[Porsche-O-Phile]

I know several firm owners who do not necessarily lay off the most "expendible" employees - they lay off the most expensive ones regardless of who that leaves them with. This is a debate among managers - what is the most effective way to target layoffs.

There is a very real business incentive to shed the people commanding the highest salaries and retain the cheapest people, not necessarily to shed the least productive and keep the most experienced/productive ones. Yes, a lot of times it's seen as an opportunity to do housecleaning, but not always. I've sat in on a couple of these discussions in management meetings - they're very eye-opening.

Remember that the goal of layoffs (in a recession) is to SAVE MONEY, not to INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY. These are mutually exclusive more often than you might think. At the end of the day you have to pay to get/retain good talent - there's no way around it. And in a recession a lot of times the companies simply aren't willing to pay up to get or keep the good people, as counter-intuitive as that might seem at first glance.

YMMV.