We’re entering a new phase in the talent market, and I’m not sure enough people are paying attention to what’s happening.
Candidates use AI to refine their CVs. Companies use AI to draft job descriptions. Hiring managers put together question sets with the help of AI and generate transcripts.
On the surface, this might look like progress: everything is clearer, sharper, more aligned. But beneath the surface, something else is going on. It’s becoming harder, not easier, to understand what is actually true.
The illusion of clarity
AI improves how things look. CVs are more structured, job descriptions more polished, expectations apparently clearer. But when everything is optimized, everything also starts to look the same. And you don’t just end up with more candidates; you end up with more convincing ones. The question then becomes: what is true?
That’s a different problem entirely.
After many years in this industry, I’m more convinced than ever that you can’t fully understand a candidate by reading alone. You can’t see the context behind their results. You can’t see the constraints they worked under. You can’t see the difference between individual performance and external factors.
Candidates face the same problem in reverse. With fewer real conversations early in the process, it becomes harder for them to explain nuance, provide context, or be understood as more than a document.
A real example
We recently ran a search for a CEO of a fast-growing SaaS company.
One of the candidates almost dismissed the opportunity outright. On paper, the challenge looked too small. The job description didn’t really capture what was going on inside the company.
But I knew the client. We’ve followed them for years. I know how they actually operate—when they commit, they commit fully; when they allocate resources, they follow through; when they talk about growth, they mean real growth.
So we talked. Several long, in-depth conversations. What emerged wasn’t in any document: the real scope of the mandate, how much room the board was willing to give, what the next two years were actually about, and the human dynamics the candidate would step into.
The company on paper and the company in reality were two different things. And so was the opportunity.
A few weeks ago, the candidate signed. All of us—the candidate, the client, and I—are very clear on one thing: without those conversations, it would never have happened.
Refined data, not more data
This is where I think the real differentiator lies. Not more data—better data. Qualitative, in-depth data.
Refined data is built over time: through conversations, relationships, multiple independent perspectives, and a real understanding of context. Raw data tells you what happened. Refined data helps you understand why it happened.
In our work, that difference is usually the difference between the right and the wrong hire.
At Skoog Stjerna, we see our role as an executive search firm clearly. We’re not here to move CVs around. We’re here to act as a qualitative link between a candidate’s real capability over time and a client’s actual situation—not just the written brief.
We know the candidates, but just as importantly, we know the clients: their journey, their internal dynamics, their real ambitions. That’s what allows us to translate between two realities that would otherwise be reduced to text.
The need to talk again
AI will keep improving the surface layer. That isn’t the problem. The problem is when decisions are made at that level.
Leadership hiring demands depth—an understanding of strengths and weaknesses, of the context behind performance, of the difference between skill and circumstance. Strong results don’t automatically mean the right fit. Weaker results don’t automatically mean the wrong candidate.
Anyone who has done this work long enough has learned that the hard way.
As technology advances, conversations risk being deprioritized. I think the opposite should be true. We need more of them, not fewer.
Real conversations create understanding, reveal nuance, and build trust. They’re not a nice-to-have—they are the work.
Final reflection
When AI-written CVs meet AI-generated job descriptions, recruitment becomes more efficient—but also more ambiguous. More data, better presentation, greater uncertainty.
In that environment, the real question isn’t who can find candidates. It’s who actually understands them.
Because in the end, you can’t read your way to the right decision. You have to understand it.
Written by Ken Skoog, CFR Global Executive Search Sweden
Photo source: Unsplash