> now the remaining workforce has to adjust and "do more with less," If those cut were actually low performers, not necessarily. If the attrition was dead weig

> now the remaining workforce has to adjust and "do more with less," If those cut were actually low performers, not necessarily. If the attrition was dead weight or worse, incompetent, their good performing peers might do much better since they’re no longer cleaning up someone else’s mess or being demoralized that someone is getting away with doing nothing but still getting paid. The manager of dead weight gains time to be more involved or strategic, peer teams no longer waste time communicating to a useless person, small mistakes stop multiplying, etc. It’s situational, but I don’t think cutting low performers is a problem if there’s serious performance problems and it’s not just being used as an excuse or being applied blindly like stack ranking.