However, Frank Dickson, principal analyst at Dickson Research, argued that a lot of the layoff reversals will occur in a variety of ways that will obscure the fact that they are restoring a terminated role.
“A lot of that 70% never shows up as a clean rehire even when the original cut was wrong,” he said, pointing out that some of the losses caused service to quietly get worse, and stay poor, some of the work was contracted out or offshored, some of the roles were reconstituted with a different position or title, and some was covered by the remaining staff absorbing the load. This,” he noted, “shows up later as burnout and attrition, not as a line item on this report. None of that gets counted in the 30%, and none of it is evidence the original call was sound.”
Melody Brue, principal analyst for Moor Insights & Strategy, added that the 70% scenario “could show that a substantial share of the AI-related workforce reductions is durable,” but, she stressed, “it shouldn’t be mistaken for endorsement of how those layoffs were made. What it doesn’t show is whether the organization captured the full economic value it expected. A lower headcount is not by itself evidence of a successful AI transformation.”