That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better than the ones who remain. If you have people you feel are under performers then yes, ideally you would lose those specifically but then it’s not a reorganization it’s a performance based layoff where you’re outright saying “you’re not good at your job”
> That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better
The assumption that people who get hired after interviewing are "better" than those who are fall off the hiring funnel underpins the entire hiring process that even Square relies on. Does the assumption seem outlandish to you?
I think that assumption is not unreasonable - but I don’t think it’s a reasonable conclusion to say the people who are more confident to jump ship are inherently better for the future of a company than those who have been around for just as long and don’t want to risk it in the market.
