All the fear-mongering about AI taking jobs reminds me of something I’ve seen too often: when organisations go into org change with the goal to reduce headcount, it rarely ends well.

I’ve been part of these exercises. You cut people, but the costs come back in other forms – lost sales, reduced capacity, expensive contractors to plug the gaps. The result? Often a rapid series of transformations, each one trying to fix the damage caused by the last. Org transformation whack-a-mole.

A good industry wide example was the trend to offshore software development a decade or so back. Sold as a way to cut costs, it often ended up costing more due to hidden overheads, coordination challenges, slow delivery and quality issues. Many quietly reversed course over the next few years.

The reason it doesn’t work? Yes, organisations can be bloated – but that’s usually a *symptom of deeper inefficiencies, not the root cause*.
If you cut people without addressing those inefficiencies, the problems persist – or get worse, because now fewer people are left to deal with the same issues.

The best transformations I’ve seen start with the outcome.

Why do we exist? What are we here to do?

Then look at the system end to end – people, culture, process, communication, technology – and identify the pain points and bottlenecks.

Optimise systematically.

Yes, this can lead to restructuring. Roles change. Some may no longer be needed. But that happens as a consequence of tackling the root causes.

AI? It’s just a tool. It could help. It could just as easily get in the way. Technology is a *fourth-order concern* – purpose, people, and process come first.

If you don’t understand the root causes, if you don’t work from first principles, AI won’t save you. It’ll amplify your dysfunction.




Footnote: There are situations where a headcount-first approach is justified – but these are typically extreme, when an organisation is fighting for immediate survival.