One thing I learned about cost reduction: taking people out is much easier than putting capability back in

For senior HR leaders in Financial Services, that tension is familiar. The business wants a lower cost base. AI creates expectations of greater productivity. And workforce conversations quickly turn to how many roles could go.

It is a reasonable question. But the answer depends on what the organisation will still need to deliver and whether it is ready to deliver it differently.

A role can disappear before the work does

A planned technology implementation is not yet a change in how work gets done. Until processes have been redesigned and people can use the tools effectively, the work still needs an owner.

If headcount comes out first, that work lands somewhere else. Often with the people the organisation can least afford to lose: experienced managers, specialists and reliable performers who already carry more than their job descriptions suggest.

The saving may be clear. The additional pressure is harder to see.

Some capability only becomes visible when it is gone

A workforce plan can show roles, grades, reporting lines and costs. It rarely captures the full picture of how an organisation operates.

Who knows why an exception exists? Who spots a problem before it becomes a formal risk? Who can get a difficult decision moving because they have the trust of colleagues across the business?

That does not make every role untouchable. It does mean that apparently similar roles are not always interchangeable and that removing a position can have consequences beyond the work formally assigned to it.

Hiring someone later may restore capacity. Rebuilding judgement, relationships and institutional knowledge takes longer.

The questions worth asking before the decision

HR has a critical contribution to make while the options are still open:

• What work will actually stop, and what will move elsewhere?
• Which savings depend on technology or ways of working that are not yet in place?
• Where are we relying on one person’s expertise, relationships or judgement?
• What would take longest to rebuild if our assumptions prove wrong?
• What signs would tell us that we have cut too far?

These questions help the executive team understand what it is choosing, including the trade-offs behind the savings.

For the HR leader, asking them can be uncomfortable. There is pressure to support the financial objective, maintain momentum and offer certainty when much is still unknown. Sometimes you leave the room wondering whether you challenged enough—or whether your concerns were heard as resistance.

I know that tension because I have sat in that seat.

The cost reduction shows up in the next set of numbers. The capability loss may only become visible six months later, when a key person leaves, a process fails or the business needs to change direction.

By then, the connection to the original decision may be less obvious. What began as a saving returns as a recruitment problem, a delivery issue or a growing dependence on external expertise.

The question is therefore bigger than “How many roles can we take out?” It is “What are we assuming we will no longer need?” That is the assumption worth testing before the people leave. cost reduction shows up in the next set of numbers. The capability loss may only become visible six months later, when a key person leaves, a process fails or the business needs to change direction.