Why the AI hype is reshaping hiring (but not the way you think)

Walk into a boardroom today, and it doesn’t take long for the topic of AI to surface. It's the subject of strategy offsites, investor calls, and hallway chatter. 

The narrative is seductive. Lean teams. Outsized outcomes. Efficiency gains that were never possible before. The implication is clear: if you're hiring more than a handful of senior people, you're probably doing it wrong.

But talk to the people inside the companies making those claims, and the story becomes more complicated. The myth of the AI-powered skeleton crew is more aspirational than actual. And the knock-on effects of that myth are being felt everywhere, especially in how companies think about hiring.

A narrative that outpaces reality

Every technology wave brings a wave of hype with it, but AI has a unique accelerant: visibility. 

Thanks to tools like ChatGPT and Copilot, even non-technical executives have first-hand experience with AI's capabilities. The results are often impressive. It feels like magic. And that proximity breeds a kind of inflated optimism.

Suddenly, AI isn't just a tool; it's a business model. It's a hiring strategy. It's a valuation multiplier. And companies feel the pressure to respond accordingly.

That pressure shows up in headlines about layoffs. In quiet hiring freezes. In investor decks that use "AI" as a stand-in for progress. Across sectors, there’s a new refrain: before you grow your team, prove you can do it with less.

Layoffs, perception, and the real drivers of change

Let’s be clear: AI isn't the sole cause of recent tech layoffs. 

Macroeconomic forces, overhiring in 2020 and 2021, and shifting capital costs all play a role. But AI has become a convenient narrative device. It offers cover — a way to justify cuts, reset expectations, and tell a future-facing story to stakeholders.

For some companies, AI provides a real productivity boost. But for many, the promised gains are still aspirational. The models require tuning. The use cases are still narrow. The integration into workflows is nontrivial. And yet, the hiring bar has changed dramatically, shaped less by what's working and more by what seems possible.

This perception gap has led to a strange moment in hiring. There’s enormous pressure to appear AI-savvy. But there's also hesitation. Teams don't want to hire ahead of clarity. So they wait. 

The investor effect

In early-stage pitch decks, AI is now table stakes. In public markets, it’s a growth narrative. The pressure to look AI-native often outweighs the pressure to be AI-effective.

This trickles down into hiring. Roles are scoped aspirationally — not based on clear needs, but on the optics of running “lean, AI-augmented” teams. Engineering candidates are asked to do more with less, with toolchains that may still be in beta.

The goal isn’t just productivity; it’s perception.

But perception has its costs. It distorts benchmarks. It pressures teams to delay hiring, not because they’re ready to go without headcount, but because they’re afraid of looking bloated. In some cases, leaders are asked to revise hiring plans downward, not for budgetary reasons, but to "make the story tighter."

What this actually means for engineering roles

So, how is AI actually changing software engineering jobs?

It’s through a set of subtle shifts:

• Engineers are being asked to use judgment at a much higher level. Reviewing AI output is easy; validating its correctness in a real system isn’t.
• Prompting, testing, and refining AI tools has become a skill in its own right — one that adds cognitive load, not just productivity.
• Expectations have increased. One person is now expected to ship more, learn faster, and do so with tools that aren’t fully reliable yet.
• Collaboration and communication are more important than ever. Explaining what the AI did, and why it matters, is part of the job.

The skill set is shifting from narrow technical expertise to broader systems thinking. Engineers who can connect the dots between tooling and user needs, between speed and reliability, are now the most valuable.

The talent whiplash

This mismatch between narrative and reality creates confusion for candidates, too. Engineers are told AI will replace them. Then they’re told to integrate it into their workflow. Then they’re told to interview for roles that may or may not exist next quarter.

In this environment, job postings become aspirational, not operational. Some are written more to appease investors or the board than to actually be filled. Meanwhile, internal teams feel the strain of needing help but being told to wait for AI to close the gap.

The result is a kind of organizational limbo. Teams are told to scale, but not hire. To increase output without increasing headcount. To show AI leverage, even when the tooling isn’t fully reliable.

What this means for hiring teams

So where does this leave those tasked with hiring? In short: navigating tension.

You’re being asked to find the mythical AI-native unicorn — someone who codes, prompts, ships, and scales with minimal support. But you're also operating in an environment where needs are real, teams are stretched, and the tooling is still maturing.

The smartest hiring leaders we know are doing a few things differently:

• Separating signal from noise. They focus on how candidates think, not how many AI buzzwords they use. Experience with the tools is secondary to adaptability, clarity, and judgment.
• Documenting real change. Instead of delaying hires to tell a cleaner story, they show how AI is actually affecting their workflows — where it’s working, and where it still needs human input.
• Getting honest. Internally, they push for clarity on what the team needs now. Not what might be possible in a future quarter, but what gaps exist today, and whether tooling can realistically fill them.
• Prioritizing learning over specialization. AI moves fast. Tools change monthly. The best engineers are the ones who can keep pace, think critically, and translate capabilities into business outcomes.

A broader cultural shift

Beneath all this is a deeper question: What kind of organizations are we building in the AI era?

If AI becomes a reason to reduce investment in people, to prioritize optics over execution, to freeze in the face of uncertainty, then we're missing the point. AI's most powerful impact may not be in what it replaces, but in how it reshapes our approach to problem-solving, team-building, and organizational learning.

This will take time. The models are still evolving. The best practices are still forming. The teams that will thrive are the ones who can hold two truths at once: that AI changes things, and that people still matter. That efficiency is valuable, and so is judgment. That hype can open doors, and close them, if we're not careful.

Recalibration and moving forward

We're entering a period of recalibration. The initial AI euphoria is giving way to more sober conversations about what it takes to build, scale, and sustain software in a rapidly shifting landscape.

Hiring won’t disappear. But it will change. The question isn’t how to hire fewer people. It’s how to hire better — with more clarity, more adaptability, and more alignment between what we say AI can do, and what it actually does today.

For now, the best thing companies can do is get honest about what they need, what AI enables, and what kind of culture they want to build around both. The hype will fade. What remains is how we work — and who we choose to do that work with.

Invest in your engineering team’s growth with Formation

Formation helps companies invest in their engineers through personalized, expert-led training that actually sticks. If you’re looking to boost internal mobility, support career growth, or build a technical bench that’s ready for what’s next, partner with us to provide hands-on learning that complements your stack and priorities.