There are a lot of people in this discussion who know more than I do about Twitter - and part of the answer is situational specific. Often, "cut fast and deep"

There are a lot of people in this discussion who know more than I do about Twitter - and part of the answer is situational specific. Often, "cut fast and deep" makes sense because you're in a difficult situation where both expenses and time are against you. People use all sorts of analogies (e.g. "cutting the fat") but the reality is that if you take out 20-30% of your workforce you will cut back needed functions and you will lose people who are both good and whom you need: there simply won't be enough time, insight or structural ability not to make some mistakes. There tends to be a big impact on morale for a long time after the event - improving morale becomes a major management objective. The upside of this approach is you do it once, it's a big shock internally but then everyone can focus back around the mission. The alternative approach is a more gradual deflation of your numbers, closing down teams and not-backfilling roles. If you have time then the upsides of this approach are that you can be much more surgical about the changes. Presented in the right way it's going to feel more like a "pivot" with some natural wastage of people that won't work in the new mission. The downside - is that it can feel like a "long march" as successive sets of cuts are made. Pick your poison as it's both the framework and the implementation!