I recently met with the management team of one of the best-performing medical technology companies in a major private equity portfolio.
I asked each executive to stand in a physical location representing how much of their business they believe will need to be completely redesigned by 2026 to win in the AI era.
All were between 80% and 100%.
The team was shocked and relieved at the same time. Because they were glad that their companions understood the magnitude of what they saw and were ready to act.
The CEO said something that stuck with me.
“We are now in a position, given our performance and assets, to take charge of this and reimagine our own future. If we wait, it will be done for us. And we are not going to like the answer.”
That’s the choice many leadership teams are facing today.
The headline called it “SaaSpocalypse.” That’s an exaggeration. What’s really happening is a structural reset that requires leaders to rethink how their companies operate and win.
SaaS is simply the first place you’ll see a reset. Not only for economic reasons, but also because the software is very flexible. The code can be rewritten. The interface has been regenerated. My entire workflow broke down.
Other industries will likely feel similar pressures if schedules are delayed.
For 20 years, software strategy has remained largely unchanged. We built tools, sold seats, added features, and updated them. AI won’t eliminate the customer needs those products serve, but it will fundamentally change how those needs are met.
This means many companies need to rethink not just their products, but how their entire enterprise works.
The companies I advise are already divided in their responses.
Some coaching teams are leaning toward this moment. But some companies are cautiously adding AI capabilities, piloting them, and hoping the underlying model is maintained.
The difference is rarely technology. That’s a leadership attitude.
And posture becomes immediately visible.
Teams that act boldly tend to share five instincts:
they remain purposeful
Purpose becomes a stabilizing force when everything else suddenly feels negotiable: products, pricing, operating models.
The most thoughtful leaders start with a deceptively simple question. “If we started this company today and knew what AI could do now, how would we solve this problem for our customers?”
Products, pricing, organizational design, and operating models are all subject to change as long as the company remains anchored to the problem it exists to solve.
They specify the scale of reinvention early.
The “80-100%” exercise was anything but theatrical. It was becoming clear.
Once all executives were physically in the corner of the room, there was no longer any ambiguity about the scale of change they were pursuing. Conversations quickly moved beyond technology to product architecture, pricing models, cost structures, talent mix, and capital allocation.
Naming the scale of reinvention early will strengthen alignment. The real risk is assuming you have more time than you actually have.
they are not afraid to cannibalize
Some of our products may not survive with what is currently available. And the best leaders know that.
With the spread of electricity, gas lamps were no longer needed. When Netflix moved from DVD to streaming, the transition was jarring, but necessary.
Self-destruction fails because organizations are built to protect rather than dismantle their current models.
The willingness to cannibalize one’s own revenue streams will therefore be one of the defining tests of leadership over the next decade.
They see existing strengths as an advantage
Many established players worry that they are too burdened to compete with clean-sheet startups. Scale brings legacy drugs.
But incumbents also have advantages that startups cannot readily imitate, such as trusted customer relationships, regulatory expertise, built-in workflows, proprietary data, and capital.
These assets do not eliminate the need for reinvention. But if leaders take advantage of it, they can have a powerful head start.
They entrust their future to serious operators
The most obvious difference is where the leader’s attention actually goes.
One company we spoke to currently has a “number two” running the day-to-day operations. Instead, the most senior leaders spend most of their time redesigning what the company should look like going forward.
It’s not symbolic, it’s a deliberate structural choice about where limited leadership time flows.
Reinvention on this scale cannot be a side project. The real problem is not technology. The question is whether the company is an organization that pursues the future while actually driving the present.
If the best leaders are completely consumed with running the current model, future models will be delayed.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary articles are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the author’s opinions or beliefs. luck.
