> We did it because everyone else is doing it and we were told it was the right thing. How were we to know that it wouldn’t work?”

And why does the board/shareholders allow a CEO to continue into their position by just following everyone else?

I'm sure things are different at massive scales, but I run my own side business (photography). I watch the local market, and I have the attitude of "Whatever everyone else is doing, I want to do the opposite." and it's worked for me so far. The area doesn't need yet another "dark and moody" photographer with boring sepia edits, blurry photos with a film preset, and the same exact font and colors on the website as everyone else.

You don't become a pioneer in your industry by just cargo culting everyone else. It's low effort leadership and if I were on the board it certainly would not inspire my confidence in their ability to run a company. You're telling me not a single person at the table asked "Do we have these engineers' institutional knowledge documented somewhere before we fire them all??"

There's the added cost that the best people are the least likely to return after a layoff.

its because CEOs hire mckinsey/deloitte/BCG types for couple millions that give them a 60 slide powerpoint to justify reductions in force.

the same consultants can be blamed if decision backfires

Why do u even bother about lost productivity. Come on dude how many firings need to happen before one has to see the reality. Just do the minimum job required for the position and move on. Loyalty should be both ways. But that's not the case