There’s a difficult conversation many Portuguese managers still avoid: a large share of tech departments are oversized for the world we now live in. Not because people are incompetent. Not because leaders failed. But because these teams were built for a different technological era.
For years, software teams were structured for a reality where writing code was slow, manual and expensive. Large teams, layered processes, long delivery cycles. That model made sense — then. It makes far less sense today.
Artificial intelligence is not a marginal productivity tool. It’s a structural shift. Developers who use AI effectively deliver significantly faster, automate routine work and compress timelines that once took weeks into days. The output per engineer is increasing. The structures, however, largely remain the same.
Many companies still approve budgets for teams of fifteen or twenty people when a smaller, highly skilled and AI-augmented team could achieve comparable — or better — results. Activity is still too often mistaken for productivity.
A study by the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation estimates that 29% of Portuguese jobs may be exposed to automation. In technology, the exposure is likely higher. The concern isn’t just the number — it’s the lack of strategic preparation.
Recent signals reinforce this shift. Microsoft Portugal reduced staff last year, and the Experis Tech Talent Outlook indicates that a third of Portuguese tech firms planning workforce reductions cite automation as the primary driver. These are not isolated events; they are early indicators of structural recalibration.
This transformation understandably generates resistance. Careers were built around a certain way of working. Junior-heavy pyramids supported by repetitive execution tasks are flattening. Senior professionals now use AI to perform work that once trained entry-level talent. The traditional apprenticeship model is under pressure.
But history suggests this is evolution, not extinction. Technological revolutions tend to reconfigure work rather than eliminate it. The role of the programmer is shifting from executor to architect — from writing every line to designing systems, supervising autonomous tools, integrating AI ethically and strategically.
The transition will likely move teams from scale-driven structures to augmented, high-leverage units. Fewer people, but more specialized. Less manual execution, more system design, orchestration and governance.
For managers, the issue is timing. Those who proactively redesign their teams can reskill employees, phase changes responsibly and manage the human impact. Those who delay may be forced into reactive decisions under financial or competitive pressure.
This isn’t about cutting headcount indiscriminately. It’s about aligning structure with reality. Five highly capable professionals, properly equipped and strategically positioned, can often outperform fifteen performing tasks that intelligent systems now handle more efficiently.
In a few years, today’s oversized teams may look as dated as the typing pools of the 1980s — not because the people lacked value, but because the model no longer fit the context.
The central question for leadership is straightforward: shape the transition now, or be shaped by it later.
Related News