![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1515622872906.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In 2022, I was hired to build AI operations at a health-tech startup. At the time, we were pioneering the use of AI in healthcare, which required significant human oversight until one day, it didn\u2019t. GPT-4 launched and within a short period of time, I realized my role no longer made sense. My employer came to the same conclusion. There was no plan to retrain me or redeploy my skills into a new version of the work. My job simply disappeared.<\/p>\n
I say this not as a cautionary tale, but as context. When I look at the wave of mass layoffs being justified as AI transformation, I\u2019m not reading about it from a distance. I\u2019ve been on the other side of that decision.<\/p>\n
What I learned on the way down<\/p>\n
What I understand now that I didn\u2019t fully see then is that my employer wasn\u2019t transforming. They were optimizing. Layoffs offer clean math. They deliver immediate cost savings and a simple story for boards eager to see returns on AI investments. What they don\u2019t deliver is increased capacity, creative leverage, or new kinds of work. I was a cost that disappeared. The underlying capability question \u2014 what should this work become? \u2014 was never asked.<\/p>\n
When companies like Meta and Microsoft cut tens of thousands of employees, many leaders frame it as a necessary step in becoming more \u201cAI-native.\u201d I recognize what\u2019s actually happening. They are choosing the fastest path to efficiency instead of the harder path to reinvention. They are laying off their way to transformation because it\u2019s easier than rewiring how work gets done. I know the difference between those two things firsthand.<\/p>\n
What I did differently<\/p>\n
Today I head up AI Operations at Pearl, an AI company for independent professionals, where we\u2019ve taken a different path: upskilling employees, reshaping roles, and having uncomfortable conversations earlier than most companies are willing to. One of those conversations stands out.<\/p>\n
I work closely with a technical writer who recently asked a question many employees are quietly thinking: \u201cAI can do a lot of my work for me \u2014 so what is my job now?\u201d She had realized that much of the value she provided \u2014 drafting, editing, and refining documentation \u2014 was now available to anyone using AI effectively. I recognized that moment immediately. I had lived it.<\/p>\n
The difference this time was that we didn\u2019t avoid the question. We answered it together. Today, she operates like an entire technical writing department with a team of AI agents that help her proofread, edit, and standardize content. She also owns our internal intranet, a function that often fails because it depends on constant manual updates. Instead of chasing teams for updates, she uses AI to collect, organize, and refresh content across departments \u2014 turning a usually stale system into a living source of truth. She has cut down the time typically required to maintain that system by 95% \u2013 entirely on her own.<\/p>\n
The reason this worked is because we had already been talking candidly and early about how AI is changing work. Programs like our AI Champions initiative \u2014 which allots leaders across all departments 10% of their time to explore and build AI-powered workflows \u2014 have helped normalize experimentation and make it easier to have honest conversations about where roles evolve.<\/p>\n
The pattern playing out at scale<\/p>\n
This is the opportunity companies are missing. When leaders avoid redefining roles early, they create a moment where layoffs feel unavoidable. Teams wake up with hundreds of people whose old jobs no longer exist and no clear plan for what comes next. At that point, layoffs become a reaction to inaction. That is a failure of leadership, not a consequence of AI.<\/p>\n
The companies that are truly transforming with AI are doing something far more difficult than issuing headcount reductions. They are acknowledging that work itself is changing and actively designing for it. They are retraining employees, redeploying them into new roles, and redefining what \u201cgood\u201d work looks like in an AI-enabled environment.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t easy, especially at scale. It\u2019s far simpler to tell every department to cut 20% of its staff and \u201cfigure it out.\u201d Large organizations are optimized for that kind of directive. And when boards demand results in a single quarter, leaders often default to layoffs because they feel immediate and decisive.<\/p>\n
But there\u2019s a deeper risk: layoffs create a downward spiral. AI will continue to improve, so if each new wave of capability is met with another round of headcount reduction, companies steadily shrink themselves while relying more heavily on technology until there\u2019s nothing left to transform. These companies will survive but won\u2019t evolve. They become smaller versions of themselves, capable of doing the same amount of work with fewer people, while more adaptive organizations expand their scope and output with the same teams.<\/p>\n
The divide is already forming<\/p>\n
We are still early in this transition, but a clear divide is emerging. On one side are companies that treat AI as a justification for workforce reductions. On the other are companies that treat it as a catalyst for reinvention. The difference will come down to whether leaders choose transformation fueled by long-term capability building over short-term pressure.<\/p>\n
The companies that navigate this well won\u2019t be the ones that never faced disruption. They\u2019ll be the ones that learned from it \u2014 and built the structures to handle the next wave before it arrived.<\/p>\n
AI doesn\u2019t just reduce labor. It multiplies what organizations can achieve when people are given the structure to evolve alongside it. I know that because I had to find that structure for myself \u2014 and because I\u2019ve now helped someone else find it too. You can lay off your way to transformation and hope efficiency carries you forward. Or you can do the harder work. I know where the former one leads.<\/p>\n
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.<\/p>\n
#lost #job #Heres #mass #layoffs #wont #transform #company<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In 2022, I was hired to build AI operations at a health-tech startup. At the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[245],"tags":[865,410,315,310,1209,538,413,1384,8023,452],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4803"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}