This is what I don't get with the kind of posts you are replying to.
I have experienced directly what the evolution of cloud based software, and now AI based tooling, has done to team sizes on delivery projects.
Cannot understand how they don't get how all the performance improvements directly correlates to smaller team sizes, in shareholders driven economy.
So far I have been lucky, and just hope to have enough savings when time comes, as finding jobs after 50s wasn't already easy without having to add AI on top.
Most of the world does NOT optimise for efficiency, particularly at the big end. Really big hyperscale companies (and some startups) are unusual because they at least sort of try, most of the world is not even trying.
The org structure is optimised to reduce or even minimise individual agency, explicitly at the cost of efficiency.
Teams have fiefdoms, private repos that the rest of the org can't see. You are not granted permission to see what permissions you have. Byzantine department structures. Shipping "hello world" to production takes 3-6 months and nobody can imagine it working any other way.
There's actually no central directory of teams or processes. To get anything meaningful done, you need the co-operation of maybe 8 teams but there's no consistent way to engage them all. You have to negotiate with them all in different ways, they're like little warlords, sitting and guarding access to some vital resource you need. They have established a ticket-based interface with a 7 day SLA on top of a perfectly good vending API that could do what you need in seconds. Sometimes a blocking team has a 3 month backlog so your project will just have to wait.
Everything is always in the process of being restructured, so no end to end 6 month process happens the same way every time.
These organisations could use AI to run the end to end process in minutes. Heck, they could just put APIs on top of what they already have. But the way they WANT to use it is to keep doing what they're doing but with EVEN MORE form filling and paperwork.
You would think they would get outcompeted, but no. The "IT organisation" sits like a brain slug on top of an enterprise with substantial regulatory, capital and execution moats.
Big cuts of course do happen in these places, but it's often for optics (we need to signal that we care about efficiency, and AI is a great excuse). But you can't protect yourself by being efficient and good at your job, because the cuts were not about output.
Because I don't live in a world where my team needs to grow for me to feel more successful? My teams have been small and tight-knit at every place I've been an Eng leader. I left a job with 13 engineers and they're at >90 now, apparently doing less; but, that's just what I hear second-hand.
Was it a conscious or unconscious decision to reply to a chain with an argument of "headcount is obviously reducing" with "I don't need headcount to grow to be happy" without addressing the gap between those two at all?
> I want to do MORE with the same amount of folks.
So do I, but I've been in two companies that had to let me go because the investors said they didn't want my role to exist any more. Plus two other roles where the company straight up ran out of money.
I unfortunately have been in enough situations where team sizes get to shrink, unless there is some escalation going on.
First it was offshoring, then managed cloud environments and servless, followed by ready made SaaS products, low code/no code iPaaS cloud products, and now agentic runtimes.
The ones doing content translations, asset management were the first, followed by classical infrastructure people, then most backend roles, and so it goes.
I think it is because programmers are not that good at economy or running a business. Their bosses are though and they don't see a productivity tool, but a way to reduce their costs.
Seeing a problem and knowing what to do about it are two different things. I think it's pretty clear there's a huge job problem coming and not just in the IT sector. Other areas are also heavily affected already like customer service. Translators, illustrators.
In the long term this leads to significant societal disruption. Many people out of work, many won't be able to find work because this transition happens so fast. Previous major transitions like the industrial revolution worked out ok but they happened over generations. Not years.
And with so many people out of work there will be a lot less spending money on products causing a downturn. And less people paying taxes causing the government to be stuck for money.
I don't have the answers but I do see some big problems on the horizon.
It's clear its capabilities are ever expanding. Right now the human value is to tell the AI what to do. But that's something that's also based on external factors. I don't think there's some sacred guidance only a human can do.
I think it's a matter of time for it to be able to do all human intellectual work. And it can do so 24/7 without needing holidays or sick days.
We as humans won't really have a moat anymore, something only we can do.
This is what I don't get with the kind of posts you are replying to.
I have experienced directly what the evolution of cloud based software, and now AI based tooling, has done to team sizes on delivery projects.
Cannot understand how they don't get how all the performance improvements directly correlates to smaller team sizes, in shareholders driven economy.
So far I have been lucky, and just hope to have enough savings when time comes, as finding jobs after 50s wasn't already easy without having to add AI on top.
Most of the world does NOT optimise for efficiency, particularly at the big end. Really big hyperscale companies (and some startups) are unusual because they at least sort of try, most of the world is not even trying.
The org structure is optimised to reduce or even minimise individual agency, explicitly at the cost of efficiency.
Teams have fiefdoms, private repos that the rest of the org can't see. You are not granted permission to see what permissions you have. Byzantine department structures. Shipping "hello world" to production takes 3-6 months and nobody can imagine it working any other way.
There's actually no central directory of teams or processes. To get anything meaningful done, you need the co-operation of maybe 8 teams but there's no consistent way to engage them all. You have to negotiate with them all in different ways, they're like little warlords, sitting and guarding access to some vital resource you need. They have established a ticket-based interface with a 7 day SLA on top of a perfectly good vending API that could do what you need in seconds. Sometimes a blocking team has a 3 month backlog so your project will just have to wait.
Everything is always in the process of being restructured, so no end to end 6 month process happens the same way every time.
These organisations could use AI to run the end to end process in minutes. Heck, they could just put APIs on top of what they already have. But the way they WANT to use it is to keep doing what they're doing but with EVEN MORE form filling and paperwork.
You would think they would get outcompeted, but no. The "IT organisation" sits like a brain slug on top of an enterprise with substantial regulatory, capital and execution moats.
Big cuts of course do happen in these places, but it's often for optics (we need to signal that we care about efficiency, and AI is a great excuse). But you can't protect yourself by being efficient and good at your job, because the cuts were not about output.
Because I don't live in a world where my team needs to grow for me to feel more successful? My teams have been small and tight-knit at every place I've been an Eng leader. I left a job with 13 engineers and they're at >90 now, apparently doing less; but, that's just what I hear second-hand.
I want to do MORE with the same amount of folks.
Was it a conscious or unconscious decision to reply to a chain with an argument of "headcount is obviously reducing" with "I don't need headcount to grow to be happy" without addressing the gap between those two at all?
1 reply →
> I want to do MORE with the same amount of folks.
So do I, but I've been in two companies that had to let me go because the investors said they didn't want my role to exist any more. Plus two other roles where the company straight up ran out of money.
It's not always up to us.
I unfortunately have been in enough situations where team sizes get to shrink, unless there is some escalation going on.
First it was offshoring, then managed cloud environments and servless, followed by ready made SaaS products, low code/no code iPaaS cloud products, and now agentic runtimes.
The ones doing content translations, asset management were the first, followed by classical infrastructure people, then most backend roles, and so it goes.
1 reply →
HR meeting in room #3, please bring your coat with you.
I think it is because programmers are not that good at economy or running a business. Their bosses are though and they don't see a productivity tool, but a way to reduce their costs.
> directly correlates to smaller team sizes, in shareholders driven economy.
Good! Costs going down is great
> Cannot understand how they don't get how all the performance improvements directly correlates to smaller team sizes, in shareholders driven economy.
Plenty of us understand it.
Are you calling for a sabotage? A boycott? What?
Be more clear regarding what you “don’t get”.
Seeing a problem and knowing what to do about it are two different things. I think it's pretty clear there's a huge job problem coming and not just in the IT sector. Other areas are also heavily affected already like customer service. Translators, illustrators.
In the long term this leads to significant societal disruption. Many people out of work, many won't be able to find work because this transition happens so fast. Previous major transitions like the industrial revolution worked out ok but they happened over generations. Not years.
And with so many people out of work there will be a lot less spending money on products causing a downturn. And less people paying taxes causing the government to be stuck for money.
I don't have the answers but I do see some big problems on the horizon.
A bit more of skepticism and less celebration of our gloomy future, I guess.
I have experienced directly what the evolution of cloud based software, and now AI based tooling, has done to team sizes on delivery projects.
Why would we care about team size?
Doesn't the world have many more software engineers today than at the start of the evolution of cloud based software?
"First they came for...."
One day it is you that gets given the cubicle box and door walk out.
Not at all, given the layoff rounds for various reasons, which fail to find new jobs, because now corporations are doing more with less.
2 replies →
What about their comment says they don’t understand that?
The whole positive content on the productivity outcomes.
5 replies →
A lot of people who think their job is typing in code are going to be very unhappy.
People who see their job as value creation are going to be just fine.
Why couldn't an AI do value creation?
It's clear its capabilities are ever expanding. Right now the human value is to tell the AI what to do. But that's something that's also based on external factors. I don't think there's some sacred guidance only a human can do.
I think it's a matter of time for it to be able to do all human intellectual work. And it can do so 24/7 without needing holidays or sick days.
We as humans won't really have a moat anymore, something only we can do.
I think that's this week