The latest reports about IBM evoke mixed feelings. The corporate giant laid off 8,000 employees, mainly from the HR department, replacing them with artificial intelligence. “Revolution! The future! Automation!” the headlines shouted. And then… silence. And almost in a whisper, the same company began rehiring. Not one or two people. Nearly as many as they had previously let go. Irony? Absolutely. A surprise? Only for those who believe in magical solutions.

I must admit, when I first heard this story, I chuckled. Not out of malice towards IBM or satisfaction from others’ failures. Rather, it was recognizing a familiar pattern that I’ve observed over the years. Large corporations have this particular talent for inflating balloons that then burst loudly. Only this time, it’s not about flawed product strategy or a failed merger. We are dealing with something deeper – a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between technology and humans.

What did IBM overlook?

IBM implemented an AskHR system, designed to automate HR processes. On paper, everything looked perfect. Algorithms were supposed to take over routine tasks, respond to standard employee queries, process vacation requests, manage documentation. A perfect solution for repetitive, predictable processes. The problem is that HR is not just about procedures; it’s primarily about relationships.

Imagine a manager facing a tough decision to lay off a team member. Does he really want to consult with a chatbot about how to conduct that conversation? Or an employee struggling with burnout, will an algorithm understand the nuances of his situation? Or an employment team hiring a person with special needs, will AI recognize and appreciate the unique values that person can bring to the organization? In each of these cases, the answer is: no. At least not yet.

IBM fell into the trap of technological determinism – the belief that if something can be automated, it should be automated. Forgetting, meanwhile, the fundamental question: should it be done?

Why did they have to rehire?

There were several reasons, and they are a fascinating case study for any leader considering similar moves. Firstly, for now, AI needs people to work alongside it. Someone has to verify answers, update knowledge bases, train models, fix errors. Secondly, new needs have emerged. Teams of software engineers for developing and maintaining AI systems, AI ethics experts, UX specialists designing human-machine interactions. Thirdly, the nature of HR work changed – less administration, more strategy, coaching, mediation.

What’s most interesting, however, is what IBM empirically discovered: some aspects of HR work simply cannot be effectively automated. Ambiguous situations, interpersonal conflicts, crisis interventions, building organizational culture. All these require human intuition, empathy, and judgment. It’s like trying to teach AI to play the piano. It might play all the notes perfectly, but can it convey the emotions of Chopin?

Not just IBM – the pattern repeats

The story of IBM is not isolated. Amazon automated its recruitment processes, only to discover that its algorithms discriminated against women. Facebook hired thousands of content moderators after discovering that AI couldn’t handle the subtleties of hate speech and disinformation. Elon Musk’s Tesla has repeatedly had to revise its ambitious plans for fully automating production lines.

Do you see the pattern yet? Automation doesn’t eliminate work. It transforms it. It doesn’t reduce employment. It shifts emphases. It doesn’t replace people. It changes what we do. IBM didn’t foresee this. But are we, as organizational leaders, any wiser?

What does this mean for your organization?

If you’re a CEO, HR director, or manager and are considering implementing AI in your company, IBM’s case offers invaluable lessons. First, think of AI as a tool that enhances humans, not one that replaces them. Technology should be liberating human potential, not eliminating it. Second, instead of asking “which positions can I eliminate?” ask “how can my people work differently, better, more strategically thanks to AI?”. Third, invest in upskilling and reskilling your team before deploying automation.

Want specific steps? Start by mapping processes in your organization and identifying which ones are truly repetitive and devoid of human judgment. Those are suitable for automation. Then analyze what new roles and competencies will emerge from this automation. Finally, establish development pathways for your employees so they can evolve along with the organization.

Will AI really take away our jobs?

Recently, a dear colleague during a discussion about AI asked me to draw a slightly more optimistic picture of the situation than I usually do. Yes, in this matter, I am usually not an optimist. I even have a theory about the three key competencies that humans will need by the middle of the 21st century. But more on that another time, for those who are curious. Returning to the question, will AI take away our jobs, I try to be optimistic. Technology does not eliminate work – it changes its nature. Could anyone 30 years ago imagine jobs such as an SEO specialist, a TikTok content creator, or a data analyst? AI is no exception to this rule. At least I hope so.

The real challenge is not preventing automation. That would be like tilting at windmills. The challenge is managing the transformation it triggers. Preparing people for new roles. Building organizations that are both technologically advanced and deeply human.

The IBM story shows that technology without the human element is like an engine without a driver – it can generate a lot of power, but it doesn’t know where it’s going. And perhaps that lesson could be IBM’s most valuable contribution to the discussion on the future of work, even if the company learned it in a painful and costly manner.

I wonder if in five years, we’ll remember the IBM case as a cautionary tale, or as a typical stage in the maturing relationship between human and machine? One thing is certain. Companies that will treat AI as a complement to human capabilities, not a replacement, will lead this revolution. The rest will be forced to draw costly lessons, just like IBM. Which path will you choose for your organization?