that kind of plan.

Besides, it still doesn't make any sense. Having been at a company previously that had many layoffs over a series of years, a very common opinion was that it would be crazy to quit, and get no severance. Better to just hope you'd get laid off with a fat severance package, especially since most of the packages at the big tech companies over the past year and a half have been extremely generous.