One thing I'd add from the recruiting side... the best HM I'm chatting with aren't asking, "how many people can AI replace?" They are asking: "what talent do we need to get value from AI?"
Two very different convos. Many orgs still feel like they are in the experimentation phase. The gap we're seeing is about having people who know how to implement, govern, and resdesign workflows using AI. Which feels like workforce reallocation vs elimination.
Most calls we're getting these days sound like: "Michael, we need Staff Product Engineers who are experts in SwiftUI, React, or Node.js and know how to leverage AI to increase developer velocity" vs we've replaced our eng function due to AI.
Michael, this is the type of truth, grounded in actual experience that doesn't make it into the headlines. And it's exactly why recruiter intelligence matters more than pundit takes right now.
The reframe you're describing is the whole ballgame: "what talent do we need to get value from AI?" versus "how many people can AI replace?" Those are fundamentally different strategic questions, and the organizations asking the second one are going to find themselves understaffed for the future they're building toward.
The specific call pattern you're citing: Staff Product Engineers who understand AI-assisted developer velocity, is a perfect illustration of the reallocation thesis. The function isn't being eliminated. It's being upgraded. Companies need people who can implement, govern, and redesign workflows *with* AI, not just people who know how to use the tools. That's a higher bar, not a lower headcount.
Would love to hear from others in this thread: are you seeing the same split in your organizations? The hiring managers asking the right question versus the ones still optimizing for elimination?
One thing I'd add from the recruiting side... the best HM I'm chatting with aren't asking, "how many people can AI replace?" They are asking: "what talent do we need to get value from AI?"
Two very different convos. Many orgs still feel like they are in the experimentation phase. The gap we're seeing is about having people who know how to implement, govern, and resdesign workflows using AI. Which feels like workforce reallocation vs elimination.
Most calls we're getting these days sound like: "Michael, we need Staff Product Engineers who are experts in SwiftUI, React, or Node.js and know how to leverage AI to increase developer velocity" vs we've replaced our eng function due to AI.
Love your content, Tony!
Michael, this is the type of truth, grounded in actual experience that doesn't make it into the headlines. And it's exactly why recruiter intelligence matters more than pundit takes right now.
The reframe you're describing is the whole ballgame: "what talent do we need to get value from AI?" versus "how many people can AI replace?" Those are fundamentally different strategic questions, and the organizations asking the second one are going to find themselves understaffed for the future they're building toward.
The specific call pattern you're citing: Staff Product Engineers who understand AI-assisted developer velocity, is a perfect illustration of the reallocation thesis. The function isn't being eliminated. It's being upgraded. Companies need people who can implement, govern, and redesign workflows *with* AI, not just people who know how to use the tools. That's a higher bar, not a lower headcount.
Would love to hear from others in this thread: are you seeing the same split in your organizations? The hiring managers asking the right question versus the ones still optimizing for elimination?