Four research reports published this week, alongside conversations I've been having with senior technology executives in New York, New Jersey and London, point towards a common conclusion.

AI is changing how businesses operate, how software gets built and how organisations think about their technology leadership.

But rather than diminishing the need for exceptional CTOs, CIOs and engineering leaders, I believe it's making the quality of those appointments more important than ever.

And for founders, CEOs and investors, there's an increasingly important question:

Are you recruiting the technology leader your business needed yesterday, or the one it will need tomorrow?

1. More applications, but are businesses finding better candidates?

New research from Workday highlights an increasingly crowded recruitment market.

According to its latest Global Workforce Report:

Median applications per job offer increased from 58 in July 2025 to 69 in July 2026.
Applications in technology and media increased by 40% year-on-year.
Demand for applied AI skills increased by 51%.

Source: Workday – Global Workforce Report, October 2026

These are significant numbers, but I don't believe they necessarily represent good news for companies looking to appoint senior technology leaders.

More applicants don't automatically mean more choice.

In fact, the opposite can be true.

Having spent nearly 30 years in recruitment, I've watched the traditional advertising-led hiring model become increasingly difficult to navigate.

Today, the challenge isn't necessarily attracting applications. It's identifying which individuals are genuinely capable of delivering the outcomes a business needs.

At CTO and senior technology leadership level, that distinction is critical.

The people best equipped to solve your next major business challenge may already be delivering exceptional results for a competitor.

They're not necessarily looking for another role. They're certainly not guaranteed to be among the hundreds applying for yours.

That's why I continue to believe that a properly conducted executive search must examine the entire relevant market, not simply the people who happen to be available.

An application is evidence of interest. It isn't evidence of suitability.

2. The CIO's job is changing — and AI is accelerating it

Thoughtworks published research this week based on responses from 3,200 CIOs across ten countries.

Its findings illustrate how dramatically the remit of senior technology leadership is evolving.

89% agree they're now more responsible for redesigning workforce workflows and labour models than managing core IT infrastructure.
88% say AI adoption is moving faster than their organisation's governance structures can adapt.
70% of organisations surveyed have already appointed a Chief AI Officer, with a further 26% looking to do so.

Source: Thoughtworks – Global CIO Research, October 2026

For me, this raises a fundamental question about how companies structure technology leadership.

If the CIO is increasingly responsible for organisational redesign, AI implementation and the operating model, where does that leave the CTO?

And what responsibilities should sit with a Chief AI Officer?

I've been discussing precisely these issues with senior technology leaders.

One US executive recently challenged whether our CTO assessment was sufficiently relevant to his position. His responsibilities encompass enterprise information and workplace technology strategy, and he sits on the executive leadership team.

His observation was fair. The assessment leaned towards the traditional product and engineering CTO mandate.

It prompted a useful reminder.

A CTO in one business may have an entirely different mandate from a CTO in another.

Some are responsible for engineering and product delivery. Others own enterprise technology, cybersecurity, transformation, data or the entire technology operating model.

An increasingly important distinction is emerging between running technology and using technology to fundamentally change how a business creates value.

I suspect we'll see more organisations re-examining the boundaries between CIO, CTO, CTPO and Chief AI Officer responsibilities.

But adding another executive title doesn't automatically solve an accountability problem.

Before creating the position, the business needs to establish exactly what that individual will own and what success will look like.

3. AI is producing more code. That doesn't always mean faster delivery.

The latest research from Karat challenges another assumption about AI.

Its 2026–2027 AI Workforce Transformation research found that:

90% of US technology leaders are using AI to increase output while maintaining or expanding engineering headcount.
82% report increased product and feature volume.
67% report an increase in the time required to bring new features to market.
44% report an increase in coding errors.

Source: Karat – AI Workforce Transformation Research, October 2026

That combination is particularly interesting.

More output, but in many cases longer delivery times and more errors.

Of course, these are survey findings, not evidence that AI itself is responsible for every reported problem.

But they highlight an important distinction between engineering activity and commercial outcomes.

A team producing more code isn't necessarily producing more value.

Someone still needs to decide what should be built, why it matters, how it fits the architecture, what risks it introduces and whether the investment delivers the expected return.

That's a leadership responsibility.

For a Series B FinTech, for example, accelerating development may be valuable. But not if increased output introduces unacceptable reliability, security or regulatory risks.

The right technology leader needs to understand both sides of that equation.

AI may increase engineering capacity. Leadership determines whether that capacity creates value.

4. Technology talent is becoming more complicated to understand

Stack Overflow's 2026 Developer Survey adds another dimension.

Among respondents to its job satisfaction question:

22.2% were classified as happy at work.
32.6% were unhappy.
45.1% were classified as complacent.

Meanwhile, 66% of respondents to its AI-use question reported using coding assistants or agents, but only 24% of respondents to its organisational AI-use question said their employers provided approved tools and guidance.

Source: Stack Overflow – Developer Survey 2026

These findings shouldn't be interpreted as meaning nearly everyone wants to leave their job.

However, they suggest a workforce navigating considerable technological and organisational change.

For technology leaders, managing that environment requires much more than technical knowledge.

They need to establish priorities, create clarity, develop their people and ensure that AI adoption is aligned with the needs of the business.

There's also an interesting implication for recruitment.

Some highly capable executives may be open to considering something different without actively searching.

They may be perfectly happy with their current employer but no longer sufficiently challenged.

Others may be motivated by the opportunity to work closer to commercial outcomes, influence strategy or build something new.

These motivations rarely appear on a resume.

And they certainly aren't established simply by checking whether somebody has held the right title.

5. From the market: three conversations, one recurring leadership question

Alongside this week's research, three conversations on Friday with senior technology executives in New York, New Jersey and London reinforced something I've been considering for some time.

Technology leadership appointments should begin with the business challenge, not the job title.

The leader who got you here may not be the one who gets you there

One New York-based technology executive I spoke with works closely with private equity-backed businesses confronting complex technology challenges.

Our conversation covered scaling, AI implementation, regulated environments and the changes that happen when a business moves from one stage of maturity to another.

One observation particularly resonated.

The CTO who helped build an early-stage FinTech may be very different from the executive needed to scale that organisation for institutional customers, increasingly complex operations and greater regulatory expectations.

That doesn't mean the original CTO has failed.

Quite the opposite. They may have delivered exactly what the company needed.

But the skills required to build the first version of a platform aren't necessarily identical to those needed to lead a sophisticated engineering organisation through the next phase of growth.

For founders and investors, recognising that transition early is crucial.

A successful CTO appointment isn't about finding the best CTO in the market. It's about finding the best CTO for the business at its particular stage of development.

What happens when the original challenge has been solved?

My second conversation was with a New Jersey-based CTO whose career has involved solving substantial engineering and scalability challenges.

He described joining an organisation whose technology wasn't ready for the demands of major enterprise customers.

Over the following years, he helped build the capability needed to support a dramatic increase in business volume.

What interested me wasn't simply the scale of that achievement.

It was the motivation behind it.

For some exceptional technology leaders, the attraction isn't the title, the size of the organisation or the size of the office.

It's the challenge.

Once the original problem has been solved and the business enters a more stable phase, their motivation may change.

That's an important lesson for employers.

Retention at senior technology leadership level isn't exclusively about remuneration.

It's also about meaningful work, autonomy, influence and the opportunity to solve problems that matter.

A business can have a highly successful technology leader and still reach a point where the role no longer offers the challenge that originally attracted them.

Where does product leadership end and technology leadership begin?

My third conversation, with an experienced transformation executive in London, explored how technology, product and commercial strategy are increasingly converging.

His career has involved developing new operating models and using technology to transform the way large organisations work and create value.

The question he raised was whether the next meaningful leadership role might combine product and technology responsibility.

It's a fair question.

In businesses where technology is the product, separating the two functions can sometimes create unnecessary boundaries.

But combining the roles isn't automatically the answer either.

A Chief Product and Technology Officer may be entirely appropriate for one organisation and the wrong structure for another.

Again, we're brought back to the same issue.

What must the individual actually deliver?

What authority will they need?

And what combination of technical, commercial, product and leadership capabilities will give the business the greatest chance of success?

6. An interesting pattern emerging from my US technology leadership conversations

These three discussions complement something I've been hearing in other recent conversations with senior US technology executives.

Some are increasingly interested in businesses where they can see a direct connection between their decisions and commercial results.

For one technology leader, that may mean moving from a larger organisation into a Series A or B company where their influence is more immediate.

For another, it may mean taking responsibility for a complex private equity-backed transformation.

For others, it's the opportunity to bring product, engineering, AI and commercial strategy together.

These aren't identical motivations, and I wouldn't pretend that a handful of conversations constitutes a statistically representative market study.

But they do highlight something that I think is frequently overlooked in executive recruitment.

Capability tells you what somebody can do. Motivation helps establish whether they'll actually want to do it in your organisation.

That distinction is fundamental.

You can appoint somebody with an outstanding career history who has absolutely no appetite for the particular challenges your business faces.

Equally, there may be an exceptional individual delivering precisely the outcomes you need, working for another business, who has never considered yours because nobody has approached them.

That is where thoughtful, research-led executive search becomes particularly valuable.

7. Five questions I'd encourage founders, CEOs and investors to ask before hiring a CTO

Drawing these research findings and conversations together, there are five questions I'd encourage any business considering a senior technology leadership appointment to address.

1. What does success actually look like over the next 18–36 months?

Not a list of responsibilities or technologies.

What must materially improve? Revenue growth? Product delivery? Scalability? Security? Engineering capability? AI adoption? Enterprise readiness?

Define the outcomes before defining the candidate.

2. Are we looking for the right experience, or simply the right job title?

A candidate who has held the title CTO at three businesses may be less suitable than somebody with a different title who has already solved your particular problems.

Evidence of relevant achievement matters more than title alone.

3. Have we designed the leadership structure around the business's actual needs?

Does the organisation need a CTO, CIO, CTPO or Chief AI Officer?

Where should accountability for AI, product, engineering, enterprise technology and governance sit?

And are those responsibilities clear enough for the individual to succeed?

4. Do we understand what will motivate the person we appoint?

Is the opportunity sufficiently challenging?

Will they have the influence, authority and resources needed to deliver?

Does the company's stage of development match the environment in which they've demonstrated their strongest performance?

5. Have we explored the entire relevant talent market?

Or have we limited the search to people actively applying for opportunities?

Some of the strongest candidates may be happily employed, not visible on job boards and completely unaware of your business.

A credible search should identify and assess those individuals too.

Final thought: AI isn't removing the need for great technology leaders

If anything, I believe it's exposing the difference between good technology management and exceptional technology leadership.

Businesses have more tools, more data, more software and potentially more engineering capacity than ever before.

But those advantages don't automatically translate into better commercial outcomes.

Somebody still needs to make the difficult decisions.

What should we build?

What shouldn't we build?

Where should we invest?

How should the organisation be structured?

Which risks are acceptable?

And who is capable of leading us through the next stage?

For New York's AI, FinTech and HealthTech businesses, particularly those navigating rapid growth, investment or significant transformation, these questions deserve serious attention.

After nearly 30 years in recruitment, one thing hasn't changed for me.

Finding a CTO isn't particularly difficult. Finding the right CTO for that business, at that moment in its development, is a completely different challenge.

And it's one that AI alone isn't going to solve.

About the author

Warren Beazley | Founder, Edison Hill Search | #TheCTORecruiter

Warren specialises in retained CTO and senior technology leadership executive search, with a particular focus on New York's AI, FinTech and HealthTech markets.

With nearly 30 years' recruitment experience, Edison Hill Search combines comprehensive market mapping, direct approaches to exceptional technology leaders and a structured assessment methodology focused on capability, motivation and business outcomes.

Edison Hill Search has completed 100% of its retained searches since 2015, with 96% of appointments retained at 12 months.

Considering a CTO or senior technology leadership appointment?

Explore our New York CTO Executive Search service or contact Edison Hill Search for a confidential conversation.

Research referenced

Market commentary draws on anonymised discussions with senior technology executives. Individual observations are illustrative and should not be interpreted as statistically representative findings.

← All insights

AI Is Raising the Bar for Technology Leadership — Not Removing the Need for It