In recent years, a subtle shift has been quietly unfolding within organizations. It’s not dramatic or noisy, but once you notice it, it becomes hard to understand teams the old way.

In the past, we were used to defining people with “nouns.”

Product manager, engineer, operations, sales—each person corresponded to a position, a set of responsibilities, and a clear boundary. The logic of organizational operation was to break complex problems into standard modules and assign them to different people to complete.

This system was extremely effective in the industrial age. Clear division of labor, defined responsibilities, and controllable efficiency. As long as the process was well-designed and people executed step by step, the outcome was likely stable.

But the problem is that this logic has an implicit premise: execution costs are high.

In other words, every action requires a person to complete it; every adjustment requires re-coordination; every cross-departmental move incurs communication costs. That’s why we need “positions,” “boundaries,” and “processes.”

And that premise is now being broken.

As AI gradually enters the execution layer, many actions that once required human effort are now being handled directly by systems. Writing documents, performing analysis, generating proposals, and even some decision support are being automated. Execution costs are dropping rapidly—in some scenarios, approaching zero.

When execution is no longer scarce, the logic of division of labor begins to loosen.

You’ll find that one person can accomplish in a short time what previously required collaboration across multiple roles. Not because they’ve become more diligent, but because the system handles a large portion of the intermediate processes. Steps that “had to be split apart” can now be recombined.

At this point, if you still define roles with “nouns,” problems arise. Because nouns emphasize boundaries, but future organizations need fluidity.

One day, a person might be defining a product; the next day, they’re analyzing data; the day after, they’re contributing to market strategy. If you constrain them with a fixed position, you’ll only limit their output potential.

So roles begin to shift from “what you are” to “what you do.” From nouns to verbs. This isn’t just a linguistic change—it’s a structural change in organizations.

When roles are verbs, the basic unit of a team is no longer “person + position,” but “person + task flow.”

A person can participate in multiple task flows simultaneously and take on different responsibilities at different stages. The organization is no longer a static structure, but more like a dynamic network.

This demands a completely different approach to management. In the past, management focused on assigning responsibilities, controlling processes, and evaluating results. You needed to ensure that each person in their position did their job within their boundaries.

But when roles become verbs, management’s focus shifts from “what are you responsible for” to “can you enter the right problem at the right time.”

This sounds more flexible, but it’s also harder.

Because it demands more from people. You not only need professional skills but also cross-domain understanding; you not only need to execute but also to judge what’s worth doing, when to step in, and when to step out.

At the same time, it demands more from organizations.

Without clear goals and priorities, this fluidity can easily turn into chaos. Everyone is doing many things, but nothing gets truly completed. The more flexible the roles, the more a stable decision-making center is needed.

From a business perspective, this is essentially a restructuring of “organizational assets.”

In the past, an organization’s core assets were its position system and process documentation. You designed the processes, placed people in the corresponding positions, and the organization ran steadily.

Under the new structure, the real assets shift to two things: whether capabilities can be quickly mobilized, and whether tasks can be efficiently orchestrated.

In other words, an organization’s competitiveness is no longer just “how many people it has,” but “how these people can be organized.”

This is why some teams, though small in size, achieve extremely high output. They don’t have more complex position systems—they have more efficient task orchestration capabilities. People are fluid, but goals are clear, and resources are dynamically aggregated around those goals.

Behind this lies an organizational form that is closer to a “system.”

People are no longer fixed components but more like schedulable nodes. The system, based on the problem at hand, calls upon the capabilities of different nodes, completes the task, and then releases the resources.

This sounds ideal, but it also raises a practical question. When roles are no longer fixed, how do individuals establish their place?

In the past, you could define yourself with a clear position label, like “Senior Product Manager” or “Backend Architect.” This label was both an identity and proof of value.

But when organizations stop emphasizing nouns, the significance of such labels gradually diminishes.

What replaces them is “what problems have you solved.”

Your value is no longer reflected in your title, but in whether you can step into a critical problem at a critical moment and deliver an effective solution. This kind of value is harder to quantify and harder to fake.

It requires you to continuously accumulate real capability, rather than relying on labels.

In the long run, this change acts as a filter for both organizations and individuals.

Organizations will tend to keep those who can consistently generate value across different tasks, rather than those who are only stable in one fixed position.

Individuals, in turn, need to shift from “holding a position” to “continuously entering new problems.”

This isn’t easy, but it’s closer to the future of work.

Let’s return to the initial judgment.

As execution is gradually taken over by systems, the core of an organization is no longer “who is doing it,” but “how things get done.” Roles shifting from nouns to verbs essentially redirects attention from “people” to “behaviors,” from “positions” to “processes.”

This is not a management technique—it’s a structural change.

Many companies haven’t fully realized this yet, but the trend is clear. Positions will become increasingly blurred, tasks will become more specific, and capabilities will be increasingly decomposed and mobilized.

In the end, whether a team is efficient no longer depends on its org chart, but on its fluidity.

And, at the critical moment, whether someone can step up precisely and do the right thing.