A wind of change is blowing.
Some call it a reset. Others call it restructuring. Whatever word you choose, most people can sense something fundamental is shifting.
As the curtains draw on 2025, one word captures the year better than any other: layoffs.
What began in tech has now spread across manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, NGOs, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, banking, and beyond. This tells us something important. While AI has affected certain roles, it is not the sole driver. A deeper undercurrent is at work.
Yes, tech leads the economy, and when tech cuts jobs a domino effect follows. But the scale and breadth of today’s layoffs point to a wider reset driven by three forces converging at once:
• Capital is becoming more expensive and more selective
• AI is restructuring how work is done
• Organizational models built for a different era are breaking
Capital flight is forcing companies to cut costs, reduce risk, and reconfigure for tighter financial conditions. At the same time, AI is not merely automating tasks. It is exposing weaknesses that were previously hidden.
While AI is often blamed for job losses, a more uncomfortable truth is emerging.
AI has revealed a deep skills and judgment gap. The skills required now, such as human machine collaboration, decision making under ambiguity, and systems thinking, were never central to the industrial age workplace.
Many people have not developed these capabilities. More critically, most companies do not have a way to measure them. CVs cannot tell you who can think well alongside AI. Keyword filters cannot identify judgment, adaptability, or cognitive leverage.
This sets the stage for a looming recruitment crisis. Companies will need new skills urgently, yet they lack reliable ways to assess who truly has them. Mis hires will increase, job duration will get shorter, and confidence in hiring decisions will continue to erode unless new thinking frameworks like the Cognitive Fit Framework™are adopted.
Uncertainty is now the dominant emotional undercurrent at work. When profitable companies lay people off, the message is unmistakable. The old playbook no longer applies.
The headcount expansion model is being dismantled. AI is flattening hierarchies, particularly traditional middle management roles built around coordination and information flow. At the same time, the era of cheap capital is ending.
Even the language around layoffs has shifted. What was once framed as temporary and unfortunate is now described as strategic. This change in language is not accidental. It is preparing people psychologically for a world where layoffs are no longer an exception, but a recurring feature of working life.
Hiring freezes are also becoming more common. This is partly due to cost pressure, partly due to AI reshaping roles, and partly because many organizations no longer know how to grow under new constraints. Creativity is stalling, and risk appetite is shrinking.
Alongside this, we are seeing a rise in unfilled roles, particularly in regions like Scandinavia, driven by structural skill mismatches. Jobs exist. People exist. But the match between the two is breaking down. As AI matures, this gap is likely to widen.
Mergers, consolidations, and buyouts are also accelerating. While these moves can strengthen balance sheets, they come with trade offs: slower hiring cycles, duplicated roles, and further layoffs during integration.
Taken together, these forces point to a clear pattern emerging in 2026:
• Repeated, targeted layoffs
• Collapse of traditional middle management roles
• Increased mergers, consolidations, and buyouts
• More mis hires as companies chase skills they cannot properly measure
• Rising bankruptcies, especially among SMEs
• Slower, more cautious hiring cycles with frequent freezes
• More unfilled roles as jobs evolve faster than hiring systems
Economies do not run on capital alone. They also run on belief/optimism, and that belief is eroding. You can feel it in offices, on LinkedIn timelines, in private conversations, and in the way people now talk about work.
Layoffs no longer feel temporary. Consolidation feels inevitable, not opportunistic. Stability, as we once understood it, may not return in the same form.
The companies that survive the next cycle will not be those that deny what is happening.
History is unforgiving to organizations that cling to outdated models, whether it was Kodak dismissing digital photography, Blockbuster ignoring streaming, or consultancies that mocked agile until they became a byword for obsolescence.
The quiet winners of the next phase will look different:
• Smaller, sharper teams
• Leaders who make uncomfortable decisions early
• Individuals who think clearly under uncertainty/ambiguity
• Organizations that make sense internally, not ones held together by personalities
• Clear decision makers instead of endless meetings
• Jobs designed to make good decisions, not just stay busy
• A habit of stopping pointless work, not just speeding it up
• People who can integrate systems and teams after disruption
• Explicit thinking models, amplified by AI, such as Cognitive Fit Framework™
The real competitive edge will not be speed, scale, nor technology alone. It will be the ability to see clearly, decide well, and adapt together.
Conversely, many organizations will not survive the reset. They include those that:
• Rely on cheap capital to grow
• Hire based on resumes and titles instead of thinking ability
• Carry heavy layers of middle management with few real decision makers
• Make decisions by committee with no clear owners
• Are built around personalities rather than structure
• Add AI tools without fixing broken processes
• Believe more people equals more progress
• Preserve work and roles for comfort rather than value
• Do not know who actually thinks and makes decisions
• Avoid hard truths and delay necessary change
The reset will wipe out companies that confuse activity with progress, headcount with value, and AI adoption with thinking quality.
What comes next is not a return to normal. It is the emergence of a different operating playbook, one that rewards judgment, clarity, and cognitive leverage.
The question is, are we willing to adapt before AI forces adaptation upon us?
.png)
