Tag: future of work

AI: creating or destroying jobs?
The AI-jobs argument has split into two camps that aren’t actually arguing about the same thing.

Jensen Huang told CEOs at GTC that firing people for AI shows “no imagination” — radiologists, he points out, are more numerous now than before AI entered radiology. Marc Andreessen calls the displacement narrative “completely fabricated” and points to Jevons Paradox: cheaper labor produces more demand, not less. The WEF Future of Jobs Report still projects net +78 million jobs globally by 2030. Challenger’s Hiring Plans index was up 157% year-over-year in March.

A week later, Block laid off 40% of its workforce. Jack Dorsey said engineering work that needed weeks now happens in a fraction of the time. Block is still hiring AI engineers.

So which is it?

My read: both sides are right. They’re answering different questions about different decades. Most of the public argument is two conversations pretending to be one.

The optimist case

Three pieces hold it up.

The historical record is strong. Keynes wrote in 1930 that his grandchildren would work fifteen-hour weeks. Reality 2025: OECD average is thirty-seven hours, Americans clock 1,976 hours a year. Mechanization, electrification, the computer, the internet — every general-purpose technology was forecast to end work, and every one produced more jobs than it eliminated. In 1900, 41% of Americans worked in agriculture; today it’s 2%. The jobs went somewhere.

Jevons Paradox is real. When something useful gets cheaper, demand rises. If AI makes cognitive work twenty times cheaper, you don’t end up with one-twentieth the cognitive work. You end up with twenty times the cognitive work, deployed against far more problems. Andreessen’s “Super-PhD in every field” captures it.

A big chunk of the labor market is hard to displace. Licensed jobs (medicine, law, accounting), unionized jobs (skilled trades, transit, public safety), and public-sector roles add up to a large fraction of US employment. Not protected because they’re irreplaceable in some technical sense — protected by institutions that move slowly.

Each piece is correct. The question is whether they’re enough.

Where the optimist case breaks

The deployment gap: theoretical AI capability dwarfs observed usage by occupation. Source: Anthropic Economic Index.

The Anthropic Economic Index plots theoretical AI capability against observed AI usage by occupation. The two lines look almost nothing alike — capability is broad and high; usage is narrow and concentrated. There’s a gap between what AI can do and what it’s actually doing.

Read that gap two ways. The optimist reading: deployment is slow, friction is real, the labor market reabsorbs shocks like it always has. The harder reading: the gap is the queue — it’s where displacement comes from over the next five to ten years, not from new capability but from deployment catching up to capability that already exists.

94% of cognitive job tasks are theoretically automatable today; 33% actually are. The space between is the transition zone. It’s not science fiction. It’s not contested. Most of it will close. Block’s layoffs sit on the second reading.

The historical-record argument also has a footnote that doesn’t get enough weight. AI is the first general-purpose technology to automate cognitive labor at scale. Every prior wave automated muscle, then narrow categories of cognitive work — but never the universal category of “thinking and writing and analyzing and deciding.” The tractor displaced farm hands; they moved into office work. The PC displaced typewriters and clerks; they moved into knowledge work. AI doesn’t have an obvious “moved into” destination, because the destination of every prior wave is the category AI now automates.

The TIME / Contextual AI benchmark chart makes the universality vivid. AI surpassed human-level performance on handwriting recognition around 2015, then speech, then images, reading, language, common sense, math, code generation. The rate at which new tasks fall is increasing.

The trades-and-physical-work counterargument is weaker than it looks. Yes, 57% of jobs depend on physical presence or craft work AI can’t currently replicate. But 70% of positions inside blue-collar companies — the dispatcher, the accountant, the customer-service rep — are white-collar-adjacent and fully exposed. And if displaced knowledge workers all migrate into trades, wages collapse from saturation. Bank of America projects billions of humanoid robots by mid-century with hardware costs falling from $35,000 to under $15,000; one analyst projects robot-hours at four to six euros. Even physical work has an expiration date.

So the optimist case is strong for a long-run answer. It’s much weaker for the next ten years.

The displacement case

Not “AI replaces all jobs.” That’s the optimists’ caricature, and once you reach for it the displacement case looks weak. The serious version is more specific.

The barbell economy: high-skill productivity rises, low-skill stable, the middle hollows out.

It’s structural: the middle is being squeezed. The labor market is shifting from a K-shape into a barbell. High-skill technical roles are more productive — the same Anthropic data shows code, analysis, and research at the top of the productivity-gain distribution, with usage approaching 60% of theoretical capacity. Low-skill physical roles in care, hospitality, manual handling, and trades are stable for now. The middle is shrinking: bookkeeping and paralegal work, content writing and copywriting, junior finance and analyst roles, customer service, entry-level coding, marketing copy, translation, project coordination, junior tax preparation.

Germany has already seen roughly 90,000 AI-related job losses in the first months of 2026. The risk is not mass unemployment in aggregate. Aggregate unemployment can stay low for years while the middle hollows out. The risk is a split labor market — and a split society — in which the people who staffed the middle no longer have a clear path up or sideways.

The Anthropic Economic Index BLS panel makes this concrete: hiring of younger workers in AI-exposed occupations has slowed, even as overall employment numbers haven’t moved much. That’s what early-stage hollowing looks like — the entry-level rung disappears first, before the established middle does.

Five years of that compounds into something the historical record didn’t have to absorb.

My read — the three-phase shape

Three phases of the AI jobs transition: displacement (2025-2030), strain (2030-2035), abundance (2035+).

The clearest three-phase framing is German — chronological, not parallel.

Phase one — displacement (~2025-2030). AI displaces knowledge work faster than the labor market rebuilds. The middle hollows. Aggregate unemployment may not move much; entry-level paths in white-collar roles narrow sharply. The optimists are right that the technology eventually creates new categories. They’re wrong about the timing.

Phase two — strain (~2030-2035). Strain shows up in places that aren’t unemployment: tax-base erosion, weakened consumer demand, capital returns rising while labor’s share of national income falls to historic lows. Public-sector and licensed-job cushions hold initially but come under fiscal pressure. The political consequences sharpen.

Phase three — abundance (after ~2035). The deflation the optimists describe arrives. Costs collapse across categories. What costs $100 today costs a few cents. The median 2040 lifestyle, on a flow-of-services basis, looks something like today’s high-net-worth lifestyle on every dimension except positional goods. Both Andreessen and Huang are right about the destination.

That’s the timeframe trap. Both sides are correct on their respective horizons. The honest version of the optimist case includes the transition pain. The honest version of the displacement case includes the recovery.

What this means for how leaders think about the next ten years: the question isn’t “do we believe in AI displacement, yes or no.” That question is roughly answered. The task is to assume real displacement in the middle, plan for it, and carry the organization through to the recovery in a way that keeps the institution and its people whole.

Three things I’m watching
1. Whether the entry-level signal becomes a leading indicator. The slowing of hiring for younger workers in AI-exposed occupations is, in my read, the most important early signal. Aggregate employment numbers lag; entry-level absorption leads. If the slowdown becomes a structural break, phase one stops being a forecast and becomes a measurement.
2. Whether the licensed and public-sector cushion holds when fiscal space tightens. The structural-protection argument is strong only as long as the institutions that protect those jobs don’t themselves come under fiscal pressure. Phase two erodes the tax base. The question is whether legislatures and regulators are protecting genuinely-essential public-sector employment or post-hoc subsidizing the share of the workforce the private sector can no longer place.
3. Whether the recovery looks like restored employment or restored income. Phase three is consistent with both. Jobs come back in new categories — the historical track record. Or they don’t come back at scale and the recovery is income-shaped: UBI-like distribution of the deflation surplus rather than wage-based participation. These look very different politically. The shape of phase two is what determines which one we get.
No one has confidence on these three questions yet. I’m watching them because the answers will tell us, in roughly the next five years, what the transition phase actually costs.

The destination is not in serious doubt. The road is.
2026-05-03
MIT Called It a Disenchanted Intern. METR Says Check the Growth Rate.
Something happened this week that I keep turning over.

MIT published findings this month showing that when 41 AI models were tested across more than 11,000 real workplace tasks, the result was, in their words, like a “disenchanted intern” — hitting minimum benchmarks about 65% of the time, but never exceeding 50% success on tasks requiring genuinely superior-quality output. If you work in software, marketing, legal services, or knowledge work of any kind, that’s the snapshot.

METR — a nonprofit focused on measuring AI capabilities — published a different kind of snapshot. Their metric is the “time horizon”: the maximum length of autonomous task a frontier AI can reliably complete. In 2019, the best AI could handle roughly a two-minute task without human intervention. By the end of 2025, that had grown to roughly an hour. The doubling time across that whole period: around seven months.

METR’s January 2026 update tightened that number further. Post-2023, the best estimate for the doubling period is now 130 days — closer to four months.

My read on this:

The MIT study and the METR data aren’t in conflict. They’re measuring different things at different timescales. MIT is taking a photograph. METR is measuring the shutter speed. And the shutter speed is getting faster.

I don’t think the “disenchanted intern” framing is wrong — it describes today accurately. What I’m less sure about is the assumption, implicit in most of the coverage I’ve read this week, that “today” is a stable state. An intern who gets twice as capable every four months is not the same resource at the end of the year as they are today.

What I keep returning to is the gap between the current snapshot and the trajectory — and the opportunity that opens up in that gap. The MIT data is a photograph of now. The METR data is the shutter speed. Anyone building workflows, designing teams, or structuring how they work around AI capability today is working from a reference point that will be measurably out of date within a single planning cycle. That’s an opportunity signal at a scale and pace most planning assumptions don’t account for.

Three things I’m watching:

1. Where the doubling curve hits friction. Every exponential eventually meets a wall — physical limits, data constraints, regulatory friction. METR’s time-horizon metric is useful precisely because it measures real-world task completion, not synthetic benchmark scores. When the doubling cadence breaks, that will be the signal that the curve has met something real. I expect that to happen. I just don’t know when.

2. Whether “minimally sufficient” matters or not. MIT’s 65% minimally sufficient rate sounds modest. But most enterprise workflows run on people who are minimally sufficient most of the time. The threshold isn’t excellence — it’s “acceptable at scale, around the clock, at near-zero marginal cost.” That bar is lower than it sounds, and closer than the headline number implies.

3. The infrastructure spend as an access unlock. Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon are projected to spend nearly $700 billion combined on AI infrastructure in 2026 — roughly double what they spent last year. That capital isn’t just building capacity for the current snapshot. It’s funding the cost compression that makes the next several capability doublings broadly accessible. When the infrastructure matures, the cost floor drops — and the surface area for building on top of it expands with it.

The disenchanted intern framing is apt today. My expectation is that it’s a better description of 2025 than it is of 2027.

References
2026-04-26
Every knowledge worker is a manager now

Every knowledge worker is a manager now. Agentic AI has turned individual contributors into managers of AI agents, and first-line managers into leaders of managers of agents. The job descriptions have not caught up yet. The operating models have not caught up yet. The reskilling plans have not caught up yet. All of that is lagging the capability frontier by twelve to eighteen months — and the organizations that close that gap first will operate at a structurally different throughput than the ones still writing job descriptions for the jobs that existed in 2023.

The shift: agentic AI crosses the line from tool to colleague

For the first year and a half after ChatGPT, the thing called “AI” in most organizations was a better search box. A more patient editor. A faster rough-draft generator. Useful, but still a single-interaction tool. You asked, it answered, you moved on. The job of the knowledge worker did not fundamentally change — they just had a slightly sharper pencil.

What changed in the eighteen months leading into 2026 is the arrival of agentic models. The word “agent” in that context is not marketing. An agent is a system that can do a sequence of things, hold state across those steps, make decisions about what to do next, use tools, and come back with a completed multi-step task. That is a categorically different interaction than “ask question, get answer.” It is closer to “give a junior colleague an outcome to produce and trust them to produce it.” The commercial consequence of that shift is the subject of this post.

Input → agent → output → judge → ship. The human stays at the judgment node.

The role change: ICs become managers of agents

The individual contributor job has silently changed. Writing short summaries of long content — once a junior-to-mid task — is now an agent task. The human role is to specify the outcome, check the output, and decide what to do with it. Meeting preparation — the pre-meeting brief of background, context, attendees, prior touchpoints — is now an agent task. The human role is to feed the context, review the brief, and adjust the framing. Drafting a first pass of almost any structured document — a proposal, a plan, an analysis — is now an agent task. The human role is the editor, not the author of the first draft.

The common thread is that the IC’s job has shifted from doing to specifying outcomes and judging output. Those are management skills. Not in the metaphorical sense — in the literal sense. Framing a task clearly enough that someone (or something) else can execute it. Evaluating whether the execution meets the specification. Deciding when to iterate and when to ship. These are exactly the skills that used to distinguish a first-line manager from a senior IC, and they have become baseline requirements for an IC working with agents.

The new role for the IC: editor of agent output.

The org change: first-line managers become leaders of managers of agents

If every IC is now a manager of agents, then every first-line manager is now a leader of managers of agents. Their job is no longer to supervise execution — the agent is doing the execution. Their job is to coach the humans on their team in how to specify outcomes, how to judge output, how to know when an agent is producing garbage, and how to scale their orchestration over time. That is a completely different job than the first-line management job of three years ago, and it requires a different skill set.

Two structural consequences follow. First, the middle management layer compresses because a first-line manager leading managers-of-agents can reach further than one managing direct executors — the coordination overhead per report drops when the reports are themselves operating on a multiplier. Second, the definition of “span of control” stretches, but not infinitely: the Dunbar layers still govern the number of humans a manager can hold relationships with, even if each of those humans is now operating agents underneath them. The org chart can get flatter. It cannot get unbounded.

One human, many agents — the conductor metaphor for first-line management at scale.

The strategic consequence: orchestration is now a baseline skill, not an advanced one

The skill that used to distinguish senior managers from junior ones — the ability to frame work so someone else can execute it and judge whether their execution is good — is now a baseline IC capability. Orchestration is the new baseline. Writing is the new baseline. Judgment about output quality is the new baseline. The organizations that will operate at structurally higher throughput over the next five years are the ones that reskill their IC population around these baseline orchestration skills, rather than hiring more specialists who each do one thing well.

Talent leverage, not headcount, becomes the scoreboard. A commercial organization that operates at 300 humans with strong orchestration capability can outproduce a commercial organization that operates at 600 humans with legacy IC job descriptions. The difference is not about working harder. It is about operating model. The 300-human organization has fewer Dunbar breakpoints, shorter decision loops, less cross-functional friction, and a higher per-seat agent-multiplier. All of that is the consequence of a single structural decision made at the job-description layer.

So what boards should do

Three actions sit on the CEO agenda over the next two quarters. First, rewrite the IC job descriptions for every knowledge-worker role in the organization so that orchestration and output judgment are explicit baseline capabilities, not bonus ones. Second, rewrite the first-line management job description so that coaching for orchestration is the core of the role, not supervision of execution. Third, audit the reskilling plan against the assumption that every knowledge worker in the organization is now a manager and needs to be trained as one — because the capability frontier has already shipped and the only question is whether the organization catches up in quarters or in years.

Boards that do not require a reskilling plan at this scope are budgeting against an operating model that does not exist anymore. The plan does not need to be perfect. It needs to exist. The gap between organizations that have this plan and organizations that do not is the structural competitive advantage of the next five years, and it is already being measured — in throughput, in decision velocity, in the quiet retention of the top performers who can see the gap coming.

2026-04-19
Team sizes are not design choices. They’re cognitive limits.
Team sizes are not design choices. They are cognitive limits. The recurring numbers that show up in military units, religious communities, hunter-gatherer bands, and commercial organizations are not management philosophy. They are a property of the animal doing the work, and any organizational structure that pretends otherwise pays a measurable tax in friction, communication overhead, quiet attrition, and decisions that arrive three weeks late.

Two. Four to six. Eight to twelve. Twenty to twenty-five. Fifty. One hundred and fifty. The specific numbers recur across centuries and industries. In the Roman legion and the US Marines. In religious communities and hunter-gatherer bands. In tech companies, sales organizations, and the advice experienced managers give each other about when to split a growing team. It is not a coincidence. It is cognitive architecture. The constraint is no longer technology. The constraint has always been the brain doing the coordinating.

Dunbar’s layers

The research most commercial leaders eventually bump into is Robin Dunbar’s. Dunbar is a British anthropologist who, in the early 1990s, proposed that the size of a primate’s social group is constrained by the size of its neocortex. Extrapolating from primate data, he estimated the human number at around 150 — the number of people with whom any one of us can maintain a stable, recognisable, mutually-active relationship. He published it in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1992, and the number has been running through management literature ever since.

The part that gets talked about less, but matters more, is that Dunbar’s 150 is not a single flat layer. It is the outer ring of a nested set, each layer roughly three times larger than the one inside it:
- ~5 — your closest support group. The people you would call in a real emergency.
- ~15 — your sympathy group. People whose loss would significantly affect you.
- ~50 — your band or clan. People you know well enough to share deep context with.
- ~150 — your active community. Stable, recognisable, mutually reciprocal relationships.
- ~500 — acquaintances.
- ~1500 — faces you can still recognise.
These layers show up in the research almost regardless of whether the subject is a tribal society, an office workforce, or a social-network friend graph. And they map astonishingly well onto the team sizes that commercial organizations stumble toward by trial and error — not because anyone read Dunbar, but because the alternatives don’t work.

A central figure surrounded by expanding tiers — 5, 15, 50, 150.

The military got there first

Armies have been experimenting with how to organize humans under extreme stress for two thousand years, and they arrived at exactly these numbers through pure selection pressure. Smaller was too fragile. Larger fell apart under fire. The numbers that survived are the numbers that work.

A Roman legion’s smallest unit was the contubernium — eight soldiers who shared a tent, a mule, a mess, and most of their waking life. Eight. Right at the boundary between the 5-person inner layer and the 15-person sympathy group. The Romans knew nothing about neocortex ratios. They noticed that a group of eight held together in a way that a group of four or a group of sixteen did not.

The modern US Marine Corps fireteam is four. The squad is roughly 13. The platoon is 30 to 40. The company is 100 to 150. The same ratios, twenty-one centuries later. The cognitive limits haven’t moved, because the brain they are about hasn’t.

The tech industry rediscovered the same numbers

The technology industry discovered the same structure and gave it different names.

Jeff Bezos’s two-pizza rule — a team should be small enough to be fed by two pizzas — is a practical restatement of the 5-to-8 cognitive sub-layer. Amazon did not get there via anthropology. They got there by watching their own product teams stall every time they grew past the point where the whole group could fit around one table.

Scrum teams are officially 7 ± 2 — the current Scrum Guide recommends 3 to 9 members — which echoes George Miller’s 1956 paper on the working-memory limit of around seven chunks. Miller was not writing about teams. The cognitive limit he found on how many things we can juggle at once maps cleanly onto how many people we can coordinate without losing track of where everyone is.

Fred Brooks, in his 1975 book The Mythical Man-Month, observed that adding people to a late software project makes it later, because every new person increases the number of pairwise communication channels by roughly n(n–1)/2. Seven people means 21 channels. Ten means 45. Fifteen means 105. The coordination tax is quadratic, and it surfaces as “mysterious” slowdowns at exactly the team sizes where the math stops being manageable.

W. L. Gore & Associates, the Gore-Tex company, built Dunbar’s number directly into its real-estate strategy. Founder Bill Gore had a rule: every time a building exceeded 150 employees, they built another building. He was running Dunbar’s ceiling inside his facility planning decades before Dunbar had published the paper.

The Ringelmann effect, documented in 1913 and one of the oldest findings in social psychology, is the same story in a different register: as group size grows, the effort each individual contributes goes down. People pull harder on a rope when there are fewer of them holding it. Max Ringelmann measured it with actual rope-pulling experiments, and the finding has been replicated many times since in workplace and sports settings.

The two-pizza team — Bezos’s practical statement of the cognitive sub-layer.

The role change: the first-line manager span is a cognitive limit, not a cost line

A first-line manager’s direct-report span is not a matter of preference for most cognitive work. It sits around 5 to 7. Push it to 10 and managers stop coaching and start triaging. Push it to 15 and the role has reverted to being an individual contributor with a different title. Organizations that scale cleanly keep that first layer tight even when the spreadsheet says it is expensive — because the spreadsheet is not pricing the coordination tax that a wider span produces downstream.

Coordination overhead grows quadratically with team size.

The org change: 50 and 150 are hard boundaries

The sub-team that actually owns a piece of work should be closer to 5 than to 10. Not because small teams are faster in principle, but because the communication-overhead curve gets steep fast after 7. Bezos was right about this, and almost every high-performing team of any reasonable size runs its real work through an informal group of four or five — regardless of what the reporting structure says on the org chart.

When a function crosses 50 people, it needs an operational substructure. Tribes, chapters, pods, whatever the label — or the Dunbar sympathy layer breaks. When the people in a team stop knowing each other well enough that a death in someone’s family would visibly register with everyone, culture starts dying quietly. By the time anyone notices, six months have usually been lost.

When an organization crosses 150, it runs two cultures whether the leadership admits it or not. The question is only whether the split is designed deliberately or happens by default. Organizations that handle the ceiling well accept it and build deliberate boundaries. Organizations that handle it poorly spend years pretending 400 people are “all one team.”

Cross 150 and you either build deliberate substructure or get default fragmentation.

The strategic consequence: org design is surrender, not construction

Good organizational design is mostly a process of surrender. The cognitive architecture of the humans running the teams picks team sizes for you, and the only real choice is whether to build the org chart around what actually works or to fight it and pay the tax. Every commercial organization that has tried to force a bigger number — a 12-person manager span, a 30-person “small team,” a 300-person “family culture” — has either quietly subdivided itself into groups that look suspiciously like the Dunbar numbers, or lost the thing that made it work.

AI augmentation does not move the cognitive ceiling. It moves the throughput below the ceiling. An IC managing four AI agents is still operating inside a span of four. A manager coordinating seven sub-teams of augmented ICs is still operating inside a Dunbar-5 layer. The numbers that governed organizational design before agents are the numbers that will govern it after.

Small intimate teams stay where the work actually gets done.

So what boards should do

Boards should design operating models around the Dunbar layers and treat AI-augmented throughput as a multiplier on what each cognitive unit can do — not as a license to stretch the unit past its ceiling. The specific actions sit at four layers: first-line spans at 5 to 7 even under headcount pressure; sub-team ownership at 5; operational substructure at 50; deliberate cultural boundaries at 150. These are not target numbers. They are discovered numbers. Every other structure is an argument with biology, and biology does not negotiate.

The Roman legions did not know about neocortex ratios. The Marines do not design their fireteams around anthropology papers. Jeff Bezos did not cite Dunbar when he ordered the pizzas. All three converged on the same numbers because the numbers are a property of the animal doing the work, not the work itself. The job of an organizational designer is to notice this — and then get out of the way.

References
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution.
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). How Many Friends Does One Person Need? Harvard University Press.
- Miller, G. A. (1956). “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.” Psychological Review.
- Brooks, F. P. (1975). The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering.
- Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business School Press.
- Ringelmann, M. (1913). Early social-loafing experiments, Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique.
- Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. Popularised Gore’s rule of 150 for the management audience.
- The Scrum Guide — current recommended team size: 3 to 9 members.
2026-04-12
The agentic year begins underprepared

The year opens with a measurable gap. McKinsey’s 2026 trust maturity survey, fielded in December and January, puts twenty-three percent of organizations into the scaling phase for agentic systems and thirty-nine percent into experimentation. The remaining majority — nearly two thirds — has not yet begun scaling AI across the enterprise. The capability frontier moved twelve to eighteen months faster than the operating models around it. That gap is no longer an experimentation question. It is the year’s defining strategic risk.

The boards that close this gap first will not be using better models than their competitors. They will be running organizations that can metabolize what the models already do. The constraint is no longer technology. It is adoption — and adoption is a leadership problem.

The shift is structural, not cyclical

Agentic systems are not a new feature inside a familiar product. They are a new class of worker. They take a goal, decompose it into steps, hold state across those steps, call other tools, recover from errors, and return a completed unit of work. That changes what a job is, not how a job is done.

The 2025 narrative — copilots, productivity boosts, ten percent uplift — is over. The 2026 question is harder. What units of work no longer require a human originator? What units of work now require a human reviewer instead of a human executor? Which decisions can be delegated to a system that explains its reasoning? The companies asking these questions on a Monday morning are reorganizing. The companies still benchmarking model accuracy are stalling.

The shift is one-way. No board will vote in 2027 to remove agentic systems from a workflow they reduced from forty hours to four. The architectural choices made this year will compound.

Goal in, decomposition out, no human in the loop between.

The role change has already happened on the ground

Inside organizations that have actually shipped agentic systems, the role redefinition is happening informally, by individual contributors, ahead of any HR process. A senior analyst who used to write three reports a week now reviews twelve agent-drafted reports a week and signs off on the analysis. A staff engineer who used to write three pull requests a day now reviews fifteen agent-generated pull requests a day. An account manager who used to draft proposals now edits proposals the agent has built from CRM context.

The work that survives is judgment, taste, accountability, and relationship. The work that does not survive is execution under specification. Job titles still describe the second category. Job content has already shifted to the first.

First-line managers feel this most acutely. They were trained to manage humans doing execution work. They are now managing humans doing review work, who in turn are managing systems doing execution work. That is a different management discipline — closer to portfolio management of automated processes than to people management of execution teams.

Three reports a week became twelve reviews a week.

The organizational consequence is delayering

Span of control widens when the work below each manager becomes more automated and more reviewable. McKinsey’s parallel work on the state of organizations points in the same direction: companies that scale agentic systems also flatten by removing one to two layers of middle management. The economic logic is direct. Middle layers existed to translate strategy into execution and to coordinate the humans doing that execution. When the execution is increasingly handled by systems and the translation is increasingly handled by models, the layer is doing less.

This is not the 2024 layoff cycle that hit individual contributors. This is a 2026 reorganization that compresses the manager-of-managers layer. It is structurally different and politically harder. The people most threatened by it are the people running the budget meetings about it.

Organizations that resist the delayering will have a temporary cost advantage and a permanent decision-velocity disadvantage. Decision cycles compress when fewer humans need to be in the loop. The competitor who removed two layers will commit to a market move three weeks faster. Over a year, that compounds into a different market position.

The middle layer compresses, span of control widens.

So what boards should do this quarter

Two actions belong on the Q1 agenda. First, demand a workforce plan that names the units of work moving from human execution to human review, with a twelve-month horizon. Vague AI strategies are no longer acceptable as deliverables; the question is which jobs, which tasks, which review cadences, which accountability lines.

Second, name an executive owner for the operating-model redesign — not for AI strategy as a separate track, but for the way the company will be organized around the systems it has already deployed. The CHRO and the COO are the natural owners. The CTO is not. The technology decision is downstream of the operating-model decision, and treating it as upstream is how organizations end up with sophisticated tools and a 2023 org chart.

The year that just started will be measured by the gap between capability and operating model. The companies that close it first set the pace for the rest of the decade. The risk is not moving too fast. The risk is moving too late. Execution speed will separate leaders from followers.

2026-01-04