Final answer:
The least severe workforce reduction method between "cutting" and "curbing" is generally "curbing," as it does not immediately displace current employees. "Cutting" involves layoffs and is often chosen to avoid adverse selection by retaining the most skilled workers.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks which method of workforce reduction is the least severe between "cutting" - which includes layoffs, reductions in job costs, and reorganizations - and "curbing" - which involves personnel ceilings, hiring freezes, and buyouts. In general, "curbing" strategies such as imposing personnel ceilings, implementing hiring freezes, and offering buyouts can be considered less severe in comparison to "cutting" methods. These "curbing" approaches do not immediately displace current employees, whereas "cutting" methods usually result in direct job loss.
The adverse selection of wage cuts argument states that when wages are uniformly reduced, more skilled workers with better job prospects are likely to leave the company, essentially creating an unintended filter that retains less desirable employees. In order to avoid this, firms more frequently opt for layoffs and firings to manage workforce size. However, it should be noted that the strategies mentioned are often used in combination depending on business circumstances and objectives.