[standardUser]

> you end up with a lot more people

That's a funny way to describe deliberately wasting thousands of work hours screening, interviewing and hiring people they didn't need. It seems like those making these staffing decisions should be the first to go, yet that never seems to be the case.

[warkdarrior]

Correct. CEO's layoff explanation indicates two things.

First, the people who made the hiring decision back then were wrong, since they seemingly hired a lot of people for unneeded roles.

Second, the people in charge now lack the vision or ideas on how to put 14,000 already-trained employees to good use on new projects, new products, etc.

[episteme]

You can do the right thing and still need to reverse the decision. If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives in future then you should hire. If in the near future the economy changes dramatically and you can't support those hires, you need to let them go.

[standardUser]

You describe the problem flawlessly.

"If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives...

... then you spend millions hiring and onboarding tens of thousands of people over many months, only to fire those people within a number of years.

THIS is why management is paid the big bucks.