AI
5 guests 5 episodes 3,063 words

Your AI Strategy Is Failing Because You Didn't Restructure for It

Should companies restructure their entire organization around AI?

Every CEO has issued the decree. "We're an AI-first company now." The all-hands is held, the Slack channel is created, the budget is allocated. Six months later, actual AI adoption inside the company looks nothing like the executive presentation. Engineers are still using the same tools. Product teams are bolting chatbots onto existing workflows. The org chart hasn't changed.

This gap -- between AI ambition and AI reality -- is the defining organizational challenge of the current moment. Some companies, like Intercom and Airtable, restructured radically and saw transformative results. Others restructured structurally rather than culturally, like Block, and found that Conway's Law was their most powerful AI tool. Still others, like Canva, didn't restructure at all -- they just wove AI into a product mission that was already waiting for it.

The question isn't whether to adopt AI. It's whether your organization can adopt AI without being reorganized around it -- and whether the CEO issuing the decree actually knows what's happening on the ground floor.

Should companies radically restructure their organizations for AI, or integrate AI capabilities incrementally into their existing structures?

Airtable

Half of Airtable's EPD org is now working on AI capabilities, showing this is not a side bet but a core commitment

Liu personally operates as an 'IC CEO,' getting into code and building prototypes — exemplifying the hands-on leadership the model requires

Intercom

Fin grew from $1M to $12M ARR in year one, now growing north of 300%, on track to pass $100M ARR

Intercom had a beta of Fin six weeks after GPT-3.5 launched — only possible because they already had an AI engineering team doing rudimentary ML for customer service Q&A

Block (Square)

Goose, Block's internal open-source AI agent, monitors Slack conversations and proactively opens PRs for features...

Goose, Block's internal open-source AI agent, monitors Slack conversations and proactively opens PRs for features being discussed — an engineer finds PRs waiting that Goose built overnight

Reforge

A principal PM at a major tech company shared an AI prototype — it stalled for a month until they happened to...

A principal PM at a major tech company shared an AI prototype — it stalled for a month until they happened to mention it to the CEO at a happy hour, who had no idea it was stuck

Canva

AI embedded in Canva's design tab (used 170 million times/month) and elements tab (used 900 million times/month) —...

AI embedded in Canva's design tab (used 170 million times/month) and elements tab (used 900 million times/month) — AI augments surfaces users already frequent

The Synthesis

The debate between radical restructuring and incremental integration misses the real variable: how close is AI to your core value proposition?

01
Core Value Proximity
What determines whether you need radical restructuring or incremental integration?
02
Misclassification Risk
What are the two most common mistakes in AI restructuring?
03
Dual Structure Option
What if you sit between existential threat and augmentation?

The real variable is how close AI is to your core value proposition. If AI is attacking your foundation (like customer support being replaced by AI agents), incremental integration is suicide. If AI augments your core without threatening it, integration into existing structures works beautifully.

The most common mistake is treating an existential AI challenge as an incremental one -- rearranging deck chairs on a ship that needs a new engine. The second: treating an augmentation opportunity as existential and creating unnecessary chaos.

A dual-structure model lets you pursue both: fast-thinking groups that ship like AI-native startups, slow-thinking groups that maintain enterprise reliability. For companies where the AI impact is unclear, this preserves optionality while maintaining current business stability.

Which Approach Fits You?

Answer 3 questions about your situation. We'll match you to the right approach.

Question 1

How directly does AI threaten or transform your core business?

Question 2

What is the current state of AI adoption in your company?

Question 3

How willing is leadership to accept significant change?

Notable Absences

The Bottom Line

The most common mistake is treating an existential AI challenge as an incremental one. Companies in the "AI threatens your core" category who pursue incremental integration are rearranging deck chairs on a ship that needs a new engine. The second most common mistake -- less discussed but equally costly -- is treating an augmentation opportunity as existential and creating unnecessary chaos.

And if you sit somewhere in between, Liu's dual-structure model lets you pursue both: fast-thinking groups that ship like AI-native startups, slow-thinking groups that maintain enterprise reliability.

  1. Howie Liu (Airtable)"How we restructured Airtable's entire org for AI" — Aug 31, 2025
  2. Eoghan McCabe (Intercom)"How Intercom rose from the ashes by betting everything on AI" — Aug 21, 2025
  3. Dhanji R. Prasanna (Block)"How Block is becoming the most AI-native enterprise in the world" — Oct 26, 2025
  4. Brian Balfour (Reforge)"10 lessons on career, growth, and life" — Oct 5, 2023
  5. Melanie Perkins (Canva)"The woman behind Canva shares how she built a $42B company from nothing" — Nov 2, 2025
  6. Lenny Rachitsky""General management, functional, and hybrid models: Which org design works best for top companies?"" — Jun 25, 2024
  7. Lenny Rachitsky""How Ramp builds product"" — May 23, 2023
  8. Lenny Rachitsky""How Coda builds product"" — Jan 31, 2023
esc
Loading…
navigate filter openesc close