There is no doubt that most companies (and the government) could cut 20% with no effect on their productivity. It's just no practical to ride the razors edge of leanness and it also would probably harm morale.
Twitter cut 80% of it's workforce and is becoming MORE productive.
>Twitter cut 80% of it's workforce and is becoming MORE productive.
Yet they lost most of their top advertisers, have cut APIs since they broke, had multiple significant outages, had it's value more than cut in half by investment firms, took on massive debt, is failing to pay basic bills in many countries including the US, has a CEO that got upset that his tweets were not the most popular so installed a special exemption for himself to push his tweets and his alone to users flooding them so badly he had to tune it down.....
They cut the group responsible for responding to pictures of children being abused. I don't want to work at a place that considers this "more productive".
You can find reports to support any opinion, which is why assertions are better supported with evidence. Elon Musk and anti-trafficking activist Eliza Bleu made a big deal about cleaning up Twitter back in December. Since then Ms Bleu seems to have spent more time mired in drama with former fans/supporters. It's not clear to me that there is any objective way to measure the success, failure, or efforts of Twitter in this area at present.
Late reply, but for the record, I think those are largely orthogonal. If you have 20% fewer workers spending their time on the same useless meetings and filling out the same forms and so on, it won't matter. Cutting the number of hours rather than the number of employees forces a rethink of processes.
