> Management actually needs to do what they get the big bucks for and make strategic decisions about what business lines do/don't need to be staffed rather than culling arbitrary %s everywhere.

The performance management process and 4-6% "unregretted attrition" (to use the technical term) target at Amazon is totally independent from figuring out project resourcing and headcounts. An employee who is fired for performance reasons doesn't change the headcount on your team.

Yes, that is my point. Past a few iterations, there is not a lot of value in doing this company wide over and over.. versus making hard big picture decisions on resourcing departments properly.

I don't understand what you mean. The 4-6% URA target is for continually managing out low performing employees. It may not be the most effective way, but that is the intent. It has nothing to do with resourcing departments properly; that's a totally different process and conversation.

Again, I think you are confusing layoffs, which are a reduction in headcount for a department/team, with attrition, where the people themselves are let go but the headcount remains so you can hire to replace them.

Do hairless employees in a vacuum interfere with each commutativelly or anti-commutativelly?