I don't know why they specifically chose 9% but I can say that substantial redundancies at a large corporation are horribly complex for both legal and logistica

I don't know why they specifically chose 9% but I can say that substantial redundancies at a large corporation are horribly complex for both legal and logistical reasons. Reasons why they might have chosen a number of this magnitude? 10-15% annual attrition for a large corporation is fairly normal i.e. losing that sort of experience spread around an organisation isn't particularly challenging (although you would normally backfill some/all). You wouldn't have to do some massive re-org just for this reason (there might be other reasons to do one of course). In many jurisdictions there are different rules for layoffs over a certain size. So they may be choosing to trigger rules in some areas and not others. Occasionally I have seen companies choosing to "overcut" in a particular jurisdiction in order to take the legal pain once rather than drip feed pain over a long period. It may also be that they can cut or sell specific areas so that pervasive impact is limited. This might produce a number that's larger or smaller than needed for cost purposes but helps to control the morale issues as many people see no direct impact. Edit: another very popular reaons is that that's the number that the analysts are expecting. I didn't say it's a good reason, just a common one. There are plenty of other reasons for ending up with a number up to and including "ip dip sky blue" that I have seen over the years. Generally though, it's tricky and often unpleasant.