I don't think 11% is tiny at all. According to the article, that's 136 people. At an extremely low-end conservative cost of $200k per employee (I'm sure it's more than that), that's nearly $30M per year. If they truly believe that $30M wasn't being spent well, that's good money saved.
They will now have a second larger round of layoffs by summer of 2023.
Oof. That's painful for moral. Much better to do a single deep cut, with a shift back to growth.
Is that your speculation or has that actually been confirmed somewhere?
Maybe they had that many people they couldn't see worth their cost ($ and/or headache).
Laying off people is a lit easier than firing them.