Do you need permission to shift the blame for your own poor planning? As far as they're concerned, this was all played out just fine, they needed the headcount

Do you need permission to shift the blame for your own poor planning? As far as they're concerned, this was all played out just fine, they needed the headcount in case they could grow more, and if things changed, they can always lay off 15% of the workforce. I'll add the implicit statement to their note on ZIRP myself (in italics): > Starting in the middle of 2020, the world moved in an unprecedented environment for many companies. As interest rates plummeted to 0% and monetary policy pushed lots of money into the economy, companies had easy access to capital, and demand for products and services surged. Organizations hired aggressively to meet market demand and the war for talent reached a fever pitch. The result, for Lattice, was that growth skyrocketed. [We either ignorantly assumed it would be like this forever, or knowingly took the risk that we'd have to lay people off when the economic picture meaningfully changed.] > Fast forward a couple of years to 2023, and the economic picture has meaningfully changed. (Aside, anyone else annoyed that so many companies have adopted the term "impacted" as the verb to refer to people who were laid off? The company is experiencing a layoff, an event as a noun, through which coworkers are impacted. Maybe I've only noticed this recently. It rubs me the wrong way, as we're avoiding saying what happened out loud, like the company is absolved from their responsibility as the subject performing the act of firing on the object. That said, the severance here is fairly generous so this isn't a knock on Lattice so much as pervasive SV culture.)