The encouraging news first: for now, your position remains intact — you have avoided being laid off. Unfortunately, the reprieve may be temporary, as the prospect of being included in the next wave of workforce reductions looms just a few weeks ahead. An emerging trend among major corporations is to conduct layoffs not as a single, sweeping event, but as a series of recurring cuts. This gradual approach allows executives to recalibrate as conditions evolve, avoiding the potential overcorrection that can occur when too many employees are terminated at once. In theory, smaller and periodic layoffs minimize operational shock, enabling organizations to maintain continuity and mitigate the chaos often synonymous with large-scale reductions.
However, this drawn-out process brings its own complications. Extended rounds of uncertainty can take a devastating toll on the workforce, eroding trust, inflicting prolonged anxiety, and steadily diminishing morale. When the specter of additional layoffs persists, it becomes increasingly challenging for managers and executives to reignite optimism, reestablish purpose, or persuade teams to embrace new strategies. In recent months, industry giants such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have adopted this phased approach, trimming their headcounts incrementally rather than delivering one decisive blow. Amazon, for instance, recently announced that approximately 14,000 employees would lose their jobs. The company also hinted that this will not be the final adjustment, forecasting that by 2026 it will likely uncover additional structural inefficiencies — opportunities to “remove layers” and streamline operations further.
A similar pattern has emerged at Paramount, which, following its merger with David Ellison’s Skydance production company, revealed plans to eliminate around 1,000 positions — roughly half of the total anticipated reductions. Insiders have suggested that still more cuts are forthcoming, reinforcing the sense of ongoing instability. While Amazon chose not to provide further comment and Paramount Skydance did not respond to inquiries, the message is clear: the cycle of downsizing is far from over. As Carly Holm, founder and CEO of Humani HR, aptly observed, this steady, incremental approach — the “drip-drip” of layoffs — sustains a state of unease that undermines confidence across the organization.
Some observers refer to this phenomenon as the “forever diet” of corporate America, a metaphor for leaders’ efforts to continuously trim excess without admitting to systemic overhiring. The practice has also become symbolic — a demonstration that today’s executives are vigilant about avoiding cumbersome organizational structures or unproductive business lines, particularly after the aggressive hiring surges that characterized the pandemic era, especially within the technology sector. Yet as Matthew Bidwell, a management professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, points out, such behavior may also reflect habit: many corporations have grown accustomed to routine workforce reductions. In the past, when layoffs were viewed as extraordinary measures, leaders sought to handle them swiftly and decisively. Now, he suggests, the prevailing mindset has shifted toward normalization, diluting the sense of gravity once associated with cutting jobs.
Bidwell also emphasizes the broader economic backdrop influencing this shift. As the job market cools and alternative employment opportunities become scarcer, employers feel less pressure to worry about potential defections among their remaining staff. The philosophical change runs deep. Before roughly 1980, he explains, companies tended to weather downturns through temporary furloughs, expecting to rehire employees once business conditions improved. Permanent layoffs, particularly among white-collar professionals, were considered extreme measures. Today, however, the logic has inverted: if dismissing workers appears likely to boost short-term profitability, it is often pursued with little hesitation. In other words, the calculus of human capital has evolved from long-term stewardship to near-term financial optimization.
Further complicating matters, the psychological aftershocks of layoffs often linger. Brooks Holtom, a management scholar at Georgetown University, underscores that repeated job reductions can stifle creativity, elevate stress levels, and provoke burnout among those who survive each round. Consequently, he argues that a single, comprehensive layoff — painful though it may be — allows an organization to begin recovery sooner. Staggered cuts, by contrast, perpetuate tension, preventing employees from focusing on innovation or forward progress. Another practical consideration supports this view: after any reduction in force, voluntary departures tend to rise sharply, often by as much as 50 percent within the following year. Ironically, those who leave are frequently the most capable employees, whose skills afford them better options elsewhere.
Nevertheless, proponents of gradualism contend that smaller sequential layoffs can serve a strategic purpose. Executives may prefer a measured approach to avoid cutting too deeply or prematurely, especially in periods of economic or technological volatility. Overshooting a target reduction can lead to the awkward necessity of rehiring, a process that not only consumes time and resources but also signals organizational instability to shareholders and markets. As Sarah Rodehorst, cofounder and CEO of Onwards HR, explains, the apparent clarity of a one-time layoff must be weighed against its risks: when the business environment is clouded by shifting forces — from artificial intelligence to trade policies and government austerity — the needs of the company can change dramatically in a matter of months. Reducing staff too aggressively can leave leadership without the human resources needed to adapt or restructure effectively.
Moreover, reassigning responsibilities following large layoffs can be exceedingly complex. Teams must be reconstituted, workflows reimagined, and institutional knowledge redistributed. Rodehorst notes that, in many cases, businesses temporarily require overlapping competencies as they rebuild operations, making it impractical to release too many employees simultaneously. Yet this cautious approach invites another kind of risk: a psychological one. Employees who remain often become consumed by uncertainty, ruminating over whether they might be next instead of concentrating on their core duties.
Scott Kirsner, CEO of InnoLead, a research firm examining corporate innovation, observes that the aftermath of layoffs rarely marks a period of creative resurgence. Rather than generating novel ideas or pursuing growth, teams are typically preoccupied with logistical confusion — determining new reporting lines, redefining responsibilities, and deciphering what the organization now represents. Meanwhile, Bidwell reiterates that large layoffs unleash turmoil and that efforts to avoid them altogether require foresight that few executives can sustain for long. Attempting to foresee a company’s personnel needs several years ahead invites error, particularly in industries defined by rapid transformation.
Even if the notion of “cut now, hire later” seems efficient on paper, Bidwell warns that this logic disregards hidden costs. Every time new employees are brought in, organizations face subtle but substantial adjustment periods: morale recovery, lost institutional memory, and the lengthy process of onboarding new staff to reach prior productivity levels. While salary expenses are simple to quantify, he argues, the intangible consequences — diminished engagement, eroded loyalty, and the challenge of sustaining motivation — are far more difficult to measure. Thus, the real balance sheet of layoffs is not limited to severance packages and payroll savings, but also includes the enduring human and cultural costs that accompany perpetual uncertainty and disruption.
For those wishing to share insights or information about such corporate shifts, Business Insider encourages secure communication by email or encrypted message, maintaining discretion to protect both sources and confidentiality.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/employers-laying-off-workers-in-waves-2025-10
