“We’re focusing on high-growth areas” is the new “you’re no longer needed”
If you hear executives at your company talking about “focusing on high-growth areas” such as AI, you know you’re in for a rough ride.
But it’s not like it used to be. The early pandemic gravy train in tech has most certainly ground to a halt, and what would’ve previously been a time where you’d be looking at a nice bonus has turned into running a gauntlet of potential job losses and your entire division being shut down.
Layoffs in big tech have become a recurring theme over the last two years, with a host of major industry players having cut thousands of jobs. Early 2023 was a bloodbath in this regard, with more than 89,000 tech workers laid off in January alone.
The ‘year of efficiency’, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerverg famously dubbed it, has continued. While on a smaller scale, 2024 began in much the same way. Amazon and Google were among the first to announce major cuts, and some 11,000 were laid off globally in January this year.
The continued scale of layoffs has been jarring, but what’s worse is the messaging surrounding these cuts.
What started as a response to challenging macroeconomic conditions has metastasized into a frenzy of layoffs aimed purely at maximizing the ability to invest in generative AI. Human capital expended in a bid to render what remaining workforce we have in the tech sector obsolete through automation.
How horribly depressing.
So far in 2024, we’ve heard executives talk about their sharpened focus on “high-growth” or “key strategic” areas, which typically includes cybersecurity and AI.
It’s the latter of these that’s the obvious focus, however. Cisco and Dell are the latest examples of AI-fuelled job cuts, with both firms outlining plans to shed staff amid their sharpened focus on the technology.
Cisco revealed plans this week to cut 7% of its global workforce, equivalent to over 5,000 roles, for example. The reasoning behind these cuts is this manic focus on “high-growth” business segments.
Layoffs at Dell, meanwhile, were justified in a similar way. The tech giant said it plans on “streamlining layers of management” and capitalizing on AI after it initially missed out on breaking into the market.
The warning signs were there with AI
Singling out Dell and Cisco in this context wouldn’t be fair given the sheer scale of cuts of AI-related job losses. Others have jumped on the bandwagon, such as Dropbox, Intuit, and SAP.
What’s frustrating though is that the warning signs were there as far back as last summer, with industry execs such as IBM CEO Arvind Krishna waxing lyrical about the potential to shed staff through AI and automation.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai lifted the lid on this new trend of AI-inspired job cuts in January this year when he told staff the tech giant was firmly fixed on “removing layers to simplify execution and drive velocity in some areas”. The key area here, of course, was AI.
We’ve all seen the headlines regarding AI-fuelled job losses over the last 18 months, including Goldman Sachs’ notable research which suggested anywhere up to 300 million jobs could be lost to automation over the next decade.
But these latest cuts aren’t layoffs because of AI, they’re layoffs to fuel the funding and deployment of AI – at least that’s what they’re telling you.
Tech workers are getting stiffed from all angles
AI is creating a confluence of problems for big tech – or more so for tech workers, that is.
It’s allowing them to justify job cuts under the guise of ‘streamlining’ and automating roles, but some industry players’ inability to capitalize on the supposed benefits of the technology also provides a chance to justify cuts.
In this case, Intel stands as a prime example. In early August, the firm announced plans to cut its workforce by 15%, or 15,000 roles. CEO Pat Gelsinger specifically highlighted poor returns on AI as a key factor in a memo sent to employees.
Given the current rate of layoffs, there doesn’t appear to be much light on the horizon for tech workers. The insatiable enterprise appetite for AI investment will likely continue and staff will ultimately be the first in the firing line as firms strive to achieve the elusive ‘streamlined’ utopia business leaders seek.
Those left standing likely won’t have much confidence in their longevity once AI-related goals have been achieved either. When your colleagues have been cut to fund AI development, the inevitable next step is that your own position is rendered pointless and automated.
Shareholders will be delighted, but staff at job centers will probably be inundated in the future. Maybe they need AI solutions to lighten the load?
