The Patterns I'm Noticing in Role Restructures: Which $400K+ Positions Are Being Eliminated First (And Why)

I'm seeing a pattern in which roles are getting restructured first in late 2025.

It's not random. And it's not based on performance.

The executives losing their $400K-$500K positions aren't underperformers. Many have stellar reviews, strong tenure, and excellent relationships with leadership.

But they're still being restructured out.

Here's what I'm observing across dozens of conversations with senior tech executives—and the uncomfortable patterns emerging about which roles are vulnerable and which ones are surviving.

The Three Categories of Vulnerable Roles

Based on what I'm seeing, roles at highest risk fall into three categories:

Category 1: The Coordination and Synthesis Roles

What they do:

Synthesize information from multiple teams
Create status reports and executive dashboards
Coordinate across departments and functions
Present consolidated updates to leadership
Manage communication flows between groups

Why they're vulnerable:

This is AI's absolute sweet spot. Large language models excel at:

Aggregating information from multiple sources
Identifying patterns and summarizing key points
Creating polished executive presentations
Translating between technical and business language
Maintaining consistent communication across stakeholders

The uncomfortable truth: If your primary value is "keeping everyone aligned" and "making sure leadership knows what's happening," AI can do 80% of that work right now.

Real example I'm seeing:

A Senior Director of Program Management earning $420K whose role was:

Coordinating between engineering, product, and sales
Creating weekly executive dashboards
Running cross-functional planning meetings
Presenting status updates to C-suite

What happened: Role eliminated. Dashboard automated. Coordination now handled by AI-powered project management tools. Cross-functional meetings reduced 60%.

The company's perspective: "We're paying $420K for information synthesis. AI does that for $2,000/month."

Category 2: The High Salary-to-Output Ratio Roles

What they do:

Manage established processes
Oversee teams executing routine work
Maintain systems and workflows
Ensure compliance and quality standards
Provide oversight and review

Why they're vulnerable:

Companies are asking a brutal question more frequently: "What would actually break if this role didn't exist?"

And increasingly, the honest answer is: "Not much—at least not immediately."

The calculation companies are making:

Option A: Pay $450K for a Director managing a team of 8 executing established processes

Option B: Pay $150K for a Manager with AI tools managing the same output with a team of 3

The math becomes obvious, especially when companies are under pressure to show improved efficiency metrics to boards and investors.

Real example I'm seeing:

A VP of Operations earning $485K managing:

Quality assurance processes
Compliance documentation
Vendor relationship management
Team of 12 executing established workflows

What happened: Role restructured to Senior Manager at $180K with AI tools handling process documentation, compliance tracking, and vendor communication. Team reduced to 4.

The company's perspective: "The processes are solid. We don't need $485K of oversight for established workflows."

Category 3: The Indirect Impact Roles

What they do:

Strategy and planning without implementation
Advisory and consulting to other teams
Best practices and thought leadership
Training and enablement
Culture and organizational development

Why they're vulnerable:

If you can't point to a specific number you directly move—revenue generated, costs saved, products shipped, customers acquired—you're in the evaluation zone.

The question being asked: "What measurable business outcome changes because of this role?"

The dangerous answers:

"Better alignment across teams"
"Improved employee satisfaction"
"Strategic thinking and planning"
"Knowledge sharing and enablement"

None of these are inherently bad. But in a restructure, indirect impact loses to direct impact every time.

Real example I'm seeing:

A Senior Director of Strategic Operations earning $390K responsible for:

Long-term strategic planning
Best practices documentation
Cross-functional enablement
Organizational effectiveness initiatives

What happened: Role eliminated. Strategic planning consolidated into existing C-suite responsibilities. Best practices now maintained in AI-powered knowledge base. Enablement shifted to AI-driven training modules.

The company's perspective: "We value strategic thinking, but we can't justify $390K for advisory work without direct P&L impact."

The Pattern Within the Pattern

Here's what makes this particularly insidious: These vulnerable roles are often held by the most experienced executives.

20-25 year career veterans. Strong track records. Deep organizational knowledge. Excellent relationships.

But their expertise is in:

Navigating complex organizations
Managing through consensus
Building and maintaining processes
Coordinating across silos
Synthesizing and communicating information

All valuable skills. All increasingly automatable.

The cruel irony: The very expertise that got them promoted to $400K+ roles is the expertise AI is replacing first.

The Three Characteristics of Roles That Are Surviving

Meanwhile, the executives whose roles are surviving—and even expanding—share three common characteristics:

Characteristic 1: They Own Outcomes, Not Processes

The difference:

Process ownership: "I manage the quarterly planning process" -Outcome ownership:* "I'm accountable for $50M in revenue"

Process ownership: "I oversee product development methodology" -Outcome ownership:* "I ship products that drive 30% year-over-year growth"

Process ownership: "I coordinate cross-functional alignment" -Outcome ownership:* "I reduce customer churn from 8% to 3%"

Why it matters:

When companies evaluate restructures, they start with: "What outcomes will we fail to achieve if we eliminate this role?"

If the answer is "We might miss our revenue target" or "Product quality might decline" or "Customer satisfaction will drop"—the role is safe.

If the answer is "Our processes might be less organized"—the role is vulnerable.

Real example of a role that's thriving:

VP of Sales earning $520K with direct accountability for:

$75M revenue target
40-person sales team performance
Customer acquisition cost optimization
Win rate improvement

Why they're safe: Clear, measurable outcomes. If they're eliminated, revenue suffers immediately. Leadership can't AI-automate their way to hitting the sales number.

Characteristic 2: They Have Deep Expertise AI Can't Replicate (Yet)

Two types of irreplaceable expertise:

Type 1: Deep customer knowledge

Understanding customer psychology, relationship dynamics, unspoken needs, and strategic account management that comes from years of direct interaction.

AI can't replicate: The trust built over 10 years with a Fortune 500 CIO. The ability to read the room in an executive meeting. The instinct about when to push and when to back off.

Type 2: Deep technical expertise

Architecture decisions requiring years of battle scars. System design trade-offs that can't be learned from documentation. The pattern recognition that comes from building 20 similar systems and knowing which approaches actually work at scale.

AI can't replicate: The judgment about whether to rebuild vs. refactor a critical system. The ability to diagnose a production issue from subtle symptoms. The architectural vision that prevents problems 18 months before they emerge.

Real example of expertise-based survival:

Principal Engineer earning $450K with expertise in:

Distributed systems architecture at massive scale
Battle-tested judgment from 15+ years of production systems
Pattern recognition from hundreds of architectural decisions
Deep technical credibility with engineering org

Why they're safe: Their expertise can't be replicated by AI or documentation. Their judgment prevents multi-million dollar mistakes. Leadership knows replacing them would take years and carries massive risk.

Characteristic 3: They're Seen as Irreplaceable by Leadership

This is the hardest characteristic to quantify but the most important.

What makes someone "irreplaceable"?

They solve problems leadership doesn't want to think about. When a crisis hits, leadership calls them. When a strategic decision needs to be made, they're in the room. When something needs to get done that's politically complex, they handle it.

They have unique relationships or context. Customer relationships that would leave with them. Board-level credibility that can't be transferred. Institutional knowledge about why certain decisions were made and what land mines to avoid.

They consistently deliver beyond expectations. Not just meeting targets, but exceeding them in ways that create strategic advantage. They make leadership look good consistently.

Real example of "irreplaceable" survival:

Chief of Staff to CEO earning $380K with:

8-year relationship with CEO through two companies
Trust to handle sensitive board and investor communications
Ability to translate CEO's vision into executable strategy
Network of relationships across the organization

Why they're safe: The CEO explicitly said "If we lose them, I lose 30% of my effectiveness." Personal trust and proven partnership that can't be easily replaced.

The Self-Assessment Questions You Need to Ask

If you're wondering where you fall on the vulnerable-to-safe spectrum, ask yourself these questions honestly:

Question 1: The AI Replacement Test

"Could AI do 60%+ of what I do today?"

Be brutally honest. Not "Could AI eventually do this?" but "Could AI tools available right now do this?"

If the answer is yes, you're vulnerable—regardless of your performance, tenure, or relationships.

Question 2: The Outcome Ownership Test

"If I disappeared tomorrow, what measurable business outcome would suffer within 30 days?"

If the answer is a specific number (revenue, cost, quality metric, customer metric), you're safer.

If the answer is more abstract (alignment, morale, efficiency), you're more vulnerable.

Question 3: The Replaceability Test

"How long would it take to replace me with someone of similar capability?"

If the answer is "6-12 months of searching plus 12 months of ramp-up," you're safer.

If the answer is "We could hire someone in 3 months and they'd be functional quickly," you're more vulnerable.

Question 4: The Crisis Test

"When there's a crisis or critical decision, am I in the room or hearing about it later?"

If you're consistently in the decision-making conversations, you're safer.

If you're usually informed after decisions are made, you're more vulnerable.

Question 5: The Compensation Justification Test

"If I had to justify my compensation to a skeptical board member, what would I say?"

If your answer includes direct revenue impact, cost savings you've driven, or products you've shipped, you're safer.

If your answer focuses on process improvement, team development, or strategic thinking, you're more vulnerable.

The Warning Signs to Watch For

Beyond self-assessment, watch for these organizational signals:

Warning Sign 1: Your Budget Gets Cut But Your Responsibilities Don't

Translation: "We think AI tools can help you do more with less."

Next step: "We think AI tools can help someone at a lower level do what you do."

Warning Sign 2: You're Asked to Document Your Processes More Thoroughly

Surface reason: "Knowledge sharing and business continuity."

Real reason: "We're evaluating whether we can automate or offshore this."

Warning Sign 3: Your Role Gets Subtle Title Changes

"Senior Director of Operations" becomes "Senior Director of Operational Strategy."

Adding "strategy" often signals a shift from execution (which might be protected) to advisory (which is more vulnerable).

Warning Sign 4: You're Excluded from Restructure Planning

If your peers are involved in org design conversations but you're not, that's a signal about how leadership views your criticality.

Warning Sign 5: Leadership Asks About AI Adoption in Your Function

"How are you using AI tools in your workflow?"

Surface level: Genuine interest in innovation.

Deeper level: Evaluating your role's automation potential.

What the Executives Who Are Surviving Are Doing Differently

The executives whose roles are safe—or even expanding—are taking specific actions:

Action 1: Repositioning from Process to Outcomes

They're actively shifting how they talk about their role:

Old positioning: "I manage the product development process for our core platform"

New positioning: "I'm accountable for shipping products that drive 30% YoY revenue growth"

Old positioning: "I coordinate between engineering and sales to ensure alignment"

New positioning: "I reduce sales cycle time by 40% through technical sales enablement"

Same work, different framing. But the framing matters enormously in restructure discussions.

Action 2: Building AI Fluency Visibly

They're not just using AI privately. They're demonstrating AI leverage publicly:

Sharing how they used AI to 10X their analysis speed
Presenting frameworks they developed by integrating AI into their workflow
Showing measurable productivity improvements from AI adoption
Positioning themselves as AI-leveraged executives, not AI-threatened executives

The message they're sending: "I'm not being replaced by AI. I'm becoming more valuable by leveraging AI."

Action 3: Claiming Direct Revenue or Cost Impact

Even if their role was previously more indirect, they're finding ways to attach their work to measurable business outcomes:

"The process improvements I drove reduced customer acquisition costs by $2M annually"
"The team I built ships features that generate $15M in incremental revenue"
"The operational framework I implemented improved margins by 3 percentage points"

Numbers matter. Vague impact doesn't.

Action 4: Building Irreplaceability Through Relationships

They're deepening relationships with:

Key customers who trust them specifically
Board members who value their perspective
CEO/C-suite executives who rely on their judgment
Critical employees who might leave if they leave

Strategic irreplaceability: Make yourself so embedded in the organization's most important relationships that your departure would create substantial risk.

Action 5: Developing Backup Plans While Still Employed

The smartest ones aren't waiting to see if their role survives. They're:

Building fractional consulting capabilities on the side
Deepening relationships with potential future clients
Documenting their frameworks and intellectual property
Exploring alternative income models before they're forced to

Not because they're planning to leave. But because they're not betting everything on one increasingly fragile W-2.

The Repositioning Strategies That Work

If you realize you're in a vulnerable category, here are the repositioning strategies I'm seeing work:

Strategy 1: Attach Yourself to Direct Revenue or Product

Find a way to claim accountability for a number:

Volunteer to own a revenue target
Take responsibility for a cost reduction goal
Claim ownership of a product launch
Tie your work directly to customer metrics

Even if it means taking on more risk, direct accountability creates protection.

Strategy 2: Become the AI Integration Expert

Position yourself as the person who:

Understands AI capabilities and limitations
Identifies highest-value AI use cases
Drives AI adoption across your function
Measures and reports AI productivity gains

The role that's safe: "AI Strategy Director" who drives measurable business value through AI integration.

The role that's vulnerable: "Operations Director" who manages traditional processes AI is replacing.

Strategy 3: Shift from Coordination to Creation

Move from facilitating other people's work to creating strategic value yourself:

From: Running the planning meetings where decisions get made -To:* Making strategic recommendations that drive decisions

From: Ensuring alignment between teams -To:* Creating frameworks that generate business value

From: Communicating leadership's vision -To:* Shaping the vision through strategic analysis

Strategy 4: Build Deep, Irreplaceable Expertise

Double down on the expertise that can't be easily replicated:

Customer relationships built over years
Technical judgment developed through battle scars
Strategic pattern recognition from decades of experience
Unique cross-functional knowledge that took years to develop

Make yourself the person who has context and judgment that's genuinely hard to replace.

The Timeline Compression Problem

Here's what makes this particularly urgent: The timeline is compressing faster than most executives realize.

Phase 1 (2023-early 2024): Experimental AI adoption, efficiency gains, "doing more with less"

Phase 2 (mid 2024-2025): Structural restructures, layer elimination, role consolidation

Phase 3 (2026): Accelerating transformation, AI-native org structures, fundamentally different role expectations

We're transitioning from Phase 2 to Phase 3 right now.

What this means: If you're going to reposition, you have 6-12 months to do it before the next wave of restructures.

Waiting to see what happens isn't a strategy. By the time the patterns are obvious to everyone, it's too late to reposition.

The Bottom Line

The roles being restructured first in late 2025 follow clear patterns:

Vulnerable roles:

Coordination and synthesis roles (AI's sweet spot)
High salary-to-output ratio roles (questioned value)
Indirect impact roles (can't point to a number)

Characteristics of survivors:

Own outcomes, not processes
Have deep expertise AI can't replicate
Are seen as irreplaceable by leadership

The self-assessment:

Could AI do 60%+ of what I do?
What measurable outcome would suffer if I disappeared?
How long would I take to replace?
Am I in the room for critical decisions?
Can I justify my compensation with direct business impact?

The repositioning strategies:

Attach to direct revenue or product impact
Become the AI integration expert
Shift from coordination to creation
Build deep, irreplaceable expertise
Develop backup plans while employed

The timeline: You have 6-12 months to reposition before the next restructure wave.

This isn't about panic. It's about awareness and strategic action.

The executives who recognize the patterns early and reposition proactively will thrive.

The ones who hope it passes them by will be restructured out—regardless of their performance, tenure, or relationships.

Which one will you be?

Ready to Reposition Strategically?

If you're reading this and realizing you might be in a vulnerable category, don't wait. The best time to reposition is while you're still employed and have negotiating leverage.

I can help you assess your situation honestly, develop a repositioning strategy that works for your specific role, and build backup plans before you're forced to.

Book a Strategy Call to discuss your specific situation and develop a strategic repositioning plan.

Download The Headhunter's Playbook for tactical strategies that work regardless of market conditions.

Join My Newsletter for daily insights on navigating executive career transitions in the AI era.