My company had a speaker come in a year or so ago. He mentioned that a lot of CEOs ask him on the side how many people they can cut once they implement AI. He said his answer is always 0. If AI improves productivity by x%, all companies will increase output by x%. If you cut people, you’ll be behind, staying at your old output level while everyone else is holding down the turbo button.
Of course all of this assumes it actually increases productivity, while keeping quality high, especially in the near term. That’s debatable.
Cutting 80% means being realistic about where the company actually makes its money and giving up things that likely generate 20% of the current revenue. Focusing on the winners will likely lead to more success in the long run, but it’s not a risk most CEOs will take. If they’re wrong, or simply not right fast enough, it will cost them their job. Doing nothing doesn’t really cost them anything.
My company had a speaker come in a year or so ago. He mentioned that a lot of CEOs ask him on the side how many people they can cut once they implement AI. He said his answer is always 0. If AI improves productivity by x%, all companies will increase output by x%. If you cut people, you’ll be behind, staying at your old output level while everyone else is holding down the turbo button.
Of course all of this assumes it actually increases productivity, while keeping quality high, especially in the near term. That’s debatable.
I think they could cut close to 80% but they could have done it without AI as well.
The question is of course which 80%.
Cutting 80% means being realistic about where the company actually makes its money and giving up things that likely generate 20% of the current revenue. Focusing on the winners will likely lead to more success in the long run, but it’s not a risk most CEOs will take. If they’re wrong, or simply not right fast enough, it will cost them their job. Doing nothing doesn’t really cost them anything.