A vacancy that isn't replaced, or that comes back with a different job description, isn't a news item. It's a signal. Somewhere in a company, work has shifted from human labor to something a system does, partly does, or does under the supervision of someone who approves or rejects it. That signal says something about the assumption on which a strategy rests: that a given function will keep requiring a given number of people. Once that assumption no longer holds, the plan built around it no longer holds either, even if nothing on paper looks wrong.
Vacancies that disappear or change come from several directions at once. A sector adjusts job profiles because competitors are doing the same. A regulator changes the rules under which work may be taken over by a system. A supplier builds a task that used to be a role into the product you already use. And within your own company, employees do things with AI that aren't written down in any policy document but that change the work nonetheless. All these sources point to the same place: a task that used to require an FTE may no longer require one, or no longer in the same way. What this means for your suppliers and competitors becomes more concrete once you look at how suppliers build AI into their own product and at new entrants that operate without staff.
This is not a signal for an annual planning cycle. Vacancies change faster than a strategic process usually allows, and the pace differs by task. Some functions shift within a few months, because the underlying task is simple enough to be taken over entirely. Other functions remain unchanged for years, because the oversight of the outcome stays just as demanding as the execution itself. A fixed quarterly look at your own job profiles, linked to what is happening in the sector and among suppliers, keeps track of this signal without turning it into a separate project. The question is not whether you need to look daily, but whether you have ever recorded when you last looked.
A disappearing or changing vacancy means that a task, or part of a task, has shifted somewhere into one of three categories: fully taken over by AI, partly taken over with human oversight that assesses and corrects, or unchanged human work. It means that the assumption underlying your plan — that this role remains needed at this scale — deserves a check. It does not mean the conclusion is already settled. The role may still be fully needed elsewhere in the company, with only the way the task is carried out changing.
It does not automatically mean fewer people are needed. It does not mean that a task disappearing at a competitor can also disappear at your company: that depends on the nature of the work, the degree of oversight required, and the regulation that applies to your sector. And it is not a basis for a decision about staff. If a change in vacancies touches on decisions about dismissal or reorganization, its own legal requirements apply, separate from what an external signal indicates. What these kinds of signals do reveal well is where within the company things have already changed without a formal decision — something that becomes sharper when you look at what your own people are already doing with AI in their daily work.
The decision is not to react to every single vacancy. The decision is to record which assumptions in your strategy depend on the premise that certain functions remain stable, and to periodically test those assumptions against what changes outside and inside the company. That requires a fixed moment, a fixed question per assumption, and someone willing to report the outcome if the assumption no longer holds. Whether that moment exists, and whether the right people are at the table for it, ties in with the question of who should actually take part in a strategy review, especially if the leadership team disagrees among itself about where the priority lies.
The underlying question — which work in this company can genuinely be taken over by AI, partly or fully — is answered by the FTE TO AI work scan per task, rather than per job title.
You can start now with the assumption check: a short round in which you name your key strategic assumptions and see, for each one, when it was last confirmed. That is enough to see whether vacancies that disappear or change have already undermined an assumption somewhere in your own plan without anyone having established that. The full strategic stress test, with sector data, regulatory clocks, and a self-plot of the leadership team side by side, is under development.
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.