The real cost of redesigning roles around AI

Hi Reader!

When people start using AI at work, it changes things in three ways.

You can do more of the same. More output, faster. And sometimes that's exactly what you need.

You can get some time back and use it differently. Reflect, think, plan, strategize. Or just rest.

Or you can redesign the work itself.
When you redesign the work, the job itself becomes something different.

A while back on my podcast, Greta Stahl — she runs organizational learning at Workday — told me how her team did this. They brought in an AI tool that could build training content. They didn't use it to make more content. Instead, they rebuilt the roles of their instructional designers. The tool drafts it now, and the designers moved into consulting. They sit with business leaders, shape strategy, and do the parts AI can't. Good for the business, good for the people. A real win.

I've seen the same kind of redesign with engineering teams. But this story is a little less bright.

Senior engineers who used to write code now spend more and more of their time overseeing the agents that write it. Instead of creating, they review and audit, catching mistakes to keep the quality high. The role got redesigned around the tool, and day to day, it's a totally different job.

You can't simply tell people — now it's your job. When you change what a role is, you change the kind of energy it takes to do it well. For some people that's a great trade. For others it's really hard. They can do the new work. It just runs on an energy that isn't theirs, and over time, that wears on them.

This is when I use the GC Index to redesign roles so they fit the team and the person. It doesn't measure ability or personality. It measures where your natural energy goes, how you prefer to make an impact. There are five types. The Game Changer, who creates new things. The Strategist, who sets direction. The Implementer, who gets things done. The Polisher, who refines and improves. And the Play Maker, who brings people together.
Now think about that engineer again.

GC Index Assessment

Someone with Game Changer energy is at their best building something new. Put them in a role that's mostly reviewing and auditing other people's work, and it slowly drains them. That's Polisher work. They can do it. It's just not where their energy is.

The same thing can happen with the shift Greta described. An Implementer who spent years delivering, now asked to consult and manage relationships all day — that's Play Maker energy. A strong Implementer can handle it. But if that's not where their energy sits, the new role takes more out of them than it gives back.

So when you redesign a role around AI, the easy question is what the tool can take over. The more important one is what the new role asks of the person, and whether it fits the energy they actually have.

The good part is you don't have to find out the hard way. You can look at this before you redesign, not after. That's what the GC Index is for. It shows you where someone's energy sits, so you can shape the new role around it, instead of losing good people to a role they were never right for.

See you next week.

Daria

P.S. The GC Index is the best way I know to see this energy before the work changes. I run it with leaders and teams, and the debrief usually shifts how people think about who should be doing what. If you want to know more, just hit reply and I'll walk you through it.

P.P.S. I also wrote a piece for Forbes Coaches Council on how the role of the team lead is changing, and why cutting complexity is becoming one of their most important jobs. Worth a look if you want to go further.