gshc2020.com

The organizations getting this right are not asking how few people they need. They are asking what their people need to become.

I have a specific vantage point on this. At APPLY, we aim to have every new client engagement start with a minimum of 50% agents working alongside human practitioners from day one. Not as an experiment, but as the delivery model. That means we have had to answer the talent question in practice, not in theory. And what we have learned is that the shift AI creates is not subtraction. It is transformation.

The trajectory of that transformation follows a pattern we have mapped explicitly. Today, most organizations are human-led with AI handling a thin layer of routine execution. In the near term, that flips into an assisted model: AI takes on more of the execution, and humans focus on judgment and direction.

Further out, agentic delivery becomes the norm, with AI doing the heavy lifting and humans guiding outcomes rather than producing them. The North Star is autonomous delivery, not a replacement story, but a leverage story. Total capacity expands at every stage. As AI absorbs more at the bottom, humans move up the value stack. The implication for talent isn’t smaller teams. It’s teams with a higher floor for what good looks like.

What Actually Changes

When agents handle execution, content generation, data processing, workflow execution and routine decision-making, the human role does not disappear. It elevates. We worked with a retail client whose merchandising team was spending the majority of their time producing weekly performance reports. Once agents handled the assembly, those same people were making ranging decisions that had previously been delegated to gut feel. The output was better. So was the job. The work that is left when AI handles execution is not less. It is harder, and it matters more.

Most people assume AI simplifies work. In our experience, the baseline expectation for what a human contribution looks like goes up when the mechanical parts are handled. That is uncomfortable at first. It is also where the real growth is.

The skill that separates people in this environment is not speed. It is judgment: knowing when the agent is wrong, being able to diagnose why and having enough genuine domain expertise to course-correct. The gap is not access to technology. It is the quality of the question being asked and the credibility to evaluate the answer.

The Ingenuity Premium

There is a pattern I have noticed across our engagements. As AI takes on more at the bottom of an organization, such as the repeatable, the predictable and the high-volume, human ingenuity expands at the top. The ceiling on what a person can contribute gets higher when the floor is handled.

What ingenuity actually looks like in an agentic environment is the ability to define a problem precisely enough that a system can act on it, to recognize when the system’s output is technically correct but strategically wrong and to hold accountability for results that were largely produced by something you directed rather than something you built yourself. That combination of domain mastery, systems fluency and outcome ownership is genuinely rare. The organizations building it deliberately are pulling away from those waiting for it to develop on its own.

This shows up in how we think about hiring and onboarding at APPLY. We are not looking for people who are fast at the tasks agents can handle. We are looking for people who can work at the level the agents make possible, who can direct, evaluate and own the outcome of work that is partly or mostly generated by systems they are responsible for. That is a different skill set and it takes deliberate effort to build.

The organizations that understand this are investing in human capability alongside their AI investment. They are training their people not just to use the tools but to work at the level the tools make possible. And they are not waiting for the workforce to adapt on its own; they are designing for it.

The Talent Needed In Five Years

When I think about the talent we will need five years from now, most of those roles do not exist today in their current form. We will need practitioners who are masters of their craft and fluent in agentic systems simultaneously, people who can set the direction a dozen agents execute, who can tell when the agent is wrong and why and who can design experience ecosystems rather than individual touchpoints.

The leadership question is harder still. Executives leading AI-native organizations will need a genuine tolerance for systems they do not fully control, a bias toward outcome measurement over process management and the conviction to hold their organizations accountable to a standard the rest of the industry is still debating.

That profile is rare today. Building it deliberately is one of the most important investments any organization can make right now, not because AI is taking jobs, but because AI is raising the bar on what the best jobs actually require.

The future of work is not fewer people doing the same things more efficiently. It is different people doing different things at a level that was not previously possible. The organizations that understand this are building a genuine competitive advantage. The ones treating it as a cost story will find themselves short not just of the right technology, but of the people capable of using it well.​

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?