Different terminology is commonly used to make management feel better about themselves in the circumstance of firing people. It certainly doesn't fool the targets or victims of the proposed action.

When an organisation needs to 'rebalance', 'restructure' or cut jobs, it is almost always a product of management's failure to understand context, understand the impact of context on the organisation and a failure to effectively plan its human and other elements effectively in sight of a stimulus.

We all know that stuff happens within and to organisations, some of which they have no or little control over. Yet much that is claimed as 'unforeseen' is actually foreseeable with intelligence, honesty and effective planning. Also, something over which an organisation has little control over (e.g. downturn in the economy) doesn't mean that an organisation can't develop a contingency in the event that it happens.

The need to take pre-emptive steps in response to stimuli before they hit the fan is often shunned because management needs to sell their judgement to the board in an environment when stability (as good as you can achieve) is preferred. Change equals risk and many managers and directors have a vested interest in the status quo.