AI dominates the workforce planning conversation right now. Ask the people actually doing the planning, though, and it rarely tops their list of practical concerns. That gap between the headlines and the day-to-day is worth paying attention to.
What leadership ask for
In practice, AI usually comes up as a substitute for headcount. Can we use AI to deal with the increased workload, instead of hiring more people? It's a fair question, and not an unreasonable one to ask. But my answer has been that many business processes haven't been brought up to the required levels of structure to let AI take advantage. That's not a reason to dismiss it, it's a reason to plan strategic projects to enable that advantage.
I think businesses can harness AI adoption in a focussed way using resource planning. If your resource plan shows the detail of what type of work and skills are required, then you can focus your AI projects. Don't apply AI projects to work that is completed by 5% of your workforce, focus it on work that affects 60% of your workforce. This yields the result of lower workloads that can be genuine gains for a business.
One hugely important thing I want to frame here, that is important to me, is that I'm not suggesting you reduce workforce levels once you achieve this success. I'm all about more jobs, more business success, more economic success. What I suggest here is that one of two routes are followed: one where natural attrition supports the rightsizing of a team or department, i.e. don't replace the person who left for a different career opportunity. Or two, look to those areas where AI can't take advantage, and support people with training to move into roles where AI can't take advantage. You will likely see improved employee retention and retain business knowledge as a result.
I've seen a board set exactly this kind of challenge directly: become 15% more efficient. The expectation behind that number cuts two ways. Either you don't need to replace 15% of the people who leave through natural attrition, or you can absorb ~15% more work with the people you already have. Either way, the business becomes more profitable without adding headcount, and without cutting it either.
Why the attention is disproportionate
Part of the disproportionate attention AI gets seems straightforward to me: a fear of being left behind, combined with the fact that some of what it can do is genuinely impressive. But impressive tricks don't fix an unstructured process. If the underlying data and workflow haven't been sorted out, AI has nothing reliable to work from. The old process has to move forward first.
The takeaway
AI is a legitimate part of a longer-term resource strategy, not a quick answer to an immediate workload problem. The businesses making real progress right now are the ones treating process readiness as the actual challenge, and treating AI as one lever among several once that foundation exists, not the thing they reach for first.
If AI has come up in your own planning conversations as a way to avoid hiring, it's worth checking whether the groundwork is actually there yet. Book a free 45-minute consultation and we'll look at where you genuinely stand.