You may be right, I hadn't considered the human element. But to clarify, the point of letting go small groups at a time isn't to eventually fire 900 people. It's that you're taking a Bayesian approach and constantly charting a new course for your business.

The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings.

It's like rebalancing a portfolio: you adjust your allocations gradually as new information comes in. This is better than one day deciding its time to sell everything or buy everything.

Agreed on the parent comment, the human element is very real. Morale especially during a time of global pandemic is a knife edge to manage.

> The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings.

Again you're looking at it too closely to a machine. Machines don't care and pure efficiency says this statement is correct/better.

If you treat your staff like a portfolio, you are not carrying the tenants of being a good leader.

That's not to say that people don't do that. It happens all the time - treating employees sub-human, merely pawns to be sacrificed.

A portfolio is a portfolio and the analogy does-not/should-not carry well to staff lest we all be slaves where literal ownership of other humans is acceptable again.