As global headlines increasingly report AI-driven layoffs (aka AI-washing) in the US and other major markets, and companies pause hires and leave roles unfilled while expecting remaining team members to absorb the workload, South African employers and employees alike are considering what the impact of the trend might be once it fully hits our shores.

The reality is that locally, the picture looks different, and rushing to mimic overseas trends without careful thought could create unnecessary strain rather than sustainable gains, a leadership expert says.

“In the US, AI has already been linked to significant job reductions, with many driven by anticipation of productivity gains rather than proven results. This has led to leaner teams and heavier workloads. South Africa, however, tells a different story. Leadership hiring remains robust, and business confidence appears to influence hiring decisions more than AI disruption,” says Advaita Naidoo, Africa MD at Jack Hammer, Africa’s largest executive search firm.

What has happened in the US can be described as a form of AI-washing: organisations are eliminating roles based on AI’s anticipated capabilities rather than its already demonstrated performance, Naidoo says.

“In roles that still require nuanced judgment, stakeholder navigation and relationship‑building, this approach risks stripping away hard‑won expertise and institutional memory, while leaving remaining teams under pressure to deliver more with less. South African companies have the opportunity to avoid this pattern by grounding AI‑driven changes in real, measurable outcomes rather than headlines and hype.”

Nevertheless, like their global counterparts, South African leaders indeed also face the question: if a role opens up through resignation, retirement, or attrition, do we really need to replace the person, or can AI and the team absorb it?

THE AI PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX & NEW WORKPLACE ARCHITECTURE

Naidoo says it is important to understand the new lay of the land before making significant changes to hiring strategy.

“The idea of letting AI replace vacant roles sounds efficient in theory. Yet reality often reveals a productivity paradox. A study by the Upwork Research Institute showed that 77% of employees using AI reported increased workloads and greater difficulty meeting targets, despite C-suite expectations of major efficiency gains. Instead of lighter days, many experience more tasks, clunky tool integration, constant learning curves, and extra time verifying AI outputs.”

For SA organisations grappling with the question of how jobs should evolve given the promise vs reality of AI, Naidoo says it is important to understand the new job architecture framework, which categorises work into three distinct areas:

• Tasks AI can handle completely: Repetitive and routine activities that can be transparently automated.
• Work requiring human accountability: Areas where AI serves as a powerful assistant, but humans retain ultimate responsibility for reviewing, validating and making final decisions. Judgment and experience remain essential in this category.
• Irreplaceably human work: The distinctly human elements such as influencing, relationship-building, nuanced decision-making, stakeholder navigation and the countless micro-judgments that drive work forward.

“Most roles combine elements of all three, and we’re currently in a messy transition phase. Seeing parts of your job accelerate quickly can spark both excitement and anxiety about job security. For employees, the fear is real. Burnout levels remain high, sometimes worsened by the pressure to master new tools while delivering the same (or more) output. The reassuring truth is that human discernment, creativity in context and interpersonal skills continue to be highly valued.

“For employers and leaders, rushing into hiring freezes or team shrinkage carries risks. However that does not mean that AI should not be strategically harnessed. The reality is that many job descriptions still look the same as they did five years ago, even as the nature of work shifts.”

Instead of pausing hires prematurely, or even moving towards layoffs, leaders should therefore think more intentionally about the future of work and ask: How are we training people for roles that demand stronger judgment and accountability? Are we redesigning job architectures with clear boundaries between AI and human responsibilities? Are we auditing workloads realistically and supporting employees during this transition?

“Where we talk about ‘training’ and ‘job redesign,’ a practical alternative to retrenchment or layoffs is what some tech companies do: redeployment. Rather than reducing headcount as AI boosts output, people can be redirected to additional projects or new growth areas, so that AI‑driven productivity translates into additional organisational gain rather than simply heavier workloads for fewer people,” Naidoo says. “South Africa currently has the chance to learn from global experiences and replicate the good, while not copying mistakes. Organisations that prioritise training, clear job redesign, and balanced human-AI strategies will gain a real competitive edge in the short to medium term, while also ensuring they are able to attract and retain top talent in future.”