Like other commenters have observed:

    Local government has likely realized that tax revenues have increased with Amazon's three-day RTO over the past year and naturally wants more of it now.

    The last layoff was bottom-heavy, primarily targeting L4s and L5s. This has left Amazon top-heavy. One of the reasons why no raise this year L6 and above. Reckless promotions over the past three years have driven salary expenses higher. I see PEs in my organization who don’t deserve their titles.

    Replacing tenured employees with fresh graduates could lower the company's salary expenses. Additionally, I believe that L5s and below tend to spend more on food, transportation, and other expenses compared to seasoned employees who have families and more significant expenditures. This could lead to increased revenue for the local government—a win-win for both parties.

    Amazon does not want to spend money on severance, as being frugal is one of its leadership principles. The company is likely trying different tactics to encourage people to leave, using severance as a last resort. I personally feel that Amazon overhired by around 50,000 during the pandemic, and the layoff of 27,000 was suboptimal.

Why now? Aside from local government pressure to drive state revenue, I believe leadership has recognized that Amazon's stock and revenue are likely to remain flat in the upcoming years, making significant growth unlikely as it was in the past. They would want to optimize profits, naturally leading to more junior hires if needed, forcing seniors out, and keeping local government satisfied. A win-win for all?

My advice to Jassy and the S-Team:

1. Ensure that your flattening of the curve exercise is fair at all levels, guaranteeing each level a degree of influence not just at the immediate level but throughout their organization. I have seen two L7s managing 40 people, with no reporting structure indicating a reasonable span of control. Establish rules such that L6s have 8 (min) to 10 (max) reports, L7s manage between 48 (6 teams of 8) to 70 (9 teams of 8), Directors handle 4 * 50 = 200 (175 min, 250 max), VPs oversee 800 to 1200, and SVPs manage 10,000 to 15,000. If the desired corporate org size is 250,000, ensure there are around 25 SVPs, 250 VPs, 1,250 Directors, 4,200 L7s, and 25,000 L6 managers.

2. Reassess the roles of PMTs and TPMs and the value they bring. Rarely do these individuals fulfill their intended roles. Their responsibilities need to be clearly defined, and OKRs must be set for what they are expected to accomplish. It’s not their fault; VPs, L8s, and L7s often offload their tasks onto them. Check when the last time these leaders authored say strategic documents themselves.

3. Many Kingpin goals are lacking. They rarely contain good metrics as success criteria or justifications for prioritization. Your L8s are unlikely to adopt metrics-driven goals, often opting for launch goals instead. I would bet that 70% of goals are launch oriented rather than metric driven. Establish a rule that at least 80% of goals at the Director level should be measured by metrics. Each Director should have one S-Team goal; otherwise, what is the purpose of a Director managing a 200-person organization? Startups build billion-dollar businesses with similar-sized teams. Shouldn't Directors be able to do the same? Encourage them to adopt S-Team metrics-driven goals. If they cannot, reconsider the necessity of the L8 position in that organization.

4. There is too much bias during talent reviews. Your HRBPs focus primarily on diversity bias (which is important) but rarely assess bias from other angles. I have seen top-performing individuals marked as LE for trivial reasons. Your HRBP organization needs to be revamped and trained to look beyond diversity bias. In talent reviews, they often aim to please the L8s they support, leading to agreement rather than objective assessments.

Many more suggestions, but I’m too tired to write them all out.