AI Is Not Taking Jobs (It’s taking the alibi.)
TL;DR: Organizations often claim AI is eliminating jobs, but in practice the work rarely disappears. Roles are removed, responsibilities migrate downward, and AI becomes a convenient narrative to explain decisions driven by cost, speed, or avoidance. The risk is not technological disruption. It is the quiet erosion of accountability, trust, and clarity about how work actually gets done.
There is a story moving through organizations right now.
It sounds technical. Inevitable. Almost responsible.
“AI is eliminating roles.”
That sentence is doing a lot of work.
It suggests progress without intent. It frames decisions as outcomes. It implies that something external has forced the organization’s hand.
Often, that is not what is happening.
What is happening is quieter, and more human.
Jobs are being removed.
The work is not.
And AI is not actually doing it.
The Convenient Confusion
When organizations say “AI replaced the role,” they are usually compressing several decisions into one sentence:
- Headcount was reduced to meet a margin target
- Remaining staff absorbed the work informally
- Some tools were introduced to stabilize throughput
- A narrative was needed that sounded strategic
AI becomes that narrative.
Not because it is false in principle, but because it is useful.
It turns a cost decision into a technology story.
It reframes layoffs as modernization.
It gives executives a future-facing explanation for a present-day choice.
Often, no one in the room is lying.
They are simply answering the wrong question.
The Work Does Not Disappear
Here is the part practitioners notice first:
The work remains.
Meetings still happen.
Decisions still bottleneck.
Exceptions still pile up.
Customers still escalate.
What changes is where the strain goes.
It moves sideways.
It goes unnamed.
It becomes “just part of the job.”
And because AI has been invoked, the strain is harder to challenge. After all, the organization has “invested in efficiency.”
This is where the damage begins.
The Organizational Side Effect No One Is Naming
When roles are eliminated without the work being redesigned, three things usually follow.
First, accountability blurs.
People inherit responsibility without authority. Decision rights smear across teams like wet ink.
Second, risk migrates downward.
What used to be visible, staffed, and reviewable becomes invisible labor carried by individuals who cannot escalate without sounding resistant to progress.
Third, trust erodes quietly.
Not through outrage. Through recalibration.
People stop believing the stated reasons for change.
They learn to listen for subtext.
They optimize for survival, not contribution.
This is not an AI problem.
It is a governance failure.
Why the Smokescreen Works
AI makes an excellent alibi because it is:
- Complex enough to discourage questioning
- Popular enough to discourage resistance
- Abstract enough to avoid specifics
Most leaders are not trying to deceive.
They are trying to move.
But speed without clarity has a cost.
When AI is used to justify workforce changes without explicit conversations about work design, capability gaps, and risk redistribution, the organization learns a dangerous lesson:
Outcomes matter. Explanations are optional.
That lesson does not stay contained.
What This Does to the Organization Over Time
Over time, organizations that use AI as a narrative shield develop predictable pathologies.
They become worse at diagnosing problems.
They conflate tooling with transformation.
They reward leaders who can tell compelling stories, not those who surface inconvenient truths.
Change initiatives start faster and fail quieter.
And practitioners feel this first.
They are asked to support adoption without clarity.
To coach leaders who have already decided.
To “manage the people side” of decisions that were never examined on the work side.
This is where burnout becomes structural.
The Question You Are Probably Not Being Asked
Most organizations are asking:
“How can AI help us do this work more efficiently?”
The better question is:
“What work are we no longer willing to see clearly?”
AI does not remove jobs on its own.
People remove jobs.
AI does not redistribute labor.
Organizations do.
The technology matters.
But the choices matter more.
Sit With This
If AI were truly replacing the work, the work would be gone.
If the work is still there, someone is doing it.
And if no one can say who that is, the organization has not transformed.
It has shifted the weight.
Quietly.
Conveniently.
And with just enough future language to avoid looking back.
That is not disruption.
That is avoidance, dressed as inevitability.
And most practitioners already know the difference.
ChangeGuild: Power to the Practitioner™
What You Will Be Tempted to Do
You will be tempted to make this a tooling conversation.
To ask which AI capabilities are missing.
To recommend better prompts, better training, better integration.
To believe that with the right configuration, the strain you are seeing will resolve itself.
You will be tempted to translate what is happening into a change plan.
To map stakeholders.
To define impacts.
To create communications that explain decisions already made, as if explanation were the same thing as choice.
You will be tempted to carry the work quietly.
To absorb the ambiguity.
To protect leaders from the consequences of decisions they have not fully examined.
To smooth over the friction so the organization can keep moving.
These impulses come from competence.
They are how practitioners survive.
They are also how the pattern holds.
Because none of these responses require anyone to say, out loud, what work still exists, who is now doing it, and why that redistribution was acceptable.
And until that question is asked, AI will remain a convenient story.
Not because it is powerful.
But because it prevents a harder conversation from happening.
This post is free, and if it supported your work, feel free to support mine. Every bit helps keep the ideas flowing—and the practitioners powered. [Support the Work]
