Something has shifted in recruitment, and it’s subtle. Resumes have become exceptionally good. Not better candidates,
better documents. They are polished, strategically framed, commercially articulate and achievement-heavy. The language is confident, the structure is sharp, and the impact statements are clean.

Increasingly, they’re being written or heavily enhanced by AI. This isn’t a criticism. It’s a reality. But it does change the discipline required from leaders.

On paper, many candidates now look exceptional – that’s the shift. The challenge for senior leaders is no longer filtering out poorly written resumes. It’s differentiating polished narrative from proven capability.

I’m reading resumes describing

  • “Business-wide transformation”
  • “Strategic cultural realignment”
  • “Operational optimisation”
  • “Stakeholder alignment across complex environments”

Then we get to interview stage, where sometimes the depth of the candidate simply doesn’t match the document. This isn’t necessarily dishonesty, it’s amplification. AI refines language.
It sharpens impact statements.
It removes hesitation.
It upgrades tone; but it cannot create lived judgment and that is what leadership requires.

The resume is now a marketing document

For senior leaders and executive teams, this changes the discipline required in recruitment. A resume is no longer diagnostic, it’s marketing. Assessments must now move beyond articulation and into interrogation of depth.

  • What decisions did you personally own?
  • What trade-offs did you make?
  • What was commercially at risk?
  • What resistance did you encounter?
  • What would you do differently?

AI can draft a strong achievement statement but it cannot improvise reflective accountability under pressure. One of the clearest indicators of genuine leadership is friction.

Real leaders talk about

  • Budget constraints
  • Team resistance
  • Misjudgements
  • Recovery decisions

Overly smooth narratives are a signal because transformation without conflict is rarely real. Execution is messy so if the story isn’t, probe into this.

The interview must become more forensic

  • The new discipline is depth.
  • Ask for numbers, then ask how they were calculated.
  • Ask about team size, then ask about performance conversations.
  • Ask about strategy, then ask about sequencing and risk appetite.

Push beyond the rehearsed script. Silence is powerful and so is precision. The goal isn’t to catch someone out, it’s to determine whether capability is embedded, or assembled.

AI isn’t the problem, complacency is

As AI continues to elevate presentation, our hiring discipline must elevate too. Because in 2026, everyone’s resume looks strong. Depth is now the differentiator, and depth still requires human interrogation.

If you sit at board or executive level, now is the time to recalibrate your hiring discipline.

  • Redesign your interview framework.
  • Train your leaders to probe beyond articulation.
  • Tighten your capability assessment.
  • Don’t confuse polish with depth.

AI has raised the baseline of presentation and it’s up to us to raise the standard of evaluation. Because in 2026, everyone’s resume looks strong. The real leadership question is, are you assessing for language, or for judgment?

Strong leadership hires are rarely accidental. They’re the result of disciplined evaluation. In this environment, that discipline matters more than ever. If you need support refining your interview framework, pressure-testing capability, or ensuring you’re hiring judgement, not just articulation get in touch.

Find our articles helpful? Remember to follow us on Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn to keep up to date with our practical tips and information for business owners and managers.