> No, sometimes companies need to die in order to be reborn. Absolutely agreed, but here's my take: Enabling failure to be more equitable either helps fix a co

> No, sometimes companies need to die in order to be reborn. Absolutely agreed, but here's my take: Enabling failure to be more equitable either helps fix a company's problems faster, or causes the company to fail faster. These are both healthy things. You describe corporate culture as being something that's very difficult to change. Absolutely true. If culture, to some degree, is a root problem for why a company isn't performing well, lay-offs aren't going to improve things. They're only going to make things worse. Exiting the CEO or other leadership and bringing in new leadership that can reorganize, push culture in a specific direction, increase output, etc; could help things. Change isn't easy, and many people will resist the change, but being able to view that resistance through the lens of a conversation with the people resisting rather than a broad and blind lay-off actually helps. At a high level, you can build the framework of new expectations; identify problem departments, teams, and people; help them adjust to the new normal; and at worse have that hard conversation. But, of course, some companies are just rotten beyond repair; and changes like this would change too much and potentially disrupt the whole organization. It sucks, but its better to identify that sooner rather than later. Saying "ah darn, well running a company is hard, if only there was a panacea for our problems ah darn!" is so fucking often used as an excuse to keep bad leadership around. No: There isn't a panacea. That does not exempt leadership from criticism!