Tech hiring has produced many a headline this year, with a notable recent one being Uber reducing its global workforce by around 10%, affecting roughly 3,300 people.

Atlassian had also announced approximately 1,600 job cuts earlier this year, and WiseTech Global says its AI transformation program reduced around 1,200 roles across Product and Development and Customer Service.

These decisions weren’t all made for the same reasons. Some were about reducing organisational complexity, others were explicitly designed to re-allocate investment into AI, products or growth. All in all, however, it does point to a shift in how technology teams and companies are being built.

Headcount is under greater scrutiny, generalist demand is softening, organisations are holding tightly to critical capability, and hiring managers are asking more from every new hire.

Our recruitment specialists here at Talent share five shifts employers should consider when shaping their technology teams.

1. Growth no longer guarantees headcount growth

Historically, business growth meant headcount growth, and more customers meant more teams, more managers and more specialised functions.

Now, even growing businesses are looking closely at whether every role and layer still serves the next phase of the organisation.

Steve Tompkins, Head of Government at Talent Sydney, believes employers should look beyond job titles when planning their workforce:

“When you’re reviewing a role or management layer, look at what that layer has actually contributed over the past 12 months, rather than relying on the job description or KPIs alone.”

A role can appear necessary on an org chart without solving a current business problem and, at the same time, a position that looks easy to remove may be carrying institutional knowledge, key relationships or responsibilities that are difficult to see until they’re gone.

The pressure is therefore shifting from headcount justification to capability justification. Before deciding whether to add, replace or remove a role, employers need to really understand:

• What work must happen
• Which outcomes matter
• Where accountability should sit

And it becomes particularly important when an organisation replaces someone who leaves. A like-for-like hire might feel efficient, but is it the right move for a workforce structure designed for tomorrow’s business priorities?

2. Coordination-heavy roles are facing greater scrutiny

This one’s particularly clear in Uber’s recent restructure, resulting in a leaner organisation with a flatter structure. And Steve is seeing the same expectation in state government, where fewer executive layers are creating broader leadership remits.

The knock-on effect for candidates is that it’s changing what organisations now expect from technology and delivery leaders.

As Steve puts it:

“In the current market, valuable leaders understand the work their teams do deeply enough to get involved when needed. They are not necessarily doing the team’s work, but they need to be able to make informed decisions, unblock delivery and apply their expertise.”

Critical thinking is central to this. Employer conversations around AI have shifted from whether leaders can use it to whether they can critically assess what it produces, challenge its responses and improve the outcome.

Flatter structures and broader remits may also allow for faster decision-making, but they don’t necessarily mean improved delivery. Remove too much connective tissue and organisations can lose institutional knowledge, mentoring and oversight.

The goal should be that each and every organisational layer has a clear job.

3. Hiring investment is shifting towards specialist capability

Some of the clearest hiring signals can be found in what companies are funding following their workforce reductions.

Atlassian shared their restructure would help self-fund further investment in AI and enterprise sales and acknowledged that AI is changing both the number of roles required in some areas and the skills mix it will need in future.

WiseTech’s movements tell a similar story, with the company’s R&D investment increasing by 29% alongside a reduction of 1,200 roles.

Demand for technology talent also extends well beyond the technology sector.

Qantas is establishing a Product Innovation Centre in Adelaide that’s expected to house more than 420 product managers, digital designers, software engineers and data and AI specialists. The airline is bringing critical technology capability in-house to improve customer experiences and build new digital products.

Majella Sanders, Account Director at Talent Sydney, sees the same redistribution in client demand:

“Demand remains strong for niche technical skills around AI, data, cyber security, cloud, enterprise applications and product engineering, while demand has softened across more generalist skill sets. What remains a challenge is not finding one skill in isolation, but the combination of technical depth, relevant industry experience, commercial thinking and strong stakeholder capability.”

More candidates may be available overall, but that hasn’t translated into greater availability of the specialist capabilities employers need. Clients are also becoming more selective and looking for people who can make an immediate impact.

This is why restructures and skill shortages can exist simultaneously.

4. Location is becoming a capability decision

Where technology work happens is also becoming a more deliberate business decision.

Uber plans to concentrate global teams in New York and San Francisco, regional teams in designated regional hubs and technology teams in technology hubs. They’re also asking most remote employees to move to an office, with only around 1% of its workforce expected to remain fully remote.

Qantas has made a different location bet, choosing Adelaide for its Product Innovation Centre based on the city’s technology community, universities and capacity to scale local capability.

These decisions show that location strategy isn’t simply a return-to-office debate but a strategic capability decision, considering where specialist talent is available, where teams can effectively work together, which capabilities need to sit close to the business and where new talent pipelines can be developed.

Candidates are weighing those decisions just as carefully.

According to Melissa Haddad, Account Executive at Talent Melbourne:

“The market has become less flexible, with more employers enforcing set office days as a non-negotiable requirement. Two or three days in the office is generally accepted, but fully onsite roles can be harder to fill, particularly when the location is not easily accessible.”

Employers can set the working model that suits their business’ priorities, but each restriction can influence the talent pool available. If a role is scarce, highly specialised or difficult to relocate, location requirements need to be factored into the hiring strategy from the very beginning.

5. Evidence of impact matters more than an impressive title

A more selective hiring market changes what employers should look for and what candidates need to be able to demonstrate.

Melissa explains:

“Job titles can mean very different things across organisations. Employers now want to understand what someone has actually delivered, the scale and complexity of the work, and the difference they made, not simply how many years of experience they have.”

And it’s particularly important as remits broaden and technology changes how work gets done.

Majella has also seen a change in client expectations with the rise of AI tools for roles such as software engineers and developers:

“It’s less about AI replacing technical professionals and more about clients expecting them to know how to use it effectively while still being able to apply strong technical judgement.”

The strongest candidates will be able to explain:

• What they built, delivered or improved, and the problem it addressed
• The scale and complexity of the work, including the decisions they personally owned
• The measurable business, customer or operational impact
• How they simplified work or used AI and automation while applying sound judgement
• How their experience could transfer into a different role, industry or technology environment

This also matters for professionals affected by restructures.

Melissa shares:

“Redundancies have become so common that there is much less stigma around them. Be open about the restructure, then focus the conversation on what you achieved and what you can bring to the next employer.”

What should employers do differently?

There is no one universal playbook, however all signs are pointing to a more disciplined approach to technology hiring.

Before adding, replacing or removing roles, here’s what employers should consider:

1. Start with the outcome. Define what the team needs to deliver before defaulting to an existing title or structure.
2. Separate coordination from valuable delivery leadership. A role that connects teams, resolves trade-offs and owns decisions may be essential. A layer that exists mainly to pass information upwards may be less so.
3. Identify the capabilities the business must keep in-house. Security, data, AI governance and core architecture are areas many organisations are becoming more reluctant to outsource completely.
4. Build the whole brief. Technical skills alone may not be enough. Industry experience, commercial judgement, problem-solving and stakeholder influence are often what make a specialist genuinely difficult to find.
5. Treat location as part of the talent strategy. Office requirements, access to specialist communities and local development pathways will shape who is available.
6. Plan for the capability left behind. Removing roles can affect mentoring, institutional knowledge, risk oversight and team capacity. Those responsibilities don’t disappear when the position does.

Tech hiring has become more selective and employers are increasingly concentrating investment, removing complexity and expecting every role to carry clearer accountability.

The goal shouldn’t be the smallest and leanest possible team, but the clearest one; built around the capabilities the business must own and the outcomes it needs to deliver.

Candidate supply may have increased in some areas, but people who combine specialist depth, sound judgement and proven impact will remain hard to find.

If you’re reviewing your technology team or planning your next hire, our specialists can help you identify the capability you need and find people with the depth to deliver it. Get in touch.