LinkedIn CPO Tomer Cohen's answer to a specific prediction — that the skills required for any job will change roughly 70% by 2030 ("whether or not you're looking to change your job, your job is changing") — is the full-stack builder model: any builder, regardless of role or team, can take an idea from research through launch themselves, in "a fluid interaction between human and machine" rather than a rigid sequence of handoffs.
Why it exists. The traditional product lifecycle (research → spec → design → code → launch → iterate) had, at LinkedIn's scale, fragmented into dozens of sub-steps, multiple review types, and micro-specialized sub-roles (design alone split into interaction, animation, and content design). Cohen's diagnosis: the work itself isn't complex, the process was made complex — AI removes enough of the coordination overhead that the pipeline can collapse back toward individuals or small pods.
Structural instantiations at LinkedIn:
The model is only viable once a supporting platform and agent layer exists (see Platform / Tools / Culture: A Three-Pillar AI Transformation Framework) and depends on identifying which human traits AI still can't substitute for (see AI Era Bottleneck Shift: From Building to Deciding).
Related: Storming vs. Norming: AI's Upheaval in Product Roles (Elizabeth Stone), AI-Driven Bifurcation of Product Manager Roles.
Cohen's internal proof point for the model, used to sell it to skeptics: a user researcher applied for a long-open growth-PM role, said 'I feel I can do it,' used the new AI tools to make the jump, and got the job. He now cites this case when pitching the model internally, and frames the underlying hiring philosophy as: 'I could care less about your title. I care about how you work.' See also System Builders vs. Full-Stack Builders vs. Specialists for the talent buckets this mobility plays out across.