Layoffs are always a sign of bad management. 99% of the time layoffs are because someone high up overextended.
In the mythical ~1% where layoffs only affect "low performers", I would argue it is still managements fault for allowing hiring practices that result in the need to cut a substantial percentage of the company.
> Layoffs are always a sign of bad management. 99% of the time layoffs are because someone high up overextended.
That seems like too strong of a statement to make. There's certainly macroeconomic factors that management can't predict, and if they cause layoffs it's a stretch to call that "bad management". You could argue "well maybe they shouldn't grown as aggressively as they did", but under-growing is arguably "bad management" as well. After all, the purpose of a business isn't solely to be a jobs program. If you grew 50% in the past decade but your competitor grew 200% in the same timeframe, that's arguably also "bad management", even if it meant you you were able to avoid layoffs in the last recession.
In the mythical ~1% where layoffs only affect "low performers", I would argue it is still managements fault for allowing hiring practices that result in the need to cut a substantial percentage of the company.