Good point. The senior hire looks cheaper until you notice where that person learned the job. If AI eats the practice work, somebody has to put deliberate training back in.
I suspect deliberate training is the bill nobody’s putting into the AI savings calculation yet. People still need the early years where they get work wrong and learn why.
I can see good training becoming a much bigger reason people choose where to work. Especially if some companies decide AI means they don’t need juniors at all.
I think that’s where this is heading. If the work people used to learn on disappears, “training” probably has to become a much more deliberate part of the job.
It does feel shortsighted. You save money now by not hiring juniors, and then, in five years, you're competing for the same small pool of experienced people everyone else is trying to hire. The math only works if you're a larger company, able to buy your way out of it.
I think smaller companies could get squeezed hardest here. They save on the junior salary now, then discover they’re bidding against much bigger companies for the same experienced person later.
I’ve just read it, thanks Mike. Roger takes this further than I did, especially on what happens to the rest of the company when you remove a lot of younger people from it. I’d been thinking mainly about where the next senior hires come from.
New hires only benefit from experience actually handed down … and being held accountable… to solve it themselves .. old fashioned responsibility and the pressure of deadlines .. with critical thinking . Not 💯 percent artificial content generation .
I have heard of many executives transition to Ai coaches ; they teach Ai integration with independent thinking skills.
we need to explain a report , why we did it this way . The art of detailed , clear explanation and defending your thesis.
Ai gathers tools ( platforms ) then runs routine tasks . It should never think for you .
I’d still want juniors doing enough themselves to develop the instinct for when an AI answer smells wrong. You only get that after being wrong yourself a fair few times.
Good point. The senior hire looks cheaper until you notice where that person learned the job. If AI eats the practice work, somebody has to put deliberate training back in.
I suspect deliberate training is the bill nobody’s putting into the AI savings calculation yet. People still need the early years where they get work wrong and learn why.
Companies that invest in people will have a competitive edge and loyalty.
I can see good training becoming a much bigger reason people choose where to work. Especially if some companies decide AI means they don’t need juniors at all.
Companies may need to rethink how experience is deliberately built when traditional learning paths shrink.
I think that’s where this is heading. If the work people used to learn on disappears, “training” probably has to become a much more deliberate part of the job.
It does feel shortsighted. You save money now by not hiring juniors, and then, in five years, you're competing for the same small pool of experienced people everyone else is trying to hire. The math only works if you're a larger company, able to buy your way out of it.
I think smaller companies could get squeezed hardest here. They save on the junior salary now, then discover they’re bidding against much bigger companies for the same experienced person later.
This is a crucial piece – without entry-level people, where will your future leaders come from?
Roger L. Martin also wrote about this tendency of companies to use AI to replace young recruits and the potentially devastating consequences:
https://rogerlmartin.substack.com/p/strategy-artificial-intelligence-entry-level-hires-4da6cab808f0
I’ve just read it, thanks Mike. Roger takes this further than I did, especially on what happens to the rest of the company when you remove a lot of younger people from it. I’d been thinking mainly about where the next senior hires come from.
New hires only benefit from experience actually handed down … and being held accountable… to solve it themselves .. old fashioned responsibility and the pressure of deadlines .. with critical thinking . Not 💯 percent artificial content generation .
I have heard of many executives transition to Ai coaches ; they teach Ai integration with independent thinking skills.
we need to explain a report , why we did it this way . The art of detailed , clear explanation and defending your thesis.
Ai gathers tools ( platforms ) then runs routine tasks . It should never think for you .
I’d still want juniors doing enough themselves to develop the instinct for when an AI answer smells wrong. You only get that after being wrong yourself a fair few times.