I think the other thing that's perhaps missing is that some companies have so much momentum (with thousands of people) that it probably doesn't matter when they lose people. The company will continue to thrive because there is demand for the product.

Quantifying this would be interesting though.

[0]: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20200169

As employees rise up the corporate ladder, their compensation packages increase, but the amount that the company can charge for that employee's work is limited (clients will be wanting to keep a certain margin for themselves too)

- You are a manager of a team of 4

- You hear layoffs are coming

- You have one amazing direct report, 2 just ok and 1 awful

Who do you fire?

Most people say "Of course, fire the awful person"

I say: "When this actually happened, the manager fired their best person"

Other: "But, but why? That's not fair!"

Me: "You know layoffs are coming. You are the most expensive person on the team. If you fire the awful person there may be questions about why you even hired them. They then fire you and keep your amazing person as the manager (probably for less money).

You fire your best person, well then now you as the manager are the best person AND you can make the argument that that awful person needs 'more managing to be effective'"

It's not pretty or noble or heartwarming but this is how the logic goes in a lot of big firms (especially around layoff season).

The only other thing I have to say about it is I have noticed a high correlation with the reports produced and the things employees have been telling management to do for a long time - that is to say, there is some utility to having an outsider provide the information... even if that information isn't novel at all.