He could have tried to direct the reader's sympathy towards the people getting laid off, rather than himself who is not going to suffer anything because of the decision he's making. If you are doing something nasty because of "just business," the minimum standard in corporate messaging you're expected to achieve is writing an announcement that is itself just business (and not a humanizing self-administered interview like you're getting an article in a magazine or something).
All of the big corporations that you do not want to work for did not invent corporatespeak because they are uncreative or unwilling to engage with human emotions, they invented it because that is the least infuriating way to communicate that they're shutting down a division for offshoring.
> I take responsibility for those decisions, as well as the difficult decision to do this layoff.
From a strategic point of view, this sentence has near-zero positive effect on the reader and apparent non-zero negative effect. So it should probably be left out.
I know a handful of people who have been laid off. Each one was very angry about being laid off - it was unfair, the boss always had it in for me, etc.
The ones I talked to a year later would ruefully admit it was a net positive for them. They were forced to reevaluate their careers and make corrections. One, for example, said it gave him the kick in the pants to start his own business, which he'd always wanted to do. Another told me it gave him the motivation for getting clean from drugs (the reason he was laid off was showing up for work high).
Being laid off is a lot less traumatic to people than getting fired, so layoffs are done to periodically let low performers go in a way that preserves their dignity, and makes it easier for them to get another job.
