That employee now doing extra work accepts it because they are either scared of being laid off themselves, know they can't find a better job elsewhere, have irrational loyalty to the company, whatever. In any case the company benefits by exploiting the person.
If instead the person leaves, then the process fails and the issue rolls up the org hierarchy. Now the leadership evaluates if this process was actually necessary anyway. If not, let it die or let the shit roll downhill elsewhere. If it was important, invest in the refactor that everyone knew was probably necessary anyway.
For corporate leadership it's an easy way to either squeeze more out of the peasants, or force a reevaluation of priorities.
The company is signaling that it is not doing well - why shouldn't I leave for a company that is doing well?
The only way I'll stay is if you want me to be part of a real plan to turn things around. And my involvement in that has to be rewarded - not just at the successful end of that process, but immediately.
Any statistics to back that up? I've read both narratives (this one and the one that conflicts it) countless times over the Internet the past few years. I have no idea what is true.
A lot of people defend work from home and say it makes people more productive/work more overall. If that were the case, why are some of the brightest companies like Google/Apple against it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/10/31/productiv...
The pandemic may have acted like a reset on how work could fit into one's life. There's no going back from a perspective like that. I suspect that the idea of a career ladder simply doesn't work as well on younger generations as it may once have, for it may assume that growth occurs (making room for people).
It also assumes that people trust institutions to take care of them.
When this happens, this doesn't push employees to do anything better; it sends the message that even if you're great at your job, you may be cut because the company changed its mind about what's worth pursuing.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-copycat-layoffs-wo...
Instead, the threat of being laid off is being used as a stick to bring the remaining employees in line — productivity has been lower the last few years, and leadership has no real way to measure on an individual level or how to improve it, so putting the pressure on employees is a tried and true tactics.
Further, they can make lower TC offers to future employees, and give lower raises, pointing to the “need” to do so as demonstrated by earlier layoffs.
So you lay off 6% but freeze the wages of the remaining 94% (who are grateful to have a job rather than carping about wages not tracking inflation) — big savings.