Fallacious.
Inside just a few months, a number of of the folks I had anticipated to maintain resigned. All of the sudden, in our push to be extra environment friendly within the age of AI, we misplaced a few of the very expertise we wanted.
The excellent news: Jonathan got here again. In August, he utilized for considered one of our newly-opened roles, and we rehired him. On a Zoom name, he informed me sheepishly that coming again felt like “sneaking again in the home after I acquired kicked out.”
That was a intestine punch. However the subsequent half was worse: After we reactivated his account, he stated, he discovered our chilly, company restructuring announcement nonetheless sitting in his inbox. What struck him was how impersonal it felt. In my thoughts, we had been asserting a restructuring. In his, folks he knew and labored alongside had simply misplaced their jobs. Why couldn’t we have now merely acknowledged them—and stated one thing variety concerning the individuals who had been leaving?
Cringe. I gained’t should study that lesson twice.
At a time when each CEO feels they’ve to maneuver quicker, get leaner and reorganize fully round AI, it’s simple to undervalue the folks you have already got. AI-attributed cuts peaked in Might, when US employers introduced 97,000 job cuts and blamed 40% of them on AI. Zillow lower greater than 500 folks earlier this month, introduced the day earlier than earnings, in response to govt teaching agency Challenger, Grey & Christmas.
The AI excuse is getting previous. Former Lululemon govt Julie Averill wrote a piece within the New York Instances earlier this month saying you both see leaders believing they’ll repair an issue by waving AI at it (“AI wishing”) or blaming AI on job cuts (“AI washing”) credited to effectivity that doesn’t exist but.
Firms are imagining what AI may make attainable, and making strikes earlier than totally understanding tips on how to get there. Three in 10 employers eradicated positions after implementing AI, solely to later add these roles again, in response to an April 2026 examine by international staffing agency Robert Half.
I’m not saying corporations shouldn’t change. That’s not the lesson. We needed to change, once we shifted from being extra of a pure software program consultancy to turning into an AI-centric know-how firm. Advisory work stays an vital a part of what we do, however the heart of gravity shifted. New priorities required new roles, and inevitably, some restructuring. However I did study one thing concerning the hazard of chasing the Subsequent Large Enterprise Mannequin earlier than totally understanding whether or not the abilities, expertise, and institutional information you have already got can evolve with you.
There’s a chorus out there alongside the traces of ‘information work is turning into irrelevant within the age of AI.’ I’ve come to consider nearly the other: AI could make skilled folks much more beneficial, in the event you give them the fitting instruments to adapt. Roles can evolve. Abilities could be rebuilt. However that requires leaders to spend money on coaching and making a path for folks to make that transition. And as leaders, that’s on us.
The underside line is: Individuals aren’t interchangeable elements. Institutional information, belief, relationships, experience–all these issues take time to construct and generally you don’t totally perceive their worth till they’re gone.
Ultimately, I share this small yarn about Jonathan as a result of it’s in the end a narrative of second probabilities–each for an worker taking one other likelihood on an organization, and of an organization taking one other have a look at what it values.
It’s additionally about reinvention. As leaders, we spend a lot time wanting ahead that we overlook the worth of additionally wanting again, and questioning the choices we made alongside the way in which.
It’s okay to alter your thoughts. To reinvent your self. Reinvent your organization. Reinvent your workforce. Reinvent your management fashion. Typically transferring ahead means admitting you bought one thing improper–and getting a second likelihood to make it proper.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary items are solely the views of their authors and don’t essentially replicate the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This can be a repost of Pay Dust, the Substack by regulator Fortune contributor Maria Colacurcio about compensation, AI, and the programs we select to construct.
