The assumption did not arise out of nowhere. It comes from a time when execution was scarce: good people, well trained, who did the work faster and better than the competition. Whoever led in this earned more on the same project. Margin sat in execution because execution was the bottleneck. That was true for the recruitment sector, for accountancy, for legal work, for customer service, for parts of engineering. Strategy has been built on this for decades: invest in people and method, and margin follows.
As long as execution was scarce and slow, this was a reliable assumption. A faster team with fewer errors could serve more clients on the same cost base, or the same client at lower cost. Competitors who did not organize this lost margin to those who did. The assumption did not hold because someone proved it, but because the world around it confirmed it again every month.
AI is now taking over parts of that executional work. Not everywhere and not all of it: some tasks AI can do entirely, others only with a human who approves or rejects with reason, and still others remain human work. But where AI takes over a task, the bottleneck shifts. Execution that used to be the scarce good becomes, in those parts, a given: fast, cheap, widely available. If everyone in the sector has access to the same takeover, the difference between companies no longer lies in who executes the work well, but in who knows which work still requires execution and which work has already shifted to judgment, process design, or client relationship. That is not a picture of the future. In parts of the sector this is already the practice today; in other parts of the same sector not yet, because the work there is less standardizable or because oversight of the outcome must weigh more heavily. That difference lies in the nature of the work, not in ambition.
So the assumption does not lapse with an announcement. It lapses task by task, while no one withdraws it. The plan on paper still checks out. The budget still checks out. But the place where the money is earned is already shifting before the strategy accounts for it.
A few signals recur at companies where this is already at play:
The executional department performs as well or better, but margin declines anyway, because competitors have the same takeover and price has followed downward. Clients no longer ask about speed of execution but about who judges and is accountable for the outcome. New entrants with fewer staff and less experience in execution can nonetheless compete, because they rely on the same instrument as the established party. Internal discussions about investment still concern expanding capacity in execution, while the actual question is where oversight and judgment need heavier staffing. That last point touches on personnel decisions; separate legal requirements apply to that, regardless of whether the work itself has shifted.
These signals lie close to another assumption that may have quietly lapsed, namely the assumption about how many people this work costs, and to the question of whether a new entrant still needs years before it can compete. They belong together: as execution becomes cheaper and more accessible, the barriers that used to hold back entrants shift as well.
This piece is not about who gets less work. It is about where in the company margin will sit going forward, given that part of execution has been taken over and another part has not. That is a strategic question, not a personnel one. The work scan from FTE TO AI answers the underlying question per task: which work in this company can genuinely be taken over by AI, which work requires oversight with judgment, and which work remains human work. That is not advice about who to retain; it is a factual map of where execution is still scarce and where it no longer is.
A board that wants to know whether margin still sits in execution can maintain a limited set of measurements: the share of revenue tied to execution speed versus the share tied to judgment and client relationship; the price development of comparable services at competitors who visibly work with AI support; the number of proposals lost to a party with fewer staff but comparable turnaround time; and the ratio between executional hours and oversight hours within the main service. Those who do not measure this periodically only discover the shift once margin has already run out.
Those who want to know how this kind of shift can be read in their own figures without waiting for the annual report will find a starting point in a method for testing a strategy without waiting for the annual figures, and a broader overview of signals in how you recognize that a strategy has become outdated.
What to do now is limited and concrete: name the main assumptions underlying the strategy, and determine per assumption when it was last confirmed. The free assumption check is a short round for this, without further commitment. The full strategic pressure test, with sector data, a board self-plot, and a running assumption list, is under construction.
Stel uw vraag. Vaak zit de echte vraag een laag dieper — daar mag ik naar vragen.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.