HR departments do the same thing. Cut or drastically change a benefit; there's an uproar, management "listens" and a few days later announces a revised policy which is still a cut, and the level which they'd planned all along, but now people feel like they had some say in it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3jjb2f/if_you_...
Their CEO literally used the words "we have listened" after the uproar.
https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/03/pr_030915/
https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...
Let's say you're a mayor who needs to increase the price of a public utility by 10%, what do you do? You announce that this price will be increased by 30%. People get furious, protests ensue (sometimes, it's even desirable if riots start) against such an outrageous increase! What to do? You should be as invisible as possible during this turbulent period and let others take all the heat, only to come out at the end announcing that yes, the people have spoken, and as a result the increase will be limited to 10%. Now, the people are happy; it's democracy in action, they have the power! The mayor is happy; he's got his increase happen. Happy ending.
*Your link misses a 'g' of .org
I honestly don't know which is more damaging but it's the ole 1-2 of company death. Luckily when managers then backfill the holes left by the top-N and things "keep working" they pat themselves on the back and say "see they weren't so important after all!" And then get perplexed when things are going slower at a macro level because everyone is sad and either literally or mentally out the door.
There's a big gap between full-productivity and a fireable work ethic.