Connect with us

Business

AI is already changing the corporate org chart

Published

on



The traditional corporate org chart, a neat triangle of power with executives at the top and junior workers at the base, is undergoing a quiet revolution, thanks to AI.

At Moderna, HR and tech now live under the same roof overseen by one Chief People and Digital Officer. At another one AI-first healthcare company, a team of 10 software engineers have been replaced with three person unit overseeing AI agents. At Amazon, layers of middle management are being stripped out as part of a broader push toward a leaner, AI-ready structure.

AI isn’t just a new tool for the modern workplace; it’s quietly reshaping how companies are organized.

Call it “the Great Flattening.”

As business leaders race to integrate AI across their operations, entry-level roles are disappearing, management layers are thinning, and traditional team roles are starting to blur. Across the Fortune 500, middle management is taking hits, as are entry-level workers, but even at the C-suite, new power dynamics are at play as the old pyramid structure of corporate life starts to flatten out.

Tech bosses have been keen to promote a vision where AI automates the drudgery of work, cutting out admin while allowing soft skills and creativity to flourish. Or, as Microsoft’s Satya Nadella put it earlier this year: “I think with AI and work with my colleagues.”

While the utopian idea of a world without tasks like editing Excel spreadsheets or sorting through files sounds great in theory, what does an AI-first organization actually look like in practice?

An AI flattening

One key theme of organizations that are pivoting to “AI-first” structures is a kind of “flattening” of company structure, which essentially means fewer layers of management oversight, the removal of junior or support roles, and a growing reliance on AI systems to handle tasks that were once handled by human employees.

It can also mean the collapse or conflation of traditional team structures.

For example, pharmaceutical company Moderna recently merged its technology and human resources departments into a single function, appointing a Chief People and Digital Technology Officer to oversee both teams. The move, according to the Wall Street Journal, was driven in part by the company’s partnership with OpenAI and the company leaning into AI to help handle things like HR support and some junior roles.

At consulting giant McKinsey, the company is deploying thousands of AI agents to support consultants with tasks such as building decks, summarizing research, and verifying the logic of arguments. On top of this, around 40% of the company’s revenue now comes from advising on AI and related technologies.

“If you’re an AI-first organization, you can use these AI agents to essentially do a lot of the execution work of organizations,” Nick South, the managing director and senior partner of Boston Consulting Group, told Fortune. “And when we organize our processes and our delivery processes around this AI native workforce, the role of the humans, then, is different.”

This is partly because the nature of individual job roles will change as tasks get automated by AI tools or agents.

“Our job roles get kind of deconstructed, because some tasks might be taken over by AI and others might be new, so the meaning, or the function of the job changes,” Eva Selenko, a professor of work psychology at Loughborough Business School, said. “You might need less of the one role, but that person will take over another function from another thing.”

This doesn’t mean that entire jobs will be replaced, but it could mean employees’ roles become more diverse and take on tasks outside their normal scope of duties, or even their usual team. Job roles get deconstructed as tasks get automated, and their importance in the organization changes, Selenko said. As a result, strict divisions between teams may start to blur.

Mix all this in with a few AI agents carrying out autonomous work, and the traditional org chart starts to look dramatically different.  

“Now we’re moving to this more flat network of human teams supervising AI agents,” Rob Levin, a partner at McKinsey & Company, said.

“In early examples, we’re seeing that a client company that’s building an agent factory supporting multiple business workflows, about 50 to 100 AI agents can be managed by just two or three people,” he said.

In one example, Levin said a healthcare company had replaced a traditional 10-person software development team with much smaller, three-person units. These consist of a product owner, a software engineer who can effectively prompt AI coding tools, and a systems architect who ensures integration with the company’s broader tech ecosystem.

However, these kinds of major structural changes are easier to implement in smaller organizations or startups rather than in larger companies that have more complicated structures.

The plight of the middle manager

One of the ways companies, especially in the tech sector, have tried to simplify and flatten their structures for the AI age is to slash employees at the managerial level. Palantir CEO Alex Karp, for instance, announced on Monday’s earnings call that he intended to cull 500 roles from his 4,100-person staff. he called it a “crazy, efficient revolution.”

Middle managers have especially taken a lot of flak, especially from the likes of Big Tech CEOs such as Andy Jassy, who has said that middle managers can hinder speed, ownership, and innovation at Amazon, particularly in the context of AI-driven organizational change.

Jassy is currently pursuing a flatter company structure at Amazon by increasing the ratio of individual contributors to managers, aiming to remove layers and streamline decision-making.

However, experts told Fortune organizations shouldn’t be counting out middle managers just yet.

“One obvious possibility [of flatter organizations] is that it’s going to cause some sort of managerial thinning,” said Tristan L. Botelho, an associate professor of organizational behavior at Yale School of Management. “If AI is reducing the coordination burden, it could shrink the role of middle management, whose job it was previously to make these connections.”

However, while AI might change how middle managers work, Botelho does not expect them to disappear completely.

“I don’t think middle management is going to be erased. I think it’s going to just redefine how managers think about their role within the organization,” he said. “One thing I often talk about a lot with executives…is this kind of idea that AI integrated with the organization, should…level up your skill set as a manager.”

In the AI age, soft skills also become increasingly important, with middle managers serving vital HR functions. Employees still need to be managed, and a workforce still needs to function with empathy or organizations risk losing their best performers.

“There is a human side of things,” Stella Pachidi, a Senior Lecturer in Technology and Work at King’s Business School, said. “It’s not sustainable to just have a boss as an algorithm, it’s not going to work in the longer term.”

In contrast to the Big Tech narrative, some experts say the managerial class will expand within traditional organizational structures as automation replaces low-level work.

BCG’s Nick South told Fortune that execution-level jobs, which are typically at the bottom of the org chart, will be the first on the chopping block due to AI agents, while the managerial or “orchestration” level will grow in complexity and importance.

“At the orchestration layer, that will need to be bigger than it is today…there’ll be a critical human part of that, which is about making sure that all this stuff is doing things,” he said.  

“If you think about a classic middle manager profile, it’s sort of a general manager skill set. But what these people are going to need in the future is a combination of sufficient AI proficiency to manage a human-agentic workforce, plus the core skills of logic, understanding of ethics, rhetoric, and communication skills, so that they can communicate with others in much less siloed organizations,” he said. “So those orchestration roles are going to be quite complex.”

The new C-suite

While middle managers and entry-level employees may be feeling the brunt of the AI burden, these changes go right to the top.

AI is already shifting the power dynamics in the C-suite and creating new, powerful, executive-level jobs. According to a 2023 Foundry study on AI Priorities, 11% of mid- to large-sized companies have already appointed someone to serve as “Chief AI Officer” (CAIO), while an additional 21% are currently in the process of recruiting for the role.

According to LinkedIn’s 2023 report on AI at work, companies with a “Head of AI” position around the world had more than tripled in the five years, growing by 13% from 2022.

Alex Connock, a senior fellow at the University of Oxford’s Said Business School, has observed the growth of these roles firsthand.

“Whilst it was perhaps relatively rare when we first launched our AI for business programmes a few years ago, we now have many people … on our executive courses with the title of Chief AI Officer,” he told Fortune. “It’s the new mainstream. The level of interest transcends all levels, from the 20-year-old undergrads … up to seasoned executives.”

While there’s some debate about whether these roles will stand the test of time, for example, experts have said that these roles can lack a clear purpose or authority, the executive level is not immune to the AI boom.

South said that while the rise of some of these roles could also be a symptom of our immaturity with AI rather than a direct need for this work, the C-suite will still have to take on new responsibilities in the AI age.

“People feel quite nervous about missing the boat,” he said. “I think it will be interesting to see how this evolves over time … as things settle down, how different will that be to the classic chief data officer?”

But here is a new “responsibility in the C-suite … to think about our competitive landscape, where are the potential sources of disruption, how we protect our sources of advantage. These are C-suite questions, and it would be a mistake to think, if we hire a chief AI officer, somehow we leave that with them. This is a really top-level thing to be thinking strategically about.”

While AI is set to disrupt all levels of organizations, Selenko noted that management structures are likely to protect those at the top from too much turmoil.

“In an influential management structure, if those at the top’s job might be partly doable by an AI, they will not give up that power. So I think you will see this shift in power balance is probably more among less powerful positions in an organization,” she said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Quant who said passive era is ‘worse than Marxism’ doubles down

Published

on



Inigo Fraser Jenkins once warned that passive investing was worse for society than Marxism. Now he says even that provocative framing may prove too generous.

In his latest note, the AllianceBernstein strategist argues that the trillions of dollars pouring into index funds aren’t just tracking markets — they are distorting them. Big Tech’s dominance, he says, has been amplified by passive flows that reward size over substance. Investors are funding incumbents by default, steering more capital to the biggest names simply because they already dominate benchmarks.

He calls it a “dystopian symbiosis”: a feedback loop between index funds and platform giants like Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Nvidia Corp. that concentrates power, stifles competition, and gives the illusion of safety. Unlike earlier market cycles driven by fundamentals or active conviction, today’s flows are automatic, often indifferent to risk.

Fraser Jenkins is hardly alone in sounding the alarm. But his latest critique has reignited a debate that’s grown harder to ignore. Just 10 companies now account for more than a third of the S&P 500’s value, with tech names driving an outsize share of 2025’s gains.

“Platform companies and a lack of active capital allocation both imply a less effective form of capitalism with diminished competition,” he wrote in a Friday note. “A concentrated market and high proportion of flows into cap weighted ‘passive’ indices leads to greater risks should recent trends reverse.” 

While the emergence of behemoth companies might be reflective of more effective uses of technology, it could also be the result of failures of anti-trust policies, among other things, he argues. Artificial intelligence might intensify these issues and could lead to even greater concentrations of power among firms. 

His note, titled “The Dystopian Symbiosis: Passive Investing and Platform Capitalism,” is formatted as a fictional dialog between three people who debate the topic. One of the characters goes as far as to argue that the present situation requires an active policy intervention — drawing comparisons to the breakup of Standard Oil at the start of the 20th century — to restore competition.

data-srcyload

In a provocative note titled “The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing is Worse Than Marxism” and written nearly a decade ago, Fraser Jenkins argued that the rise of index-tracking investing would lead to greater stock correlations, which would impede “the efficient allocation of capital.” His employer, AllianceBernstein, has continued to launch ETFs since the famous research was published, though its launches have been actively managed. 

Other active managers have presented similar viewpoints — managers at Apollo Global Management last year said the hidden costs of the passive-investing juggernaut included higher volatility and lower liquidity. 

There have been strong rebuttals to the critique: a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. study showed the role of fundamentals remains an all-powerful driver for stock valuations; Citigroup Inc. found that active managers themselves exert a far bigger influence than their passive rivals on a stock’s performance relative to its industry.

“ETFs don’t ruin capitalism, they exemplify it,” said Eric Balchunas, Bloomberg Intelligence’s senior ETF analyst. “The competition and innovation are through the roof. That is capitalism in its finest form and the winner in that is the investor.”

Since Fraser Jenkins’s “Marxism” note, the passive juggernaut has only grown. Index-tracking ETFs, which have grown in popularity thanks to their ease of trading and relatively cheaper management fees, are often cited as one of the primary culprits in this debate. The segment has raked in $842 billion so far this year, compared with the $438 billion hauled in by actively managed funds, even as there are more active products than there are passive ones, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Of the more than $13 trillion that’s in ETFs overall, $11.8 trillion is parked in passive vehicles. The majority of ETF ownership is concentrated in low-cost index funds that have significantly reduced the cost for investors to access financial markets. 

In Fraser Jenkins’s new note, one of his fictitious characters ask another what the “dystopian symbiosis” implies for investors. 

“The passive index is riskier than it has been in the past,” the character answers. “The scale of the flows that have been disproportionately into passive cap-weighted funds with a high exposure to the mega cap companies implies the risk of a significant negative wealth effect if there is an upset to expectations for those large companies.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Why the timing was right for Salesforce’s $8 billion acquisition of Informatica — and for the opportunities ahead

Published

on



The must-haves for building a market-leading business include vision, talent, culture, product innovation and customer focus. But what’s the secret to success with a merger or acquisition? 

I was asked about this in the wake of Salesforce’s recently completed $8 billion acquisition of Informatica. In part, I believe that people are paying attention because deal-making is up in 2025. M&A volume reached $2.2 trillion in the first half of the year, a 27% increase compared to a year ago, according to JP Morgan. Notably, 72% of that volume involved deals greater than $1 billion. 

There will be thousands of mergers and acquisitions in the United States this year across industries and involving companies of all sizes. It’s not unusual for startups to position themselves to be snapped up. But Informatica, founded in 1993, didn’t fit that mold. We have been building, delivering, supporting and partnering for many years. Much of the value we bring to Salesforce and its customers is our long-earned experience and expertise in enterprise data management. 

Although, in other respects, a “legacy” software company like ours — founded well before cloud computing was mainstream — and early-stage startups aren’t so different. We all must move fast and differentiate. And established vendors and growth-oriented startups have a few things in common when it comes to M&A, as well. 

First and foremost is a need to ensure that the strategies of the two companies involved are in alignment. That seems obvious, but it’s easier said than done. Are their tech stacks based on open protocols and standards? Are they cloud-native by design? And, now more than ever, are they both AI-powered and AI-enabling? All of these came together in the case of Salesforce and Informatica, including our shared belief in agentic AI as the next major breakthrough in business technology.

Don’t take your foot off the gas

In the days after the acquisition was completed, I was asked during a media interview if good luck was a factor in bringing together these two tech industry stalwarts. Replace good luck with good timing, and the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

As more businesses pursue the productivity and other benefits of agentic AI, they require high-quality data to be successful. These are two areas where Salesforce and Informatica excel, respectively. And the agentic AI opportunity — estimated to grow to $155 billion by 2030 — is here and now. So the timing of the acquisition was perfect. 

Tremendous effort goes into keeping an organization on track, leading up to an acquisition and then seeing it through to a smooth and successful completion. In the few months between the announcement of Salesforce’s intent to acquire Informatica and the close, we announced new partnerships and customer engagements and a fall product release that included autonomous AI agents, MCP servers and more. 

In other words, there’s no easing into the new future. We must maintain the pace of business because the competitive environment and our customers require it. That’s true whether you’re a small, venture-funded organization or, like us, an established firm with thousands of employees and customers. Going forward we plan to keep doing what we do best: help organizations connect, manage and unify their AI data. 

Out with the old, in with the new

It’s wrong to think of an acquisition as an end game. It’s a new chapter. 

Business leaders and employees in many organizations have demonstrated time and again that they are quite good at adapting to an ever-changing competitive landscape. A few years ago, we undertook a company-wide shift from on-premises software to cloud-first. There was short-term disruption but long-term advantage. It’s important to develop an organizational mindset that thrives on change and transformation, so when the time comes, you’re ready for these big steps. 

So, even as we take pride in all that we accomplished to get to this point, we now begin to take on a fresh identity as part of a larger whole. It’s an opportunity to engage new colleagues and flourish professionally. And importantly, customers will be the beneficiaries of these new collaborations and synergies. On the day Informatica was welcomed into the Salesforce family and ecosystem, I shared my feeling that “the best is yet to come.” That’s my North Star and one I recommend to every business leader forging ahead into an M&A evolution — because the truest measure of success ultimately will be what we accomplish next.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The ‘Great Housing Reset’ is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026

Published

on



Homebuyers may experience a reprieve in 2026 as price normalization and an increase in home sales over the next year will take some pressure off the market—but don’t expect homebuying to be affordable in the short run for Gen Z and young families.

The “Great Housing Reset” will start next year, with income growth outpacing home-price growth for a prolonged period for the first time since the Great Recession era, according to a Redfin report released this week. 

The residential real estate brokerage sees mortgage rates in the low-6% range, down from down from the 2025 average of 6.6%; a median home sales price increase of just 1%, down from 2% this year; and monthly housing payments growth that will lag behind wage growth, which will remain steady at 4%.

These trends toward increased affordability will likely bring back some house hunters to the market, but many Gen Zers and young families will opt for nontraditional living situations, according to the report. 

More adult children will be living with their parents, as households continue to shift further away from a nuclear family structure, Redfin predicted.

“Picture a garage that’s converted into a second primary suite for adult children moving back in with their parents,” the report’s authors wrote. “Redfin agents in places like Los Angeles and Nashville say more homeowners are planning to tailor their homes to share with extended family.”

Gen Z and millennial homeownership rates plateaued last year, with no improvement expected. Just over one-quarter of Gen Zers owned their home in 2024, while the rate for millennial owners was 54.9% in the same year.

Meanwhile, about 6% of Americans who struggled to afford housing as of mid-2025 moved back in with their parents, while another 6% moved in with roommates. Both trends are expected to increase in 2026, according to the report.

Obstacles to home affordability 

Despite factors that could increase affordability for prospective homebuyers, C. Scott Schwefel, a real estate attorney at Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC, told Fortune that income growth and home-price growth are just a few keys to sustainable homeownership. 

An improved income-to-price ratio is welcome, but unless tax bills stabilize, many households may not experience a net relief, Schwefel said.

“Prospective buyers need to recognize that affordability is not just price versus income…it’s price, mortgage rate and the annual bill for living in a place—and that bill includes property taxes,” he added.

In November, voters—especially young ones—showed lowering housing costs is their priority, the report said. But they also face high sale prices and mortgage rates, inflated insurance premiums, and potential utility costs hikes due to a data center construction boom that’s driving up energy bills. The report’s authors expect there to be a bipartisan push to help remedy the housing affordability crisis.

Still, an affordable housing market for first-time home buyers and young families still may be far away.

“The U.S. housing market should be considered moving from frozen to thawing,” Sergio Altomare, CEO of Hearthfire Holdings, a real estate private equity and development company, told Fortune

“Prices aren’t surging, but they’re no longer falling,” he added. “We are beginning to unlock some activity that’s been trapped for a couple of years.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.