He also returned the company to profitability, and brought it back out of bankruptcy, without which it's very much possible that all of the staff rather than "just" 1/3 would have had to find new jobs.
It's perfectly possible he could have managed without, or with fewer, redundancies, but pointing to redundancies as evidence he's not thinking of staff is short-sighted.
It sucks to have people lose jobs, but the solution to that is not to have companies hold on to unsustainable amounts of staff to the extent where they are at risk of failing.
If one assumes that the 1/3 job losses were 'trimming the fat', I'd still argue that enforced liposuction constitutes bullying (if not outright assault).
The decision to cut the workforce may have been the right one but since the thrust of the article was the effectiveness of his philosophy I think it's only fair to highlight how it was applied.
