Professional IT delivery.
Led by experience.
Built to execute.

At least that’s what we keep hearing.

AI can already do work many of us would happily give away. Build the presentation. Analyze the spreadsheet. Summarize the meeting. Write the first draft. That should be a good thing.

Recently, I asked AI to build a business presentation—the kind of assignment I might once have given an intern or junior associate. What came back wasn’t very good. Styles were inconsistent, instructions were misunderstood, and AI confidently told me it was ready when it clearly wasn’t.

Could I have prompted it differently? Absolutely. That’s becoming a skill of its own. But I eventually got what I needed because I knew what I needed.

I knew what good looked like. Experience allowed me to judge the work, question it and redirect it. And experience isn’t just knowing whether a presentation looks right.

It’s knowing:

She said the timeline is fine, but I can tell she’s concerned.

Is the person on the org chart really the person I need to convince?

The team says they’ll make the date, but something doesn’t feel right.

He said yes. Did he actually agree?

AI can give me information. Experience helps me understand what may not have been said.

That’s when AI started feeling less like my replacement and more like something else: a very capable junior associate.

Which made me wonder about the person who used to have that job.

I’ve had some incredibly bright interns over the years, including students from Stanford. Some went on to successful careers at Microsoft, Google and Accenture. They were smart and quick learners. What they didn’t have yet was real-world experience. Of course they didn’t. That was part of why they were there.

Sometimes the most valuable thing I gave them wasn’t an assignment. It was exposure. Sit in this meeting. Listen. Watch how decisions get made. See what happens when the best answer on paper runs into budgets, personalities, politics and organizational reality.

I can’t take credit for where they ended up. But somebody had to give them a place to start.

That’s the part of the AI conversation I hear less about. If AI handles more presentations, spreadsheets, analysis and first drafts, that’s good for productivity. But those jobs were also the first rung of a ladder.

We shouldn’t preserve tedious work just because previous generations had to do it. Maybe part of the answer is pairing AI-skilled new graduates with experienced professionals. They may have a lot to teach each other.

But this is bigger than the individual. Much of today’s experienced workforce will eventually retire. Others will need to take their place.

If we change the bottom of the system, we need to think about what eventually happens at the top. That’s an organizational question.

Maybe AI gives us an opportunity to rethink how we create that experience in the first place.

How are we going to create the experiences needed to develop the leaders of the future?

I see today’s hiring market from a few different perspectives—running a recruiting business, pursuing consulting work, and having spent years in technology and cybersecurity. Looking at those experiences together, something doesn’t add up.

Applying for a job today often means sharing far more than a resume. In an already difficult job market, candidates are doing everything they can to stand out. They provide work history, education, certifications, compensation expectations, contact information, and increasingly complete detailed questionnaires. Individually, those requests seem reasonable. Together, they create a remarkably detailed profile of a person.

Now combine that data with how easy AI has become to access and use.

It can generate convincing emails, texts, phone calls, and conversations with very little technical skill required. In the hands of bad actors, detailed applicant data can be used to create highly targeted phishing attacks, employment scams, impersonation, and other forms of social engineering aimed at people who are actively looking for work.

Job seekers are especially vulnerable because they’re expecting unfamiliar people to contact them. In a challenging market, the hope that an opportunity may be real can make even experienced professionals less guarded than they would normally be.

I’m not suggesting this is common practice or that most employers or recruiters operate this way. Most are legitimate. I’m asking whether we’ve unintentionally created an environment where personal data, accessible AI, and the urgency of finding employment have combined to create a new cybersecurity risk.

Technology will continue to evolve. Trust still matters. Knowing who you’re communicating with, verifying identities, and building real professional relationships remain some of the strongest defenses against social engineering.

I’d be interested in hearing perspectives from recruiters, hiring managers, cybersecurity professionals, HR leaders, and job seekers.

Is this an emerging cybersecurity issue, or am I being suspicious of something I needn’t worry about?