Resignation. If they made a big enough blunder to need to lay off 20% of their staff, they're not capable of leading the company.

Why do we think they'd do any better next time if there are no consequences to their poor leadership?

Have you ever managed a complex, dynamic, changing system and found that the optimal size based on current conditions was 20% less than it was at some prior time?

I can think of all sorts examples.

Why can't the CEO share the fate of laid off employees? They did nothing wrong either.

The answer to your question is definitely no. Nobody who has ever ran a business for long would think that every layoff is due to CEO incompetence.

Why is it a blunder? Do you think only poor CEOs face downturns or overhire?

And if a company hires too many people for a few years and then right-sizes, isn’t that better for the economy overall than if they simply stayed small the whole time? They still paid salaries for those years and added to the overall level of employment.

Do you want a system where CEOs are hesitant to hire? Or where they’re afraid to right-size the workforce and instead run the whole company out of business?

There’s literally zero logic to your position, just feelings and Monday morning quarterbacking.

By that logic, Mark Zuckerberg is a poor leader and should resign. I think most investors would disagree with that assessment.

Maybe he should, Meta's main product has peaked in their biggest markets, and his last massive bet went nowhere. He may not be the right person to lead the company at this point.

maybe antiquated, but seppuku is considered honorable