AI won’t save you from bad strategy
If AI can do the work of engineers, why lay them off instead of scaling innovation?
I recently participated in this fascinating discussion on LinkedIn initiated by Mr.
. Here are my key takeaways.TL;DR: If AI can do (fully or partially) the work of engineers, why lay them off instead of scaling innovation?
For years, at technology companies, we struggled with hiring and retaining engineering talent. Developers were the lifeblood of product velocity. Organizations built processes, teams, and entire operating models to optimize their software development life cycle and get the most from their development team(s).
Now that AI is gradually taking its place in the software development life cycle (SDLC), we can expect that this will amplify productivity. So, what should companies do when we reach a point where a single engineer can do the work of five?
Should they see this as an opportunity for compounding innovation? Or should they see a good reason for cost-cutting and reducing headcount?
If engineering is no longer the bottleneck - since AI enhances skills and increases capacity without the need for new hires - why are profitable companies cutting developers instead of aiming to be more innovative?
The Illusion of Efficiency Gains
Beware of this dangerous assumption: fewer engineers delivering the same output equals a more efficient company.
This assumes that value is linear, that productivity equals impact, and that once a feature is shipped, the job is done. But software isn’t a factory assembly line; it’s a living system.
If engineering becomes 5X faster (e.g., through AI integration in the software development process), but the company lacks a clear vision, strategy, and well-aligned goals across departments—especially product, marketing, and sales—then increased development speed adds no real value.
Productivity and value creation are not the same thing. Just because an engineer can ship faster doesn’t mean the market can absorb 5X more features or that the company knows what to do with the excess capacity.
Short-Term Thinking is a Silent Killer
Beware of this dangerous trade-off: Short-term gains over long-term sustainability.
Sometimes, quarterly earnings dictate decisions. A company is a business that needs to be financially healthy. But sometimes, striving to make numbers look good for the next financial report instead of innovating can lead to missing the “next wave”.
Sometimes, we mistake maintenance mode for innovation. Many companies today exist not to build the future but to sustain the present. They maintain legacy systems, avoid risks, and operate in fear of disrupting their inertia.
Hypothesis: What if, instead of shrinking engineering teams, we leveraged the extra capacity?
Companies that get this right will:
Align engineering with strategic business goals. The question shouldn’t be “Do we need fewer engineers?” but “How do we deploy their productivity in the most impactful way?”
Empower engineers to solve business problems. Instead of cutting headcount, give engineers a seat at the table to rethink workflows, processes, and revenue-generating opportunities.
Break the cycle of short-term decision-making. Layoffs might create a quick financial win, but they cost trust, momentum, and the very innovation capacity companies need to survive.
Beware of this sad truth: the companies cutting engineers today are creating their own future competition.
We should look at AI as an accelerant, a high-tech prosthesis, if you like, that can upgrade the average professional’s skillset and give superpowers to a high performing professional.
AI, however, is not a replacement for good business thinking. This alongside strategy and good leadership, should come (for now) from the human factor!