BLOG

I want to talk about a question that keeps coming up in interviews across the Australian tech market, because I think most panels are asking it the wrong way.

The question is some version of “What AI tools did you use in that role?”

On the surface, it sounds sensible. AI capability has quietly become non-negotiable in senior tech hiring. Twelve months ago, it was a nice-to-have on a job spec. Now, when I take a brief for a senior engineering, QA or data role, the client almost always wants someone who can work with AI in some form. Fair enough. The market has moved.

Hiring didn’t used to feel like this.

We’re seeing roles that would’ve closed in 3–4 weeks now dragging out to 7–8.
Sometimes longer.

One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the biggest leadership mistakes rarely come from people who don’t know what they’re doing.

They come from people who do.

The ones with experience. The ones with a track record. The ones who’ve made enough good calls that they start trusting their judgement a little more each time.

And to be clear, that’s exactly what you want in a leader.

Until it quietly turns on you.

They fail because they make them too slowly.

Opportunities appear.
Meetings are scheduled.
More information is gathered.
More people are consulted.

The real issue isn’t the challenge.
It’s the accountability gap that follows.

Most performance reviews are theatre.

We block out an hour. We pull up a template. We dance around the real issue. We say “overall, doing well” and hope the message somehow lands through polite language and HR-safe phrasing.