I think management was seeing such collateral damage as just rounding errors. But it did not work out this way.
Engineers above the senior level were far more likely to leave than juniors. This was because finding remote, well-paying work even today is still a lot easier for a senior, principal, fellow engineers, than it is for those less experienced. I would say principals and seniors were most likely to leave. They left the company I was talking about 2:1 compared to others.
Fellows/distinguished level engineers didn’t leave much either. But probably because the RTO mandate was negotiable for them, as many other things. Moreover, it might be difficult to move laterally to a different company and remain at that level, with that pay.
It was mostly that the middle fell out.
I guess companies always think they’ll get the undesirables and replaceables out with layoffs, but through a lot of secondary effects (morale, distrust, lack of stability, leaving friends, and so on) they often get rid of the people that are most in demand and hardest to replace.
It might not be 2:1 in every case, but I do believe that the ones in demand are most likely to leave in “soft” layoffs like forced RTO or whatever Musk was doing at X, where the employees themselves choose whether to to or stay and submit. If you just decimate the company evenly, the outcome could be less destructive.