Pay and flexible working top the list of things that experienced hires are after – and if you can’t offer both, then you’ll need to consider lowering your expectations in a competitive market.

The Big Two: pay and flexibility 

Job seekers in tech have spoken: the most important priorities for tech candidates are compensation (yes, pay), followed by flexible working arrangements. 

The ‘Big Two’ factors are also ranked the fastest-growing priorities year over year, according to LinkedIn’s recent research, The Future of Recruiting 2023.

So, the thorny issue of pay – the one thing you were never supposed to mention at an interview – is now the key thing people are looking to know upfront. That, followed by the expectation that they can be fully remote if they want to be.

Why are employers reluctant to talk about pay?

Very few employers like to get out there and say “we pay great salaries.” Of course, everyone thinks that they offer above the market average, but few lead with it. Why? 

Because generally, most businesses don’t want to hire people who they perceive are motivated solely by money, because, in their mind, they’re harder to keep happy. And that’s why traditionally, job ads follow the same predictable structure: company size, clients, tech stack, and a touch of benefits (progression plans and training). But pay? That’s usually left until the second interview, by which both sides may be wasting their time.

Changing priorities, challenging times

So why are pay and flexible working driving the market? Two reasons.
On the pay front – it’s pretty obvious. We’ve got a cost of living crisis. Rising inflation, stagnating real wages. Job seekers literally can’t afford to be coy about what they can expect from their wage packet.

Flexible working, on the other hand, is a hangover from the pandemic. Hires, especially experienced ones, have grown used to a new way of working and they’re unwilling to go back, certainly not in the way they were used to.

Why it matters to employers

Frankly, if you’re not offering the ‘big two’ as an employer, you’re not just slightly behind, you’re way behind – to the point where you might not even be shown CVs for experienced hires. And that’s an issue, when you’re trying to recruit and keep people. It’s an issue for all sectors, of course, but it’s particularly prevalent in tech because the demand for skills is so high. 

In tech, hires can afford to be picky

While some companies are forcing people back to the office, in tech, employees can afford to be picky. In a sector where people are being approached once, twice a week for their skills: there’s always someone, somewhere who can offer better money and better flexibility. If you’ve got a loyal tech employee, then you’ve done something right; they’re working with you because they want to be there. 

Can’t offer more? There is an alternative.

We get that not all companies are in a position to offer high or better salaries, and not all companies are able, or willing, to offer flexible working. Assuming you don’t want to go offshore, there’s one way around that. 

Hire people who are less experienced and/or more junior than you would’ve considered. 

This can work, and here’s why: junior candidates are more likely to want to come into the office. They’re less likely to have family duties, which are a real benefit to home workers. Going into the office four days a week doesn’t require major adjustments in their personal lives to accommodate. Of course, juniors will still look to their peers and see flexible working happening there and would likely expect at least one day from home, so you’ll need to factor this into your offer, too.  

Want great hires? Think pay & flexibility first

In a nutshell: if you want experienced candidates, then a good salary and significant flexibility in working hours are an absolute must. If you haven’t, then by definition, you’re automatically shopping in a junior market.

UK businesses are approaching a turning point in how they build their workforces. Rising employment costs, expanding employment regulation and the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) are converging to change the economics of permanent hiring. 

The likely result? A shift towards smaller permanent workforces, supported by temporary, contract and interim professionals engaged to deliver specific projects and outcomes. 

Rather than continually increasing headcount to accommodate every new business requirement, employers may increasingly look at what needs to be delivered, which skills are required and how long those skills will be needed. They will then assemble the right team around the work, with fewer long-term commitments once the objective has been achieved. 

For UK businesses, this is more than a short-term response to tighter budgets. It points towards a fundamental change in how talent is acquired, deployed and valued. 

The rising cost of permanent employment 

Employing someone permanently involves far more than paying their salary. Employer National Insurance contributions, pension contributions, paid leave, recruitment, onboarding and training all contribute to the overall cost of employment. Employment protections also bring ongoing responsibilities and potential liabilities that businesses must account for. 

Those obligations are expanding. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is introducing reforms in phases throughout 2026 and 2027, covering areas including statutory sick pay, parental leave, harassment prevention, unfair dismissal and employment tribunal time limits. The government’s latest implementation roadmap, updated on 14 October 2026, sets out the timetable for these changes. 

For employers, the direction of travel is clear: workforce planning requires greater attention to the full cost and responsibility associated with employing people. 

The pressure is already influencing recruitment decisions. The Office for National Statistics’ September 2026 labour market data recorded 702,000 UK vacancies for June to August 2026, down 4.9% year on year. The ONS also reported that feedback from smaller businesses continued to suggest that higher labour costs were discouraging recruitment. 

When every permanent hire carries an ongoing financial commitment, businesses will likely become more selective about expanding their core teams. Roles that are essential to continuous operations, leadership and institutional knowledge will remain important. But hiring permanent employees to meet every temporary surge in demand or deliver every new initiative might become harder to justify. 

The commercial incentive will increasingly be to keep permanent headcount focused on what the business needs continuously and source additional capacity when a specific requirement arises. 

Why project-based hiring will gain ground 

Temporary, contract and interim recruitment provides a practical way to access specialist expertise without automatically expanding the permanent workforce. 

Consider a business undertaking a cloud migration, implementing a new enterprise platform or strengthening its cyber security. It may need experienced professionals to deliver the work over several months, but not necessarily need every specialist in its permanent team once implementation is complete. 

Under a project-based model, the business can define the required expertise, agree on the scope of work and bring in the appropriate professionals for the delivery period. Once the project is completed, the engagement can end according to its terms, leaving the organisation with its new capability rather than an ongoing requirement for the same level of staffing. 

This model can be applied across technology transformation, software development, infrastructure, data, cyber security and interim technology leadership. 

It also changes the conversation around recruitment. Instead of asking, “Who should we hire for this permanent position?”, employers can start by asking: 

• What business outcome do we need to achieve? 

• Which capabilities are essential to deliver it? 

• Which skills must remain in-house, and which can be brought in for a defined period? 

• What team structure will deliver the result most efficiently? 

This is a shift from headcount-led planning towards outcome-led workforce design. 

It doesn’t mean that every project-based engagement will be cheaper than permanent employment. Specialist professionals command appropriate rates, and businesses must account for onboarding, continuity and knowledge transfer. The advantage is the ability to align the duration and scale of external expertise more closely with the work that needs to be done. 

Nor does an external contract automatically remove employment or tax liabilities. Engagements must be structured appropriately, with worker status, tax treatment and relevant legal obligations considered. The commercial opportunity is to reduce unnecessary ongoing commitments, not to assume that contractual arrangements eliminate responsibilities. 

AI is accelerating the move towards a leaner workforce 

Employment costs and regulation create the incentive to scrutinise permanent headcount. AI increasingly gives businesses the technological means to operate differently. 

According to the Office for National Statistics’ October 2026 business insights bulletin, 38% of UK businesses with 10 or more employees reported using AI technologies in September 2026, up from 12% in September 2023. Adoption among larger businesses was higher still. 

As AI tools become embedded in everyday operations, businesses can automate or accelerate activities that previously required substantial amounts of employee time. Research, documentation, data processing, software development support and routine analysis are among the areas where AI can change how work is organised. 

The consequence is not simply that existing employees become more productive. It’s that businesses can reconsider how many people they need to deliver a given volume of work, which tasks require human expertise and where specialist intervention creates the greatest value. 

A business may no longer need to expand its permanent team to handle every increase in workload. It might instead use AI to improve the productivity of its existing employees, retain a smaller group responsible for strategy and ongoing operations, and engage external specialists when a new project requires skills the core team doesn’t possess. 

AI implementation itself also creates demand for project-based expertise. Businesses need professionals to integrate systems, manage data, assess security risks, establish governance and redesign workflows. These requirements can be substantial during implementation, even if the ongoing support needs are considerably smaller. 

This creates a reinforcing cycle: AI enables leaner operations, while the adoption and integration of AI creates new, often time-bound requirements for specialist talent. 

The government’s AI adoption research also highlights that adoption and its impact vary between businesses. The opportunity will therefore depend on how effectively organisations integrate AI into their operations, rather than simply purchasing new tools. 

From permanent headcount to a portfolio of skills 

The combined effect of these trends is likely to be a workforce model built around a permanent core and a more flexible pool of specialist capabilities. 

The permanent workforce will increasingly concentrate on responsibilities that require continuity: business strategy, product ownership, client relationships, governance, operational management and the retention of organisational knowledge. 

Around that core, businesses will assemble teams according to their immediate priorities. Contractors may deliver a technical implementation, interim leaders may manage a transformation, and temporary professionals may provide capacity during a period of unusually high demand. 

When the requirement ends, that additional capacity can be released rather than remaining on the payroll indefinitely. 

This is particularly relevant to technology businesses, where project requirements can change rapidly and specialist skills may be needed intensively for a limited period. Maintaining every capability permanently can leave organisations carrying costs between projects, while attempting to develop every skill internally can slow delivery. 

A more deliberate approach allows businesses to access expertise when it creates value, while keeping their permanent teams focused on the capabilities that underpin the organisation’s long-term success. 

It also makes project definition more important. Businesses will need clearer deliverables, realistic budgets, accountable project ownership and effective knowledge transfer. The better the work is scoped, the easier it becomes to assemble the right team and assess whether the engagement has achieved its intended outcome. 

What this means for technology hiring 

For employers, the ability to distinguish between permanent capability requirements and project-specific skills will become a competitive advantage. 

A growing business may need a permanent technology leader to set direction and manage risk, but only require additional specialists for a cloud migration, systems integration or AI implementation. Another organisation may need interim leadership to navigate a period of change before deciding what its long-term structure should look like. 

In both cases, the question is not simply whether to hire. It’s how to acquire the capabilities required to deliver the business objective without creating unnecessary long-term commitments. 

For technology professionals, this shift will place greater emphasis on demonstrable expertise, adaptability and the ability to deliver measurable results within a defined timeframe. Professionals who can enter an organisation, understand the challenge and deliver an outcome will be well positioned to support businesses operating through this model. 

For recruitment partners, understanding the work behind the vacancy will become increasingly important. Matching a CV to a job title is not enough when employers are deciding whether they need a permanent appointment, a contractor or an interim specialist to solve a particular problem. 

At Bristow Holland, we see this as an important consideration for technology workforce planning: identifying not just who a business needs, but how and when that expertise will deliver the greatest value. 

The future of hiring is about delivering outcomes 

The direction of travel is becoming increasingly apparent. Employment regulation and rising payroll costs are making permanent headcount a more considered investment, while AI is enabling businesses to rethink how much work can be delivered by smaller teams. 

Together, these forces are likely to accelerate the move towards project-based talent, with temporary, contract and interim professionals providing specialist capabilities as and when they are needed. 

The businesses best placed to respond will be those that design their workforces around outcomes: retaining the people and knowledge they need for the long term, while bringing in additional expertise to deliver defined projects and releasing that capacity when the work is complete. 

At Bristow Holland, we help businesses find the technology talent they need to move projects forward, deliver transformation and build the right teams for changing business demands. 

Whether you are planning a major technology project, looking for interim leadership or reviewing your approach to specialist hiring, get in touch with Bristow Holland to discuss your requirements. 

When an experienced technology employee leaves, the impact can extend well beyond the vacancy they create. They may be the person who understands why a system works a particular way, knows which suppliers to contact when something fails, or can resolve problems that nobody else has encountered. 

If that knowledge has never been shared, replacing the employee becomes more complicated than finding someone with a similar job title. 

For businesses that depend on technology to operate, this creates a workforce-planning challenge: how do you protect essential knowledge while ensuring the team has the skills and capacity it needs for the future? 

Why one departure can create wider problems 

Technology teams often rely on experience that is difficult to capture in a job description. Employees develop an understanding of systems, workarounds, business processes and historical decisions over time. That knowledge can become particularly valuable when documentation is incomplete, or responsibilities are concentrated in a small team. 

When a key employee leaves, businesses may face several challenges: 

• Slower problem-solving: Remaining employees may struggle to diagnose unfamiliar issues or understand why previous decisions were made. 

• Disrupted delivery: Projects can stall while responsibilities are reassigned and missing knowledge is recovered. 

• Increased operational risk: Critical tasks may depend on one person’s access, expertise or familiarity with legacy systems. 

• Greater pressure on the remaining team: Colleagues may need to absorb additional responsibilities alongside their existing workloads. 

• A more difficult recruitment process: Without a clear understanding of what the departing employee actually does, employers can struggle to define the role they need to fill. 

These risks aren’t inevitable. Their impact depends on how well responsibilities are understood, how knowledge is shared and how much support the remaining team can provide. 

The challenge is particularly relevant where older technology is involved. In a written response published in June 2026, the UK government reported that at least 28% of central government systems were classified as legacy and estimated that these systems cost around 40% more to maintain than modern alternatives. The response also noted that modernising these systems can reduce reliance on specialist expertise associated with retiring personnel. These figures relate to central government, but they illustrate how technical dependencies can become harder to manage when systems and the knowledge needed to maintain them are difficult to replace. 

Identify critical knowledge before it becomes a problem 

Businesses don’t need to document every task or make every employee interchangeable. They need to understand which responsibilities would be difficult to maintain if a particular person became unavailable. 

Start by identifying the systems, processes and decisions that depend heavily on individual employees. This might include maintaining a business-critical application, managing a complex infrastructure environment, overseeing a key supplier relationship or resolving recurring technical issues. 

Managers should then consider three questions: 

• Who else can carry out this work independently? 

• Is the relevant documentation, access and technical context available? 

• How long would it take another suitably skilled person to take responsibility? 

The answers help distinguish routine handovers from genuine capability gaps. They can also reveal where the business needs additional training, clearer documentation or another person with the right experience. 

Make knowledge transfer part of normal working practice 

A handover is easier when knowledge-sharing already happens within the team. Waiting until an employee has resigned can leave too little time to capture the details that matter. 

Practical steps include documenting essential procedures, recording key technical decisions, reviewing access arrangements and pairing employees on tasks that currently have only one capable owner. 

Knowledge transfer should also cover the reasoning behind important decisions, not just instructions for completing a task. A replacement may need to understand why a system was configured in a particular way, which previous solutions failed or what risks to consider before making changes. 

Managers should prioritise the knowledge that is hardest to recover and most important to business continuity. This makes the process more manageable than attempting to document everything at once. 

Decide whether to hire, train or restructure 

Once critical dependencies are clear, the next step is to decide how best to address them. Recruiting a direct replacement may be appropriate, but it’s not always the only answer. 

The decision should reflect business priorities, the skills already available, the time required to develop new capability and the consequences of leaving the gap unresolved. 

It’s also worth distinguishing between replacing a person and replacing their responsibilities. A like-for-like hire may restore existing capability, but it won’t necessarily address the underlying dependency if the new employee becomes the only person who understands the same systems. 

Plan for the skills the business will need next 

Succession planning is not only about preparing for retirement or responding to an unexpected resignation. It’s also an opportunity to assess whether the team’s capabilities remain appropriate as technology and business priorities change. 

Skills England’s Sector Skills Needs Assessment – Digital and technologies, updated in October 2026, projects that employment across 30 priority occupations could grow by 239,000 jobs between 2025 and 2035. It also estimates replacement demand of 249,000 workers across those occupations over the same period. These are indicative sector-wide projections, not estimates of departures from individual employers, and the report acknowledges considerable uncertainty. 

Nevertheless, the findings reinforce the importance of thinking ahead about the skills businesses may need and how they will access them. 

For technology leaders, that means looking beyond the immediate vacancy. A departure may expose a need for stronger cloud expertise, more robust security capability, improved data management or greater leadership capacity. The appropriate response depends on the organisation’s technology environment and its plans for the coming years. 

What this means for technology recruitment 

A successful replacement starts with understanding the role, not simply copying the departing employee’s job description. 

Hiring managers should identify the responsibilities that must be maintained, the technical skills that are genuinely essential and the areas where a new employee could bring additional value. They should also consider how the role will fit within the wider team and whether its responsibilities need to change. 

This creates a more useful recruitment brief and helps distinguish between skills that a candidate must have on day one and those they could develop with support. 

It also gives interviewers a clearer basis for assessing candidates. Rather than relying solely on job titles or years of experience, they can explore how candidates have handled comparable technical challenges, made decisions under pressure, transferred knowledge or worked across teams. 

Where a role has become a single point of failure, the hiring process should address that risk deliberately. Depending on the circumstances, the priority might be a specialist who can take ownership immediately, a broader technical leader who can strengthen the team, or an experienced professional capable of mentoring others. 

Build a team that can withstand change 

An experienced employee leaving does not have to become a business continuity crisis. The risk is greater when critical responsibilities are poorly understood, knowledge is concentrated in one person, and the replacement role has not been clearly defined. 

By identifying dependencies early, sharing essential knowledge and reviewing future capability needs, businesses can make better decisions before a vacancy becomes urgent. 

For Bristow Holland, the recruitment question is not simply who can fill the empty seat. It’s what the business needs that person to achieve, which skills will make the greatest difference and how the appointment can strengthen the wider technology team. 

Need to recruit for a critical technology role? Bristow Holland helps businesses define their technology hiring needs and connect with professionals whose experience and capabilities align with their goals. 

Contact Andy Bristow 

When operating costs rise and business confidence weakens, organisations face greater pressure to justify spending, improve productivity and make difficult investment decisions. Technology teams are not exempt from this scrutiny, but reducing technology expenditure does not automatically improve business performance. 

In uncertain conditions, businesses need to understand which technology investments are essential, which can wait and which capabilities will help them remain competitive. 

This places greater responsibility on technology leaders. Alongside technical expertise, they need commercial judgement, financial awareness, risk management skills and the ability to explain how technology decisions affect business outcomes. 

The challenge for employers is to ensure they have the right leadership capability to make these decisions. Freezing recruitment or cutting costs without understanding the consequences can leave organisations exposed to operational risks, delayed projects and skills gaps. 

This paper examines how economic uncertainty affects technology investment decisions, what businesses should expect from technology leaders and how employers can make more effective technology recruitment decisions when budgets are constrained. 

Its central argument is straightforward: businesses should not focus solely on reducing technology costs. They should identify which capabilities they need to protect, develop or recruit to achieve their business objectives. 

How economic uncertainty affects technology investment 

Technology investment depends on more than a business’s digital ambitions. Operating costs, customer demand, borrowing costs and confidence in future growth all influence what organisations can afford and what they are prepared to prioritise. 

The Bank of England’s September 2026 assessment of business conditions described a cautious investment environment, with employment intentions broadly flat and investment intentions showing tentative improvement from a low starting point. Businesses continued to report cost pressures and uncertainty, although conditions varied between sectors. 

This provides useful context for technology decision-makers. When budgets are constrained, projects face greater scrutiny and employers may become more selective about recruitment. 

However, not every technology expense is discretionary. Businesses may need to maintain ageing systems, address security vulnerabilities, meet regulatory obligations or resolve inefficiencies that affect day-to-day operations. 

The challenge is to distinguish between expenditure that can reasonably be delayed and investment that protects the business or enables it to operate more effectively. 

Cost reduction is not the same as value creation 

Consider a business deciding whether to replace an ageing platform. 

Postponing the replacement might preserve cash in the short term. But if the existing system causes recurring downtime, manual work or security concerns, delaying the project could increase costs elsewhere. 

The opposite is also true: a technically impressive replacement is not necessarily a worthwhile investment if a simpler, less expensive solution would achieve the same outcome. 

Technology leaders should help the business evaluate these trade-offs by considering cost, risk, operational impact and expected benefits. 

The same principle applies to recruitment. Leaving a vacancy unfilled may reduce immediate expenditure, but it can also delay essential projects or increase pressure on existing employees. 

The right decision depends on the consequences of hiring, not hiring or changing how the work is delivered. 

Why technology leaders need commercial judgement 

Technical expertise remains fundamental to effective technology leadership. Businesses need people who understand their systems, infrastructure, architecture, security and technical dependencies. 

However, knowing which solution is technically appropriate is only part of the decision. Leaders must also consider whether it is affordable, whether it addresses a genuine business need and whether the expected benefits justify the investment. 

This requires the ability to translate technical decisions into commercial outcomes. 

For example, a proposal to automate a process should explain what problem the automation will solve, what it is expected to cost, how success will be measured and what risks need to be managed. 

A proposal to retain an existing system should consider not only the cost of maintaining it but also the consequences of delaying replacement. 

Technology leaders should be able to help senior stakeholders answer five questions: 

• What business problem are we trying to solve? 

• What happens if we do nothing? 

• Which option offers the best balance of cost, risk and value? 

• What capabilities and resources will implementation require? 

• How will we know whether the decision has delivered the expected result? 

These questions help businesses make more informed choices without assuming that every problem requires a new technology investment. 

What businesses should expect from technology leaders 

When resources are limited, technology leaders should be able to demonstrate how they make decisions, not simply what their teams deliver. 

Five capabilities are particularly important. 

Strategic prioritisation 

Technology leaders should understand the organisation’s objectives and use them to determine which initiatives deserve attention. 

That means distinguishing essential work from desirable improvements, identifying dependencies and challenging projects that lack a clear business case. 

Priorities should reflect business needs, risk and expected value rather than the visibility of a project or the preferences of individual stakeholders. 

Financial and operational awareness 

Leaders should understand the full cost of running and changing technology systems, including licensing, infrastructure, suppliers, support, staffing and downtime. 

They should also understand how technology affects productivity. A system that appears expensive may support critical business activity, while a cheaper alternative may introduce hidden costs through inefficiency or disruption. 

Risk management and resilience 

Security, continuity and recovery planning can be difficult to prioritise when their benefits are not immediately visible. Yet failures in these areas can create significant operational and financial consequences. 

The UK government’s 2026 cyber security labour-market research found that 57% of UK businesses reported a basic technical cyber security skills gap. The research also identified specialist capability areas including governance and risk management, secure system architecture, and audit and assurance. 

These findings do not mean every business needs to recruit a dedicated security leader. They do reinforce the importance of understanding existing security capabilities, identifying gaps and ensuring that responsibility for managing risk is clear. 

Productivity and process improvement 

Technology leaders should look beyond individual systems to understand how work gets done. 

Repeated data entry, disconnected applications and manual approvals may indicate opportunities to improve processes or introduce automation. However, automating an inefficient process without addressing its underlying problems can simply reproduce those problems more quickly. 

Leaders should identify where change is worthwhile, establish realistic measures of success and evaluate whether the expected benefits are being achieved. 

Communication and stakeholder management 

Technology decisions often involve competing priorities across finance, operations, sales and senior leadership. 

Leaders need to explain technical constraints in accessible language, understand the needs of different stakeholders and establish realistic expectations about budgets, risks and delivery timescales. 

They must also be willing to challenge proposals when the likely cost or risk outweighs the expected benefit. 

Together, these capabilities allow technology leaders to contribute to business decisions rather than operate solely as managers of technical services. 

Why cutting technology costs can create capability gaps 

Reducing expenditure is sometimes necessary. The risk arises when businesses cut costs without understanding which responsibilities still need to be fulfilled. 

Removing a role, for example, does not remove the work associated with it. Responsibilities may transfer to other employees, remain unattended or be outsourced. Each option has implications for cost, accountability and delivery. 

A business that removes a technology role without assessing its responsibilities could find that projects stall, maintenance is deferred or remaining employees take on work outside their expertise. 

These outcomes are not inevitable, but they should be considered before making staffing decisions. 

Assess the capability gap before deciding how to fill it 

The UK government’s June 2026 update on the SME Digital Adoption Taskforce continued to address barriers to digital adoption, including capability, cost and awareness. 

This is relevant to smaller businesses in particular. An organisation may recognise the potential benefits of technology but lack the internal expertise to evaluate solutions, oversee implementation or measure results. 

The appropriate response will vary. A business might develop an existing employee, recruit a specialist, obtain external support or redistribute responsibilities. 

The important step is to identify the capability gap first. 

Employers should establish what work needs to be done, which responsibilities are essential and what level of expertise is required. Only then can they decide whether recruitment, training, external support or a different operating model represents the best use of resources. 

How to make better technology recruitment decisions 

When budgets are constrained, recruitment needs to be linked to specific business outcomes. This helps employers avoid hiring simply to maintain an existing structure or rejecting essential appointments because their value is difficult to express as immediate savings. 

Define the outcome before the role 

Before approving a vacancy, employers should identify the problem the appointment is intended to solve. 

Does the business need to improve system reliability, reduce operational risk, deliver a transformation project or strengthen its ability to evaluate technology investment? 

These objectives require different combinations of technical knowledge, leadership experience and commercial judgement. 

Defining success in advance gives employers a clearer basis for writing the job description, assessing candidates and measuring performance after appointment. 

Distinguish essential capabilities from preferred experience 

Job descriptions can become unnecessarily restrictive when every preferred technology, previous job title or industry background is treated as mandatory. 

Employers should distinguish between what a candidate must be able to do and what they can learn after joining. 

For a technology leadership role, evidence of sound decision-making, stakeholder management, supplier oversight, risk assessment and successful delivery may be more relevant than experience with one particular platform. 

A candidate does not need to follow an identical career path to demonstrate the capabilities the business requires. 

Consider the cost of leaving a vacancy open 

Salary is only one part of the hiring decision. 

Employers should also consider the consequences of delayed delivery, unresolved operational problems, additional pressure on existing staff and the cost of recruiting later. 

This does not mean every vacancy should be filled. It means that the decision to recruit, postpone or redesign a role should reflect its likely impact on the business. 

Recruit for adaptability as well as current requirements 

Technology responsibilities can change as systems evolve, processes are automated and business priorities shift. 

Employers should consider whether candidates can learn, adapt and take responsibility as the role develops. This is particularly important when recruiting for leadership positions, where future responsibilities may extend beyond the immediate technical requirements. 

The aim is not to predict every future change. It is to avoid hiring so narrowly that the appointment becomes less useful as business needs evolve. 

A practical assessment for business leaders 

Before making decisions about technology investment or recruitment, employers should assess whether their existing leadership and teams have the capabilities required to deliver current priorities. 

The following questions can help identify gaps. 

Investment and strategy 

• Can our technology leaders explain how current projects support business objectives? 

• Do we understand which investments are essential and which can be delayed? 

• Can we measure whether technology spending is delivering the intended outcomes? 

Risk and resilience 

• Do we understand our most significant technology and security risks? 

• Is responsibility for security, continuity and recovery clearly assigned? 

• Can we access the specialist expertise needed to address identified gaps? 

Productivity and operations 

• Do we know where technology creates unnecessary work or cost? 

• Are automation initiatives addressing underlying process problems? 

• Can we demonstrate that changes have improved operational performance? 

People and capability 

• Does our team have the skills needed to deliver current priorities? 

• Are responsibilities distributed appropriately? 

• Would training, recruitment, external support or role redesign provide the most effective solution? 

If the answers reveal gaps in accountability or visibility, the first step may be to clarify responsibilities and improve decision-making rather than recruit immediately. 

If the business understands what needs to be achieved but lacks the expertise or leadership to deliver it, recruitment may be part of the solution. 

Conclusion: hire for the capabilities your business needs 

Economic uncertainty makes technology investment and recruitment decisions more consequential. Businesses need to understand where expenditure creates value, which risks require attention and which capabilities are essential to their future plans. 

Technology leaders can help them make those decisions by combining technical expertise with commercial judgement, financial awareness, risk management and effective communication. 

For employers, this means looking beyond job titles and technical credentials when assessing leadership capability. The strongest candidate may be the person who can challenge an unnecessary project, identify a more effective solution, explain a difficult trade-off or connect technology investment to a clear business objective. 

The question is not simply whether a business can afford to recruit. It is whether it has the capabilities required to make sound decisions and deliver its priorities with the resources available. 

When budgets tighten, businesses should hire for the decisions they need to make and the outcomes they need to achieve – not simply to preserve an existing technology structure. 

At Bristow Holland, we help businesses identify technology professionals whose skills, experience and capabilities align with their business needs. 

If your organisation is reviewing its technology leadership requirements, planning a transformation or deciding which capabilities it needs next, speak to Andy Bristow about your technology recruitment needs. 

AI is already changing how technology work gets done. 

That doesn’t necessarily mean businesses will need fewer technology professionals. It may mean they need different capabilities from the people they hire. 

As AI takes on more routine technical tasks, technology professionals may spend less time producing work manually and more time reviewing, directing and improving what AI produces. 

For employers, that creates a different question from simply asking whether AI will replace jobs. 

What will your technology team need to be good at when AI is doing more of the work? 

Is AI replacing technology jobs or changing them? 

The answer is likely to be more complicated than either “AI will replace everyone” or “AI will change nothing”. 

Skills England’s 2026 assessment of the digital and technologies sector describes AI as reshaping jobs and workflows, with evidence of a shift away from routine coding and testing towards oversight, verification and communication, alongside greater emphasis on judgement and accountability. 

It also identifies growing demand for adaptability, accountability, collaboration and the ability to use AI alongside technical expertise. 

That points towards a change in the composition of technology work rather than a simple replacement of technology professionals. 

The Office for National Statistics found that self-reported AI use among UK businesses with 10 or more employees had increased from around 12% in late 2023 to around 35% in June 2026. 

Importantly, businesses are not primarily responding by replacing their existing workforce. Training or retraining existing employees was the most commonly reported way of integrating AI-related skills, while around 10% of businesses reported automating or replacing roles with AI. 

The picture is therefore more nuanced than the headlines often suggest. 

AI can do more of the work. Someone still has to own it. 

One of the biggest changes for technology teams may be the movement from doing the task to owning the outcome. 

An AI system might generate code. 

A person still needs to determine whether that code is appropriate. 

AI might identify a potential security issue. 

Someone still needs to decide how serious it is, what action to take and what risk the business is prepared to accept. 

AI might analyse a large dataset. 

Someone still needs to understand what the analysis means for the organisation and whether the conclusions are reliable enough to act on. 

As AI becomes more capable, these responsibilities don’t necessarily disappear. 

They can become more important. 

This is particularly relevant for senior technology roles, where accountability, judgement and communication are already central to the job. 

What skills will technology teams need as AI improves? 

The technical skills businesses need will not disappear. 

They may, however, be joined by a broader set of capabilities. 

Technology professionals increasingly need to understand how to use AI tools effectively, assess their outputs and incorporate them into existing workflows. 

That requires more than knowing how to write a good prompt. 

Skills England’s 2026 AI Foundation Skills for Work benchmark identifies three broad areas of AI capability: technical, non-technical, and responsible and ethical skills. These include using AI tools effectively, communicating AI-generated outputs, adapting to AI-supported ways of working, and understanding issues such as accuracy, bias, privacy and security. 

That creates an interesting shift in what employers may look for. 

A technology professional who can use AI to complete a task faster is useful. 

A technology professional who can determine which task should be automated, how it should be implemented, what could go wrong and how the result should be governed may be considerably more valuable. 

AI may change what “senior” means 

There is another consequence for technology recruitment. 

If AI reduces the amount of time people need to spend on certain technical tasks, seniority may increasingly be demonstrated through judgement rather than volume of output. 

A senior professional may not be the person who writes the most code, produces the most documentation or completes the most technical tasks. 

They may be the person who can: 

• Decide where AI should and should not be used 

• Identify when an AI-generated result is unreliable 

• Translate technical possibilities into business decisions 

• Manage risk and accountability 

• Lead people through changes to how work is performed 

• Connect technology decisions to commercial outcomes 

• Challenge assumptions made by both people and technology 

That doesn’t make technical expertise less important. 

It changes how that expertise is applied. 

Does this mean businesses should hire fewer technology professionals? 

Not necessarily. 

It may mean businesses need to think more carefully about what each technology role is actually responsible for. 

If AI can automate part of an existing role, there are several possible outcomes. 

The business could reduce the amount of work required. 

It could use the additional capacity to take on more work. 

It could redesign the role around higher-value activities. 

Or it could combine technology capabilities that previously sat across several different roles. 

There is no single answer because the outcome depends on the organisation, its technology maturity and how effectively it implements AI. 

The ONS evidence also suggests that AI skills are not yet widespread across entire workforces. It found that training or retraining existing staff was the most common way businesses were integrating AI-related skills, but only 11% of businesses with 10 or more employees reported that more than half of their workforce had received AI-related training. 

That creates an opportunity. 

The people already in the business may have more potential to adapt than their current job descriptions suggest. 

What does this mean for technology recruitment? 

It means businesses may need to reconsider what they are actually hiring for. 

A traditional technology vacancy might focus heavily on specific platforms, programming languages, systems or years of experience. 

Those requirements may still be essential. 

But they may not be enough. 

If the role will involve working alongside AI, employers should also consider whether candidates can demonstrate: 

Judgement: Can they assess whether a technology-generated result is appropriate? 

Adaptability: Can they learn new tools and change the way they work? 

Problem-solving: Can they define the problem before reaching for a technology solution? 

Communication: Can they explain technical outputs and risks to people who are not technical specialists? 

Commercial awareness: Can they understand the consequences of technology decisions for the wider business? 

Accountability: Can they take ownership of an outcome rather than simply completing a task? 

These are not exclusively AI skills. 

They are capabilities that become more valuable when technology can take on more of the execution. 

The best technology hire may not be the most technical candidate 

AI could therefore change technology recruitment without eliminating the need for technology professionals. 

As routine work becomes easier to automate or augment, businesses may place greater value on people who can direct technology effectively. 

That could change the profile of a strong technology hire. 

The best candidate may not be the person who can personally perform every technical task faster than everyone else. 

They may be the person who understands what needs to happen, knows how technology can help, recognises where it can fail and can take responsibility for the result. 

For businesses, that means the question is no longer simply: 

“Can this person do the work?” 

It may increasingly become: 

“Can this person make good decisions about how the work should be done?” 

AI won’t remove the need for technology leadership 

The more capable AI becomes, the easier it may be to assume that technology teams should become smaller. 

But technology adoption also creates new questions around governance, security, integration, risk, skills and organisational change. 

Someone still needs to answer those questions. 

For some businesses, that may mean changing existing roles rather than immediately adding new ones. 

For others, it may mean hiring people with broader technology leadership capabilities than they previously needed. 

Either way, AI is unlikely to make technology leadership less important. 

It may make it more important. 

The businesses that benefit most from AI will not necessarily be those that replace the most people. 

They may be those that understand which work should be automated, which work should be augmented, and where human judgement remains essential. 

At Bristow Holland, we help businesses identify technology professionals based on the capabilities they need now – and the capabilities they are likely to need as their technology function evolves. 

If AI is changing what you expect from your technology team, it may be time to reconsider what you expect from your next technology hire. 

Contact Andy Bristow 

Finding the right technology candidate should not simply mean finding the CV that looks most like the job description. 

Yet that’s often how recruitment decisions begin. 

A candidate hasn’t used the right platform. They’ve worked in a different industry. Their previous job title is slightly different. They have most of the required experience, but not all of it. 

The application is rejected. 

The problem is that a candidate can be a poor match for a job description while still being a strong match for the actual job. 

Why Do Good Technology Candidates Get Rejected? 

There’s a natural temptation to turn a job description into a checklist. 

The candidate either has the required experience or they don’t. 

But technology roles rarely work quite that neatly. 

A senior technology professional might have spent years solving complex problems, leading change, managing stakeholders and making decisions without ever having used the exact system listed in a vacancy. 

Another candidate might have used the right technology but have limited experience of leading the kind of change the business actually needs. 

If the recruitment process focuses primarily on matching words on a CV to words in a job description, those differences can easily be missed. 

The question should therefore be more than: 

“Has this person done exactly this before?” 

It should also be: 

“Can this person demonstrate the skills and experience needed to succeed here?” 

That distinction is becoming increasingly relevant. Skills England’s 2026 Digital and Technologies Sector Skills Needs Assessment identifies problem-solving and decision-making alongside digital skills as important capabilities across priority occupations. It also highlights the changing mix of skills associated with developments such as AI. 

When Job Descriptions Become Too Specific 

A detailed job description can make a hiring process clearer. 

But a long list of requirements can also make the candidate pool unnecessarily small. 

A business may genuinely need experience with a particular technology, qualification or regulatory environment. 

Other requirements may simply describe what the ideal candidate would look like. 

Those are not the same thing. 

The UK Government’s 2026 guidance on writing inclusive job descriptions recommends reducing long lists of “must-haves”, using open language for desirable qualities, and focusing on specific behaviours and competencies. It also highlights the importance of distinguishing between essential and desirable criteria. 

That principle is useful well beyond inclusive recruitment. 

If a requirement isn’t genuinely necessary to perform the job, should it really be capable of eliminating a candidate? 

This is particularly important in technology recruitment, where roles and skills continue to evolve. 

Are You Hiring for Skills or Previous Experience? 

Experience matters. 

The question is what that experience actually tells you. 

Consider two candidates for a technology leadership position. 

One has spent ten years in the same industry, using similar systems and following a familiar technology model. 

The other has worked across several environments, led a major technology change, managed stakeholders with competing priorities and repeatedly had to solve unfamiliar problems. 

The first candidate may look like the safer match on paper. 

The second may have stronger evidence of adaptability, decision-making and change leadership. 

That doesn’t automatically make the second candidate the right hire. 

It does mean that previous experience should be examined for what it demonstrates, rather than treated as a substitute for assessing capability. 

The UK’s new Standard Skills Classification, launched in 2026, provides a common framework for describing the skills, knowledge and tasks required across UK occupations. It also identifies transferable Core Skills, such as adapting, leadership, problem-solving and decision-making. Skills England says the framework can help employers assess workforce capabilities, identify skills gaps and support more effective skills-based recruitment. 

For employers, the practical lesson is straightforward: 

Start with what the person needs to be able to do. Then decide which experience is essential to prove it. 

Why the Perfect Technology Candidate May Not Exist 

Recruitment can become difficult when every requirement is treated as non-negotiable. 

The ideal candidate might need: 

• Experience in your industry 

• Experience with your technology stack 

• A particular qualification 

• Management experience 

• Transformation experience 

• Commercial awareness 

• Specific technical skills 

• Experience at exactly the right level 

• The right cultural fit 

Individually, these requirements may all sound reasonable. 

Together, they can create a profile that very few people are likely to meet. 

That doesn’t mean employers should lower their standards. 

It means they need to understand which standards are actually essential. 

Skills England’s 2026 assessment identifies 30 priority occupations within the digital and technologies sector. Its central scenario projects employment demand in these occupations to increase by 27% between 2025 and 2035, equivalent to around 239,000 additional jobs. A further 249,000 workers may be needed to replace people leaving these occupations, bringing estimated total demand to around 488,000 workers over the period. 

Where demand for particular technology skills is high, being too rigid about how those skills must have been acquired can make an already difficult search unnecessarily narrow. 

What Should Employers Look For in Technology Candidates? 

A stronger technology recruitment process starts by separating requirements into three groups. 

Essential skills 

What does the person genuinely need to be able to do from the outset? 

These should be the requirements that can reasonably determine whether someone progresses. 

Learnable skills 

What would be useful but could realistically be learned after joining? 

A candidate may not know your particular platform, internal processes or preferred methodology. 

That doesn’t necessarily tell you whether they can succeed in the role. 

Evidence of capability 

What has the candidate actually demonstrated? 

Look for evidence that they have solved problems, delivered change, influenced stakeholders, managed risk, improved processes, led people or taken ownership. 

This is particularly important when the candidate’s previous job title doesn’t perfectly match the vacancy. 

A different title doesn’t necessarily mean a different level of capability. 

Don’t Hire the CV. Assess the Capability. 

This doesn’t mean businesses should interview everyone who applies. 

Nor does it mean every missing requirement should be overlooked. 

It means the reasons for rejecting a candidate should relate to the actual requirements of the role. 

Before removing a technology candidate from consideration, ask: 

• Is the missing requirement genuinely essential? 

• Does their previous experience demonstrate the underlying capability? 

• Is the gap technical knowledge, or is it something more fundamental? 

• Could the missing skill realistically be learned? 

• Are we assessing what they have achieved, or simply where they have worked? 

• Does their job title accurately reflect the level of responsibility they have held? 

• Are we rejecting them because they cannot do the job, or because their career doesn’t look exactly like the one we imagined? 

These questions can produce a very different shortlist. 

How Skills-Based Recruitment Can Improve Technology Hiring 

Skills-based recruitment isn’t about ignoring experience. 

It’s about understanding the relationship between skills, experience and outcomes. 

A candidate who has solved similar problems in a different environment may have more relevant experience than their CV initially suggests. 

Likewise, someone with every technical keyword on the job description may still lack the broader capabilities the role requires. 

The 2026 UK Standard Skills Classification provides a useful illustration of this shift. It provides a common framework for describing the skills, knowledge and tasks required across UK occupations, rather than relying on occupational titles alone. Its detailed framework contains 3,350 Occupational Skills linked to 22,583 Occupational Tasks, 5,056 Knowledge concepts and 13 more general Core Skills. 

For employers, the principle is simple: 

Define the work first. Then assess the person against the work. 

The Right Candidate May Not Look Like the Right Candidate 

The strongest candidate for a technology vacancy will not always be the person whose CV most closely resembles the job description. 

Sometimes, the most valuable evidence is found in what someone has changed, solved, improved or taken ownership of. 

That’s why technology recruitment needs to look beyond job titles and keyword matches. 

The aim isn’t to make hiring less selective. 

It’s to make selection more meaningful. 

At Bristow Holland, we help businesses look beyond the obvious matches to understand the experience and capability behind a technology candidate’s CV. 

Because sometimes the question isn’t whether there are enough suitable candidates. 

It’s whether the recruitment process is recognising them when they appear. 

Need Help Finding the Right Technology Candidate? 

If you’re struggling to find candidates who meet every requirement on your job description, it may be worth looking at the role differently. 

At Bristow Holland, we help businesses identify technology professionals based on the experience, skills and capabilities they can bring to a role – not simply how closely their CV matches a list of keywords. 

Get in touch with Andy Bristow to discuss your technology recruitment needs. 

Hiring has always been a significant decision for a small or medium-sized business (SMEs). 

An employee brings more than a salary. There are employer National Insurance contributions, holiday entitlement, pension contributions, equipment, training, management time and the wider cost of bringing another person into the organisation. 

As employment costs rise, the decision to hire becomes more closely connected to productivity, business growth and the value a role is expected to deliver. 

For some UK SMEs, this may mean delaying recruitment. Others may look at whether an existing team can take on additional responsibility, whether technology can remove repetitive work, whether skills can be developed internally or whether a role needs to be redesigned before it’s advertised. 

This doesn’t mean UK businesses have stopped hiring. It does mean that individual appointments can face greater scrutiny. 

The latest labour market data from the Office for National Statistics provides an indication of this changing environment. UK vacancies fell to 702,000 in June to August 2026, down 4.9% compared with the same period a year earlier. 

The decline was particularly pronounced among smaller businesses. Vacancies in businesses with 1 to 9 employees fell by 23.5% year-on-year, while vacancies in businesses with 10 to 49 employees fell by 10.1%. 

The ONS also reported that feedback from its Vacancy Survey continued to suggest that smaller firms may not be recruiting because of increases in labour costs. 

The data doesn’t establish that higher employment costs caused the overall decline in vacancies. It does, however, highlight a challenge that’s particularly relevant to SMEs: when adding headcount becomes more expensive, how can businesses make sure they are hiring for the right reasons and bringing in the capability they actually need? 

For technology and transformation roles, that question becomes even more important. 

Why Rising Employment Costs Matter to SME Hiring 

The cost of employing someone isn’t limited to the salary in a job description. 

From 1 April 2026, the National Living Wage for workers aged 21 and over is £12.71 an hour. For employers, the standard Class 1 secondary National Insurance contribution rate is 15% on earnings above the relevant secondary threshold. 

The effect will vary between organisations because employment costs depend on factors including pay, workforce size and the rules that apply to the individual employer. 

The broader point for SMEs is that hiring represents an ongoing financial commitment. 

That makes the business case for a new appointment increasingly important. 

A role created simply because a team is busy may not provide enough information to assess whether recruitment is the right answer. A stronger case might involve additional capacity that allows the business to win work, improve delivery, reduce operational risk, introduce a missing capability or remove a significant bottleneck. 

This changes the conversation around recruitment. 

Instead of asking only, “Can we afford this salary?”, businesses may increasingly need to ask, “What problem will this person solve, and what will improve because they are here?” 

That question is particularly relevant to senior technology appointments, where the cost of the individual can be significant, but the impact of the role can extend across multiple parts of the organisation. 

The UK Job Market Is Becoming More Selective 

The latest ONS figures suggest that employers are operating in a labour market with fewer vacancies than a year ago. 

There were 2.5 unemployed people per vacancy in May to July 2026, compared with 2.3 in the same period a year earlier. The ONS notes that this ratio has remained at 2.5 since July to September 2025, after previously increasing quarter on quarter. 

This doesn’t mean that suitable candidates are suddenly easy to find. 

An available worker isn’t necessarily the person an organisation needs. Skills, experience, location, salary expectations, industry knowledge and the ability to operate within a particular business environment all affect whether someone is suitable for a role. 

However, a lower number of vacancies can give employers more reason to examine what they actually need before committing to another appointment. 

That creates an important distinction between having a vacancy and having a clearly defined business requirement. 

For SMEs in particular, recruitment can be an opportunity to address a specific organisational problem rather than simply recreate an existing job title. 

How SMEs Can Build Broader Roles Without Overloading Them 

One possible response to higher employment costs is to look for greater breadth from individual appointments. 

That doesn’t mean expecting one employee to perform several unrelated jobs. 

Instead, an SME may look for connected capabilities that allow a role to create value across several areas of the business. 

A technology professional, for example, may need to understand infrastructure while also contributing to cybersecurity, supplier management, data, business processes and technology planning. 

A project professional may need to understand delivery, stakeholders, commercial considerations and organisational change rather than focusing solely on project administration. 

A senior technology leader may need to manage technology operations while also helping the leadership team understand where technology investment can support growth, efficiency and risk management. 

The important question is whether those responsibilities belong together. 

A broader role can make sense when its responsibilities are connected by a clear business purpose. It can allow an SME to bring in someone who understands how different parts of the organisation interact rather than hiring several narrowly defined positions. 

The risk comes when a business simply adds more requirements to a job description because it wants to avoid making another appointment. 

A role that asks for deep technical expertise, strategic leadership, project management, commercial experience, change management and detailed operational responsibility may look efficient on paper. In practice, it can make the position harder to fill and harder for candidates to understand. 

There is also a difference between being capable of working across several areas and being an expert in all of them. 

The better approach is to identify the business problem first. 

What needs to change? Which responsibilities genuinely need to sit with the new appointment? Which capabilities already exist? Which activities could be supported by technology or external expertise? 

Only then should the organisation decide how broad the role needs to be. 

The objective isn’t to find someone who can do everything. 

It’s to find someone whose capabilities are broad enough to solve the particular problem the business is facing. 

The Cost of Getting a Hire Wrong 

When employment costs are under greater scrutiny, salary naturally becomes an important part of the recruitment decision. 

It should not, however, be the only consideration. 

The cheapest candidate isn’t necessarily the lowest-cost option. 

A more experienced professional may command a higher salary but could bring greater independence, stronger decision-making, faster delivery, better stakeholder management or the ability to improve existing processes. 

For a technology role, the difference can be particularly significant. 

A senior technology professional who can identify unnecessary expenditure, improve supplier management, reduce operational risk or introduce more effective processes may create value beyond the immediate responsibilities of the job. 

Conversely, a lower-cost appointment that requires significant supervision or lacks the experience needed to solve the underlying problem may place additional pressure on existing managers. 

The cost of a poor recruitment decision also extends beyond salary. 

There may be recruitment and onboarding costs, training, equipment, management time and the opportunity cost of diverting other employees from their own responsibilities. 

For senior appointments, there can be wider consequences. A poorly matched technology or transformation leader may struggle to make effective investment decisions, manage suppliers, lead change or establish priorities across the technology function. 

This is why salary should be considered alongside the expected impact of the role. 

The relevant question isn’t simply whether one candidate costs less than another. 

It’s whether the organisation is paying for the capability it actually needs. 

When a business is already cautious about employment costs, getting the requirement right before recruitment begins becomes even more valuable. 

Technology, Productivity and the Pressure to Hire 

Technology is another part of the conversation. 

Automation and artificial intelligence can potentially reduce the amount of manual work involved in some processes, allowing organisations to handle more activity without increasing headcount at the same rate. 

The 2026 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology AI Adoption Research found that 75% of businesses currently using AI reported improved workforce productivity, while 57% reported developing new or improved processes or operations. 

These findings are self-reported, so they should be treated as estimates rather than evidence that AI will deliver the same results for every organisation. 

The research also illustrates why productivity gains should not automatically be treated as immediate financial returns. Most businesses using AI had not yet reported a change in revenue following adoption. 

For SMEs, the question should therefore not simply be whether AI can replace a task. 

It should be whether technology can improve the way the organisation performs that task. 

That could mean automating repetitive administration, improving access to information, supporting customer service, reducing manual data processing or helping employees make decisions more efficiently. 

Technology should follow the business requirement. 

Otherwise, an organisation can end up automating an inefficient process rather than fixing it. 

There is also a limit to what technology can reasonably replace. 

Some work requires judgement, leadership, specialist knowledge, relationship management or accountability. If an organisation has more work than its existing team can sustainably handle, continually postponing recruitment can create a different set of problems. 

Employees can become overloaded. Important work can be deprioritised. Managers can spend more time dealing with operational pressure instead of improving the business. 

The objective should therefore be to improve the relationship between people, processes and technology. 

Before creating a new position, an organisation can ask whether the work could be redesigned. 

Before deciding that technology is the answer, it should understand what the process actually requires. 

And before asking an existing team to absorb additional responsibilities, it should consider whether that arrangement is sustainable. 

The right answer may be a new hire. 

It may be a change to an existing role. 

It may be training. 

It may be technology. 

Often, it will be a combination. 

What This Means for Technology and Transformation Hiring 

Technology is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from wider business performance. 

Infrastructure affects how employees work. 
Cybersecurity affects operational and financial risk. 
Data affects decision-making. 
Automation affects processes. 
AI can affect productivity. 
Digital transformation affects how organisations deliver services and interact with customers. 

As a result, SMEs may increasingly need technology professionals who can work across these areas while understanding the commercial context in which decisions are being made. 

That doesn’t mean every SME needs a large technology leadership function. 

It may mean that the senior technology appointment it does make needs a broader understanding of the business. 

For some organisations, the priority may still be operational stability. 

For others, it may be transformation, cybersecurity, data, automation or scaling technology as the business grows. 

The recruitment requirement should reflect the actual challenge. 

A technology professional who is highly capable in one technical area may not necessarily be the right person to lead a wider transformation. 

Equally, a strategic technology leader may not be the right appointment if the immediate problem is hands-on technical delivery. 

This is where the distinction between a specialist and a broader senior professional becomes important. 

The same principle applies to candidates. 

Technical expertise remains important, but senior technology and transformation professionals may increasingly need to demonstrate how that expertise has improved processes, reduced risk, supported growth, managed change or influenced business decisions. 

Being able to explain what was delivered is useful. 

Being able to explain why it mattered to the business provides a clearer indication of the potential value of the appointment. 

How Bristow Holland Can Help 

At Bristow Holland, we work with organisations across the UK on technology, change and transformation appointments. 

For SMEs, hiring a senior technology professional is rarely just about filling a vacancy. 

The right person may need to manage existing technology, lead change, improve processes, support growth and help the business decide where technology investment should be focused. 

That makes understanding the role before recruitment begins particularly important. 

If your organisation is reviewing its hiring plans, restructuring its technology function or considering whether its next appointment needs to deliver broader commercial value, Bristow Holland can help you define what the role needs to achieve and identify the experience required. 

Get in touch with Bristow Holland for a confidential conversation about your next technology or transformation hire. 

Andy Bristow 

Bristow Holland 

The IT Manager who always knows how to fix the problem is usually highly valued. 

They know the systems. They know the suppliers. Their team trusts them. When something goes wrong, they are often the person everyone calls. 

But what happens when that IT Manager wants to become a technology leader? 

The answer isn’t always straightforward. 

The experience that made them successful can sometimes keep them firmly in an operational role. They have become so good at solving today’s problems that they have had fewer opportunities to develop the skills needed to shape tomorrow’s technology strategy. 

The Go-To Person Problem 

Being the person everyone relies on feels like career progression. 

Sometimes, however, it creates a cycle. 

The IT Manager solves the difficult technical problem, so the business gives them the next difficult technical problem. They become increasingly valuable to day-to-day operations, but increasingly difficult to move away from them. 

Delegation becomes harder because they can often solve the problem faster themselves. 

Strategic work gets pushed back because there is always another operational issue that needs attention. 

Over time, the role can become defined by what the IT Manager personally fixes, rather than what they enable the wider organisation to achieve. 

That doesn’t make them a poor leader. 

It can simply mean that they have not been given enough opportunity to demonstrate leadership at the next level. 

Promotion Doesn’t Automatically Create Leadership Experience 

An organisation can promote an excellent IT Manager into a senior technology role and expect them to immediately operate strategically. 

But a new title doesn’t create experience that someone has never had the opportunity to gain. 

Someone might have spent years managing an IT team without ever: 

• presenting a technology investment case to senior leadership; 

• contributing to wider business planning; 

• owning a technology strategy; 

• making decisions alongside finance or operations; 

• managing a significant transformation programme; or 

• being accountable for business outcomes beyond the IT function. 

Those experiences are different from managing a successful IT operation. 

This is one reason career progression can stall even for highly capable IT professionals. 

The person may be ready to develop, but their current role has not required them to demonstrate the evidence that organisations look for in a technology leader. 

The Missing Step: Translation 

One of the most important transitions is learning to translate technical knowledge into business decisions. 

Consider the difference between: 

“Our infrastructure needs replacing.” 

and: 

“Our current infrastructure is creating operational risk and limiting our ability to scale. These are the options available, what each would cost and what we could expect from each approach.” 

The second statement doesn’t necessarily demonstrate greater technical knowledge. 

It demonstrates a different way of applying that knowledge. 

Technology leaders increasingly need to explain why something matters, what the alternatives are and what decision the business needs to make. 

That’s particularly important when working with senior stakeholders who may not have a technical background. 

The Experience Paradox 

There’s a frustrating problem for many IT professionals trying to move into technology leadership: 

They need strategic experience to get the role, but they often need the role to get strategic experience. 

An IT Manager may be capable of contributing to business strategy but have never been invited into those conversations. 

They may understand technology investment but have never owned an investment decision. 

They may have strong ideas about transformation but spend most of their time keeping existing systems operational. 

This creates a gap between potential and demonstrated experience. 

It also creates an opportunity for employers. 

Businesses don’t necessarily need to wait for someone to acquire a particular job title before giving them broader responsibility. 

An IT Manager can be given ownership of a transformation project, asked to contribute to business planning or be involved in investment decisions as part of their development. 

That can provide useful evidence of whether they are ready for the next step. 

Are Businesses Creating the Problem? 

Sometimes, the structure of the role itself makes progression difficult. 

A company may decide it needs an IT Director and promote its existing IT Manager. 

The title changes. 

The salary changes. 

The number of people reporting to them may change. 

But the expectations do not. 

They are still primarily measured on system uptime, support tickets, technical problems and keeping the IT function running. 

At the same time, the business expects them to become strategic. 

That creates a difficult contradiction. 

A technology leader needs enough time, authority and exposure to operate beyond day-to-day IT management. 

Without those things, even a highly capable person can remain trapped in the operational role that made them successful in the first place. 

Being Promoted and Being Ready Are Different Things 

This doesn’t mean every experienced IT Manager is ready to become a CTO or IT Director. 

Experience still matters. 

But the more useful question for an employer may not be: 

“Has this person already held the right title?” 

It could be: 

“What have they actually demonstrated?” 

For example, has the candidate: 

• influenced decisions outside the IT department? 

• made recommendations based on cost, risk and value? 

• managed competing business priorities? 

• led people through significant change? 

• developed other members of the team? 

• taken responsibility for an outcome rather than simply delivering a technical task? 

• challenged a technology decision when it did not make business sense? 

Those examples can tell an employer considerably more than a job title on its own. 

Don’t Hire the Title. Hire the Evidence. 

This is particularly important when recruiting senior technology professionals. 

A candidate who has already held an IT Director title may have extensive leadership experience. 

But someone who has never held that title may still have demonstrated many of the capabilities required to succeed in it. 

The reverse can also be true. 

A senior title doesn’t automatically tell an employer how broad someone’s responsibilities were, how much strategic influence they had or what decisions they were actually accountable for. 

Looking at evidence allows businesses to assess the person behind the title. 

It also gives ambitious IT Managers a clearer way to think about their own development. 

Instead of simply asking, “How do I get promoted?”, they can ask: 

“What experiences would demonstrate that I am ready for the next level?” 

That might mean taking responsibility for a business-wide project, contributing to financial decisions, developing other managers or becoming more involved in organisational planning. 

What This Means for IT Managers 

Moving from IT management into technology leadership doesn’t require abandoning technical expertise. 

That experience is still the foundation. 

The challenge is demonstrating that it can be applied at a broader level. 

For an IT Manager, that could mean deliberately looking for opportunities to: 

• influence decisions outside IT; 

• understand the commercial impact of technology; 

• take ownership of business outcomes; 

• delegate operational responsibilities; 

• develop other people rather than solving every problem personally; and 

• become involved earlier in business and technology decisions. 

The goal isn’t to stop being the person who understands the technology. 

It is to become the person who can help the organisation decide what to do with it. 

What Businesses Can Do Differently 

Employers also have a role to play. 

If an organisation wants to develop its next technology leader internally, it needs to create opportunities for that person to operate beyond the IT function. 

That could involve giving an IT Manager greater exposure to senior decision-making, involving them in investment discussions or allowing them to lead projects that affect the wider organisation. 

For recruitment, the same principle applies. 

Rather than filtering candidates primarily by title, businesses can look for evidence of the behaviours and outcomes they actually need. 

The right candidate may already be an IT Director. 

Or they may be an IT Manager who has been operating beyond the boundaries of their current job title. 

The important question isn’t simply where someone has been. 

It is what they have demonstrated they can do. 

From IT Manager to Technology Leader 

The transition from IT Manager to technology leader isn’t simply a promotion. 

It is a change in the type of problems someone is expected to solve. 

The IT Manager may be responsible for making sure the technology works. 

The technology leader needs to help determine how technology should support the organisation’s future. 

For some IT Managers, the biggest barrier to making that transition isn’t capability. 

It is that they have spent so long being excellent at the job they already have that they have not been given the opportunity to demonstrate what they could do next. 

For businesses, recognising that distinction can open up a much wider talent pool – and provide a better way of identifying future technology leaders. 

How Bristow Holland Can Help 

Identifying the right technology leader starts with understanding the outcomes the business needs from the role. 

Bristow Holland works with organisations across the East of England on senior technology, change and transformation appointments, helping businesses assess the experience and leadership capability required before beginning the recruitment process. 

If your organisation is looking for its next technology leader, speak to Andy Bristow about the experience and capability your business actually needs. 

Technology investment is often presented as a straightforward route to greater productivity. 

Buy better software. Move to the cloud. Automate repetitive work. Introduce AI. Improve access to data. 

But technology on its own does not make a business more productive. 

For many UK Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), the harder question is what happens after the technology has been bought. Digital adoption can give a business new capabilities, but those capabilities only create value when they improve the way people work and support what the business is trying to achieve. 

The UK Government’s 2026 SME Digital Adoption Taskforce update identifies capability, cost and awareness as important barriers to businesses adopting productivity-enhancing digital technology. 

The issue, then, is not simply whether UK SMEs are investing in technology. 

It is whether they have the capability to turn that investment into better ways of working. 

Technology Adoption Does Not Always Improve SME Productivity 

Digital technology is already deeply embedded in UK businesses. 

The 2026 UK Business Data Survey found that 86% of UK businesses handled digitised data during 2025 to 2026. Among businesses handling digitised data, 41% reported using AI for at least one purpose. 

Yet the picture changes when we look at what businesses are actually getting from that data. 

Only 8% of businesses said that data use led to more efficient internal processes always or most of the time, while 49% said it did not lead to greater efficiency at all. 

The figures also varied by business size. Large businesses were more likely to report that data use improved internal efficiency, with 29% selecting always or most of the time, compared with 11% of small businesses and 16% of medium-sized businesses. 

That does not mean technology is failing. 

It suggests that technology adoption and productivity improvement are two different things. 

A business can introduce new systems, collect more data and adopt AI without fundamentally changing how work gets done. 

Digital Adoption Is Different for UK SMEs 

This matters particularly for SMEs. 

A large organisation may have dedicated teams for transformation, data, architecture, change management and technology operations. It can afford to spend months examining a new platform and building the capability around it. 

A medium-sized business often cannot. 

The person responsible for technology may also be dealing with infrastructure, suppliers, cybersecurity, budgets, users and operational issues. The business may have no separate transformation team to take ownership of what happens next. 

That makes technology leadership particularly important for SMEs. 

Someone needs to understand not just what a technology does, but where it fits within the way the business operates. 

They also need to understand the practical realities of the organisation. A solution that works well for a large enterprise may be unnecessary, expensive or difficult to implement in a smaller business. 

For an SME, technology investment needs to have a clear connection to business priorities. 

SME Productivity Starts With the Process 

Before deciding which technology to introduce, businesses need to understand the process they are trying to improve. 

Where does the process begin? Who is involved? Where is information entered? Where is it copied? Where does someone have to wait for another person? Where are spreadsheets being used because existing systems do not provide what people need? Where are employees carrying out repetitive work that a system could handle? 

And perhaps most importantly, why does the process work this way in the first place? 

These questions can reveal that technology is not always the main constraint. 

Sometimes the process needs redesigning first. Sometimes two systems need integrating rather than replacing. Sometimes the business already owns the technology it needs but is not using it effectively. 

And sometimes the right answer is not to introduce another system at all. 

This is where effective digital transformation begins. It starts with understanding the business problem rather than choosing the technology first. 

Why AI Adoption Does Not Automatically Improve Productivity 

The rapid adoption of AI makes the distinction between technology adoption and business value even more important. 

The Office for National Statistics reported in July 2026 that the proportion of UK businesses with 10 or more employees reporting use of at least one AI technology had risen from around 12% in late 2023 to around 35% in June 2026. 

But adoption remains relatively shallow. The average number of AI technologies used by businesses that had adopted AI increased only modestly, from around 1.4 to 1.6. 

There’s nothing wrong with experimentation. Businesses need to understand where AI can be useful and where it cannot. 

But eventually the question becomes: what has actually changed? 

Has a process become faster? Has administrative work been reduced? Are employees spending more time on higher-value activities? Are decisions being made using better information? Has customer service improved? Has the business increased its capacity without increasing headcount at the same rate? 

Those are the measures that turn AI adoption into a business case. 

Without them, AI can become another technology investment that is difficult to connect to measurable productivity gains. 

SMEs Need Technology Leadership 

This is where technology leadership becomes more important. 

The person responsible for technology cannot simply be responsible for selecting systems and keeping them operational. 

They need to understand what the business is trying to achieve and identify where technology can contribute. 

That means working with finance, operations, sales, HR and customer-facing teams to understand their processes and challenges. 

It also means being able to challenge requests. 

A department may ask for a new system when what it really needs is a better process. Another may want AI because competitors are using it, when the underlying data is not sufficiently structured to make the proposed use effective. Another may be paying for several platforms that perform overlapping functions. 

A technology leader who understands the business can distinguish between buying technology and solving a business problem. 

That distinction becomes increasingly important as technology becomes more deeply embedded across the organisation. 

The Technology Leadership Gap Facing UK SMEs 

The SME Digital Adoption Taskforce update is particularly interesting here because one of the barriers it identifies is capability, alongside cost and awareness. 

The government has also conducted an eight-week discovery into how it could help SMEs adopt digital technology, including through a scalable online CTO function. The update says these services are being integrated into the Business Growth Service and Business.gov.uk. 

This points towards a broader issue. 

SMEs do not necessarily need more technology. They may need better access to the capability required to decide what technology they need, implement it effectively and make it part of the way the business operates. 

For some businesses, that capability may come from an internal technology leader. For others, it may involve external expertise or a combination of internal and external resources. 

The important point is that someone needs to own the connection between technology investment and business outcomes. 

What SMEs Need From Modern Technology Leaders 

This changes what businesses should expect from senior technology professionals. 

Implementation is important, but it is only one stage of the process. 

A modern technology leader should understand what the business wants to achieve, how its current processes support that objective and where technology can improve them. 

They should understand the financial case for investment and be able to measure whether the expected benefits have actually materialised. They should understand data, integration, security and operational risk. 

They also need to understand change. 

Employees do not automatically change the way they work because a new system has been installed. Processes may need to be redesigned, responsibilities may need to change and people need to understand why the change matters. 

This requires someone who can operate across both technology and the wider business. 

For SMEs in particular, that broader perspective can help ensure that technology investment remains connected to commercial priorities rather than becoming an isolated IT project. 

The Goal Is Better Business Performance, Not More Technology 

For UK SMEs, the objective should not be to become more digital simply for the sake of it. 

The objective is to become more effective. 

Sometimes technology will be the answer. Sometimes the answer will be changing a process. Sometimes it will be integrating systems. Sometimes it will be improving the quality of the data the business already has. Sometimes it will be removing unnecessary technology. 

The important thing is having someone capable of making that distinction. 

As technology becomes increasingly embedded in everyday business operations, the value of technology leadership will be measured less by how many systems a business has and more by what those systems enable it to achieve. 

For UK SMEs, the next stage of digital adoption is therefore unlikely to be simply about buying more technology. 

It will be about turning technology into better businesses. 

How Bristow Holland Can Help 

At Bristow Holland, we work with organisations across the technology and transformation landscape, including businesses looking at how their technology capability needs to evolve as they grow and change. 

Sometimes that means strengthening an existing IT function. Sometimes it means bringing technology and transformation together under broader leadership. And sometimes it means finding a senior technology professional who can connect systems, processes and technology investment with wider business objectives. 

If your organisation is reviewing its technology structure, planning digital transformation or considering the technology leadership it needs for its next stage of growth, we can help you understand what that role needs to deliver and the experience required to deliver it. 

Get in touch with Bristow Holland for a confidential conversation about your technology leadership requirements. 

Andy Bristow 

Bristow Holland 

Cybersecurity has traditionally been treated as a technology issue. IT teams manage systems, security specialists monitor threats, and technical teams respond when something goes wrong. 

That model is becoming harder to sustain. 

Technology now sits across almost every part of a business. Customer information, financial systems, operations, communications and supply chains all depend on digital infrastructure. As a result, a serious cyber incident can quickly become a business continuity, financial and reputational issue rather than an isolated IT problem. 

The UK’s approach to cyber resilience is reflecting this shift. The Government’s 2026 Cyber Resilience Pledge makes “cyber a Board responsibility”. Its first commitment: requiring participating organisations to implement the actions in the Cyber Governance Code of Practice and ensure board members undertake NCSC cyber-governance training. 

For businesses, particularly those going through digital transformation, the question is not whether cybersecurity matters. It’s who is accountable for it. 

Cyber Risk Is A Business Risk 

The scale of the problem makes this difficult to treat as purely technical. 

The UK’s 2025/2026 Cyber Security Breaches Survey found that 43% of businesses had experienced a cyber breach or attack during the previous 12 months. That included 65% of medium-sized businesses and 69% of large businesses. 

The same survey found that only 36% of businesses had a formal cyber security policy and just 25% had a formal incident response plan. It also found that the proportion of medium-sized businesses receiving cyber security updates at least annually at board level had fallen from 78% to 70%. 

These figures do not suggest that businesses are ignoring cybersecurity. They do, however, highlight a potential gap between having technical protections and having cyber risk properly embedded into organisational decision-making. 

A security team can identify vulnerabilities. It cannot, on its own, decide how much operational disruption the business can tolerate, which services are most critical or what level of investment is appropriate. 

Those are leadership decisions. 

The Board Does Not Need to Become a Security Team 

Making cybersecurity a leadership responsibility does not mean asking directors to become cybersecurity specialists. 

The NCSC’s Cyber Governance Code of Practice is specifically designed for boards and directors rather than the people responsible for day-to-day cyber security management. It focuses on governance, accountability, risk management, assurance and oversight. 

Senior leaders need enough understanding to ask the right questions and make informed decisions. They do not necessarily need to understand every technical control behind the answers. 

A board might reasonably ask: 

• What are our most important systems and data? 

• What would happen if one of them became unavailable? 

• Which risks are we actively managing, and which are we accepting? 

• How quickly could we recover from a serious incident? 

• Are our suppliers creating additional exposure? 

• Who has authority to make decisions during an incident? 

• Are we investing in the areas of greatest risk? 

The answers should come from the people with the relevant technical expertise. But leadership needs to understand what those answers mean for the organisation. 

Cybersecurity Extends Beyond the IT Department 

Modern businesses rarely operate entirely within their own technology environment. 

They depend on cloud platforms, software providers, managed services, payment systems, data suppliers and other third parties. Employees may also access business systems from different locations and devices. 

That makes the boundaries around cybersecurity less clear. 

The Government’s 2026 Cyber Security Longitudinal Survey found that 67% of medium and large businesses had at least one board member whose role included oversight of cyber security risks, while 71% had a designated cyber security staff member reporting directly to the board. 

External support can be valuable, but outsourcing a technical function does not necessarily outsource accountability. 

If a critical supplier suffers an incident, the consequences may still fall on the business and its customers. 

Leadership therefore needs visibility of the wider technology environment, not just the systems directly controlled by the internal IT team. 

The Role of Technology Leaders Is Changing Too 

This shift has implications for CIOs, CTOs, IT Directors and other technology leaders. 

They increasingly need to translate technical risk into business terms. 

That might mean explaining why a particular investment is necessary, helping the board understand a supplier risk, deciding where resilience needs strengthening or working with operational leaders to establish what should happen during an incident. 

The technology leader does not necessarily own every business risk. 

But they may be responsible for making sure the organisation understands the technology risks that contribute to those wider business risks. 

That requires a combination of technical knowledge, communication, commercial awareness and the ability to work across organisational boundaries. 

Cybersecurity should be considered when roles are designed 

This also raises a question for organisations reviewing their technology structures. 

As cyber risk becomes more closely connected to business operations, organisations need to consider whether their current leadership structure provides enough ownership and expertise. 

That does not automatically mean creating a new senior security position. 

For some businesses, responsibility may sit with an existing technology leader. Others may need dedicated security expertise, stronger governance or clearer responsibilities between technology and business functions. 

The important point is to define the requirement around the organisation’s actual risk and operating model. 

This is particularly relevant for growing businesses. A structure that was appropriate when an organisation had a small internal IT function may become less suitable as it introduces more cloud services, handles more data, expands its supplier network or becomes increasingly dependent on digital systems. 

Regulation Is Adding to the Pressure 

The UK’s Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is another indication that cyber resilience is becoming a broader organisational responsibility. 

As of September 2026, the Bill has completed its committee stage in the House of Lords. Parliamentary scrutiny has included proposed changes concerning incident reporting, data centres, service providers and the liability of senior executives. The Bill is intended to strengthen cyber security requirements for organisations providing essential services, update incident-reporting duties and bring additional sectors into the regulatory framework.  

The Bill is still progressing through Parliament, so organisations should not treat its proposed provisions as final requirements. Report Stage is currently scheduled for 26 October 2026.  

The broader direction is towards treating cyber security as an organisational resilience issue, with responsibilities extending beyond technical teams and into wider business oversight and accountability. 

The Right Question Is Ownership 

For technology leaders, the challenge is not to make everyone responsible for cybersecurity. 

It’s to make sure the right people are responsible for the right decisions. 

Technical teams need the expertise to identify and manage security risks. Business leaders need to understand how those risks could affect operations and make decisions about priorities and investment. Boards need sufficient oversight to challenge, support and hold the organisation accountable. 

That requires clear ownership rather than simply adding more processes. 

As technology becomes more deeply embedded in how businesses operate, cybersecurity becomes part of the wider conversation about resilience, risk and leadership. 

The organisations that manage this effectively will not necessarily be those with the largest security teams. They will be those that understand where responsibility sits, have the right expertise available and ensure cyber risk is considered alongside other important business decisions. 

Building The Right Technology Leadership Structure 

For businesses reviewing their technology organisation, cybersecurity is now part of a wider question: does the current leadership structure reflect the organisation’s reliance on technology and the risks that come with it? 

At Bristow Holland, we work with organisations across the technology and change landscape, helping them consider how their technology leadership needs to evolve as the business changes. 

That might mean strengthening an existing team, redefining responsibilities or introducing a new capability. The starting point is understanding what the organisation needs its technology leadership to achieve – including how it manages risk, resilience and security. 

If you’re considering your technology leadership structure, responsibilities or approach to cyber risk, I’d be happy to discuss what that could look like in practice.  

Contact me,  
Andy Bristow

Many businesses are reaching a point where their technology setup starts to feel wrong. 

The systems have multiplied. Different departments use different platforms. Employees have developed workarounds. The IT team is busy dealing with day-to-day problems, while the leadership team is asking bigger questions about automation, AI, efficiency and growth. 

At some point, the problem may not be the technology, it may be the structure around it. 

For a growing company, having a traditional IT function that operates separately from the wider business can make it harder to turn technology into a source of efficiency and growth. 

The question for CEOs is therefore worth asking: Does your technology leadership structure still match the business you are trying to build? 

Traditional IT Structures Are Changing 

Traditionally, IT had a fairly clear purpose. 

They were responsible for keeping systems running, maintaining secure networks, supporting employees and managing the hardware, software and suppliers needed to keep the business operating. These responsibilities remain essential. A business cannot function effectively if its technology is unreliable or insecure. 

But technology now reaches much further into the organisation. The Department for Business and Trade’s 2026 update on SME digital adoption highlights the role of digital technology in improving SME productivity and reports ongoing work to make adoption support more accessible to businesses. The update includes work on a scalable online CTO function to provide guidance and support to SMEs. 

That changes the leadership question. If technology affects the way almost every department works, should responsibility for technology leadership sit entirely within an IT function? 

Technology Leaders Need to Understand Business Strategy 

A modern technology leader should understand not only which systems the business uses, but why they are being used and what they contribute to the organisation. 

That means being involved in conversations about business strategy, operational efficiency, customer experience, data and growth. Whether the business is entering new markets, looking to reduce administrative costs, improve customer service or introduce AI, technology should be considered as part of the wider solution. 

The technology leader should be able to identify where technology can create genuine value and where it may not be the answer. 

This is a much broader responsibility than traditional IT management. 

Digital Transformation Needs Long-Term Technology Ownership 

One of the problems with treating digital transformation as a separate project is that transformation eventually has to become normal business operations. 

A new platform gets implemented. 

A process gets redesigned. 

Automation is introduced. 

Employees are trained. 

The project is declared complete. 

Then what? 

Someone still has to own the technology, measure whether it is delivering the expected benefit and identify what should happen next. 

Digital transformation is not simply about implementing a new system and moving on. As technology becomes more closely connected to business strategy, organisations need ongoing technology leadership. The UK Government’s 2026 Chief Digital and Data Leader Programme reflects this broader approach, helping experienced technologists develop the strategic, commercial and leadership skills needed for senior digital and technology roles. 

This creates a strong case for bringing the responsibilities together. 

Rather than having one person responsible for keeping IT operational and another responsible for transforming the business through technology, a growing SME may benefit from a broader technology leadership role. 

How a Technology Leader Can Connect IT and Business Strategy 

For a medium-sized business, this does not necessarily mean building a large digital department. 

In fact, efficiency can mean doing the opposite. 

A single senior Digital Transformation or Technology leader can own the relationship between business strategy and technology. 

They don’t need to personally manage every support issue, device or technical incident. 

Operational responsibility can sit with IT team leaders and specialists. 

That creates a different structure. 

The senior leader looks ahead. 

The operational team keeps the business running. 

The two functions remain connected because they ultimately sit within the same technology strategy. 

What Should CEOs Look for in a Technology Leader? 

The title matters less than the capability. 

A business does not necessarily need a traditional IT manager with a new job title. 

Nor does it necessarily need a large-company CIO. 

It needs someone who can understand the organisation’s strategy and determine how technology can help deliver it. 

That person should be able to move comfortably between the boardroom and the technology team. 

They should understand enough about infrastructure, cybersecurity, systems and technical risk to make informed decisions. 

But they should also understand processes, commercial priorities, budgets, people and change. 

Most importantly, they should be able to explain why a technology decision matters to the business. 

The UK’s 2026 SME Digital Adoption Taskforce update is telling in this respect. The government has completed an 8-week discovery into using a scalable online CTO function to help SMEs adopt digital technology, with services being integrated into the Business Growth Service and Business.gov.uk. 

The underlying problem is not simply access to technology. 

It’s access to the capability to use technology well. 

Signs Your IT Structure Is Holding Your Business Back 

There are some straightforward warning signs: 

Your IT manager spends most of their time dealing with operational issues and has little time for strategic work. 

Technology projects are initiated by individual departments without a clear overall roadmap. 

The business systems are poorly integrated with many overlapping workflows. 

Employees regularly duplicate information between systems. 

The leadership team discusses business strategy without involving technology leadership. 

The IT function is measured primarily on whether things are working rather than whether technology is improving the business. 

Transformation projects are treated as temporary initiatives with no clear long-term owner. 

Or perhaps the simplest sign is this: 

You have technology everywhere, but nobody clearly owns how technology should help the business perform better. 

If that sounds familiar, adding another system may not be the answer. 

Changing the leadership structure might be. 

Why SMEs May Need Smaller, More Strategic Technology Teams 

Technology does not necessarily require a larger headcount as it becomes more important. 

It can require better allocation of responsibility. 

Modern platforms can reduce the amount of internal resource required for routine infrastructure and support. Automation can reduce manual work. Managed services can provide specialist capabilities where maintaining them internally would not make sense. 

That can allow the business to put more emphasis on the person connecting technology to strategy. 

The result may be a relatively lean technology function led by someone with a much broader remit, supported by operational team leaders and specialists. 

For a medium-sized business, that can be more efficient than maintaining separate layers of IT management and digital transformation leadership. 

How CEOs Can Build a Future-Ready Technology Function 

The issue is not whether your current IT manager is good enough. 

They may be excellent at what they do. 

The question is whether the role itself is still broad enough for what the business needs. 

Technology is no longer simply the function that keeps computers and systems running. 

It increasingly shapes how the business operates. 

That means someone needs to own the connection between business strategy, processes, people and technology. 

For some SMEs, that may mean developing an existing IT leader into a broader technology leadership role. 

For others, it may mean hiring someone with transformation experience who can take ownership of both strategic technology and operational delivery. 

Either way, the objective is the same: 

Technology should not simply support the business. It should help the business deliver its strategy. 

At Bristow Holland, we specialise in senior technology leadership across the East of England and increasingly we’re helping businesses think through exactly this challenge. 

Sometimes the answer is developing the technology leadership capability already within the business. Sometimes it’s redefining an existing role. And sometimes it’s bringing in a different type of technology leader altogether. 

If you’re a CEO, CFO or business leader questioning whether your current technology structure is right for where the business is heading, get in touch with me for a confidential conversation. 

Andy Bristow 

Bristow Holland 

Technology leadership used to be relatively easy to define. 

The senior technology person looked after the systems, infrastructure, users and technical team. They kept the network running, maintained systems, resolved problems, managed suppliers and made sure the business had the technology it needed to operate. 

Those responsibilities still matter. But for many UK businesses, particularly growing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), they are no longer enough. 

Technology now touches almost every part of a business: how employees work, how customers interact with it, how information moves between departments, how decisions are made and how efficiently processes operate. 

As a result, the question being asked of technology leaders is changing. 

It is no longer simply: 

“How do we keep IT running?” 

CEOs and CFOs increasingly want to know: 

“How can technology help us run this business better?” 

How can we get greater visibility from our data? Where can we automate manual processes? How can AI genuinely improve the way we operate? How can systems work together more effectively? And where should we invest to support growth? 

That requires a broader type of technology leader. 

Technology Leaders Need to Understand Business Strategy 

The UK government is also recognising the importance of helping SMEs adopt technology more effectively. The Department for Business and Trade’s 2026 update on the SME Digital Adoption Taskforce reports progress on measures to improve SME digital adoption, while the taskforce’s earlier recommendations included a scalable CTO-as-a-service model providing AI-powered guidance and support to SMEs.

That reflects a much wider change in how technology is viewed. 

Technology can no longer sit neatly in its own department while the rest of the business decides what it wants to achieve. 

It increasingly forms part of how the business achieves those objectives. 

A business trying to reduce costs might need automation and better-integrated systems. 

A business trying to improve customer service might need better access to data and a more joined-up customer journey. 

A business trying to grow might need scalable platforms, improved reporting and processes that do not depend on spreadsheets and manual workarounds. 

These are business challenges, not simply IT projects. 

The technology leader therefore needs to understand the strategy of the organisation before deciding what technology it needs. 

Keeping the Lights On Is No Longer Enough 

None of this makes operational technology expertise obsolete. 

A credible technology leader still needs to understand infrastructure, cybersecurity, applications, suppliers, resilience and operational risk. If the technology does not work, everything else becomes academic. 

But that should be the foundation of the role, not its limit. 

Traditionally, the senior technology person might have focused primarily on: 

“Are our systems working properly?” 

Today’s technology leader also needs to ask: 

“Are these the right systems, supporting the right processes, to help us achieve what the business is trying to achieve?” 

That means looking beyond the technology itself. 

Why does the business operate this process in this way? 

Why are people exporting information into spreadsheets? 

Why are employees manually transferring data between systems? 

Are we getting enough value from the technology we already own? 

Could automation remove repetitive work? 

Could better data help management make faster decisions? 

Where could AI genuinely improve productivity? 

And will the way we operate today still work if the business doubles in size? 

These are business questions with technology answers. 

Technology Leaders Need a Seat at the Table 

This is perhaps the biggest change. 

The senior technology leader cannot spend their entire working life inside the technology function. 

They need to be able to sit with the CEO, CFO and other business leaders, understand what the organisation is trying to achieve and help determine how technology can support, and sometimes enable, those ambitions. 

That requires commercial understanding. 

It means understanding how the business makes money, where it loses time, what its customers value, how its major processes work and how management measures performance. 

From there, the technology leader can translate business objectives into a technology roadmap. 

If the objective is reducing operating costs, where can processes be simplified or automated? 

If the objective is growth, what needs to scale? 

If management wants better information, what is preventing the business from getting it today? 

If AI is on the agenda, where can it produce measurable value rather than simply introducing another piece of software? 

The conversation moves from managing technology to improving the business through technology. 

Technology Leaders Also Need to Deliver Transformation 

Having the strategy is only half the job. 

Someone also needs to make it happen. 

Technology transformation rarely succeeds simply because a new system has been purchased. Processes change. Responsibilities change. Systems need integrating. Data needs improving. Employees need training. And, sometimes, established ways of working need challenging.

The modern technology leader therefore needs to be capable of leading change across the organisation. 

They need the credibility to work with technical specialists and suppliers, but also the communication and stakeholder skills to influence people who may have little interest in the technology itself. 

That is where the traditional distinction between technology leadership and digital transformation starts to become blurred. 

SMEs May Not Need Separate Technology and Transformation Leaders 

For larger organisations, separate CIO, CTO, technology operations and transformation functions can make perfect sense. 

For many SMEs, they may not. 

A £50m or £100m business may not need one senior person responsible for keeping technology running and another senior person responsible for changing how the business uses technology. 

It may need one strong technology leader capable of doing both. 

Operational technology does not disappear. 

Infrastructure, support, security, service delivery and applications still need managing. But much of that day-to-day responsibility can sit with capable team leaders, technical specialists, managed-service providers and other suppliers. 

The senior technology leader remains accountable for it without needing to personally live inside every operational issue.

That creates the capacity to work across the wider business: understanding strategy, identifying opportunities, setting the technology roadmap and then leading its delivery. 

What Does This Mean for Today’s Technology Leaders? 

For experienced technology leaders, this change represents an opportunity. 

Years spent running technology environments provide valuable foundations: understanding risk, knowing what good service looks like, dealing with suppliers, managing technical teams and understanding what happens when technology goes wrong. 

But that’s becoming the starting point rather than the complete job. 

Technology leaders need to understand how the business makes money. 

They need to understand its major processes across finance, sales, operations, HR and customer service. 

They need to understand how the CFO thinks about investment and return, and the measures the board uses to judge business performance. 

They need to become curious about why departments operate as they do, rather than simply supporting the systems they currently use. 

Then they need to connect technology decisions to those outcomes. 

The UK Government’s Chief Digital and Data Leader Programme reflects a similar direction, helping experienced technical professionals develop the strategic, commercial and leadership skills needed to move into senior digital and technology leadership roles.

Technical knowledge remains an asset. 

But technical knowledge combined with commercial understanding and the ability to deliver change is what defines an effective technology leader. 

The Future of Technology Leadership 

Technology leadership is not becoming less technical. 

It is becoming broader. 

Businesses still need leaders who understand operational technology. They still need secure infrastructure, reliable systems, effective support and sensible technical governance. 

What is becoming harder to justify is stopping there. 

For many SMEs, the technology leader of the future will need to operate in both worlds. 

They need to understand the technology well enough to ensure the business can depend on it. 

They need to understand the business well enough to know what needs to change. 

They need to sit alongside the CEO and CFO and help determine where technology can improve performance, increase efficiency and support growth. 

And then they need to be capable of leading that transformation throughout the organisation. 

Keeping the lights on is still part of the job. 

But the real value of technology leadership lies in helping decide where the business goes next – and using technology to help get it there. 

At Bristow Holland, we work with technology professionals across the East of England, from IT and infrastructure leadership through to technology, transformation and delivery roles.

If you’re an experienced IT manager or technology leader thinking about what the next stage of your career looks like, it may be time to consider how your role is evolving alongside the businesses you support. That could mean taking on greater strategic responsibility, moving closer to digital transformation, or finding a role where your technical and commercial experience can have a broader impact.

If you’re considering your next move or simply want to understand how your experience fits the changing technology leadership market, get in touch with us for a confidential conversation.

Andy Bristow

Bristow Holland

Entry-level technology jobs have traditionally given people a way into the industry. Graduates, apprentices and career changers could start with junior responsibilities, build practical experience and gradually take on more complex work.

Artificial intelligence may be changing that pathway.

AI tools can now assist with tasks that once provided some of the earliest opportunities for junior technology professionals, particularly in areas such as coding, testing, research and data analysis.

That doesn’t mean entry-level technology jobs are disappearing. It does mean employers may need to rethink what they expect from junior candidates and how they develop people once they join.

Is AI Reducing Entry-Level Technology Jobs?

There is evidence that entry-level hiring has become more difficult in the UK, but it would be too early to say that AI is solely responsible.

A June 2026 UK Government analysis of entry-level hiring found that hiring had weakened across the wider labour market. Of 38 entry-level occupations tracked in the analysis, 30 were declining. Software Engineer hiring had fallen by 27%, while Data Analyst hiring had fallen by 15%.

The same research found that the roles experiencing the sharpest declines were often those where AI capabilities had advanced significantly. However, the report specifically warns that this does not establish a causal relationship between AI and the decline in hiring.

Technology hiring has been affected by wider economic and labour market conditions, so organisations should avoid assuming that every reduction in junior recruitment results from automation.

What Happens When AI Can Do Junior-Level Tasks?

The bigger question may not be whether AI eliminates entry-level jobs.

It may be whether AI changes the work that junior employees traditionally did.

A junior Software Engineer might previously have spent considerable time writing straightforward code, fixing relatively simple issues or carrying out repetitive testing. AI tools can now assist with some of those activities.

That creates an interesting problem for employers.

Junior roles have never existed only to complete routine tasks. They have also provided a structured way for people to develop professional judgement, learn how systems work and gain experience from more senior colleagues.

If AI removes some of the simpler work, employers need to consider how junior professionals will develop those skills.

The answer may be to give entry-level employees different responsibilities rather than simply reducing the number of junior roles.

Will Entry-Level Technology Roles Need Different Skills?

The skills expected from junior technology professionals may increasingly extend beyond basic technical knowledge. As AI becomes part of everyday technology work, entry-level employees may also need enough AI literacy to use these tools effectively and understand their limitations.

For example, a junior developer may use AI-assisted development tools as part of their workflow, while a junior Data Analyst may use AI to support analysis and still need to check whether the results are accurate and relevant. In other technology roles, junior professionals may need to recognise when AI-generated output requires further investigation or human review.

The key skill is not simply knowing how to use an AI tool. It is understanding when to use it, how to evaluate what it produces and when human judgement is still required.

Could Employers Expect More From Junior Candidates?

There is a risk that changing technology could encourage employers to raise entry-level requirements rather than rethink the role.

A vacancy might begin as a junior Software Engineer position but gradually accumulate requirements for commercial experience, cloud platforms, AI tools, multiple programming languages and previous experience working in a professional development environment.

That creates a difficult contradiction.

If employers expect entry-level candidates to arrive with the capabilities of experienced professionals, they reduce the number of realistic entry points into the technology sector.

The problem is particularly significant when employers need experienced candidates because they have less capacity to train junior employees.

Hiring teams should therefore distinguish between what a candidate needs to know before joining and what they need to learn after joining.

A junior employee does not need to arrive fully formed. They need enough foundation to contribute, learn and develop.

What Could Entry-Level Technology Roles Look Like?

Entry-level roles may become less focused on completing predictable tasks and more focused on learning how to manage technology effectively.

That could mean junior employees spend more time reviewing AI-generated work, investigating problems, supporting senior professionals, testing systems, documenting decisions and learning how technology affects wider business processes.

The balance will vary by role.

A junior Software Engineer might need stronger code-review and debugging skills alongside programming knowledge. A junior Cybersecurity professional might spend more time investigating alerts and validating automated findings. A junior Data professional might need to focus more heavily on interpreting results and checking data quality.

These are still entry-level responsibilities.

They simply reflect a workplace where AI handles more of the routine activity.

Does This Make Junior Talent More Valuable?

It could.

Skills England’s 2026 analysis of the digital and technologies sector expects substantial growth across priority occupations and identifies higher-than-average proficiency in core skills such as problem-solving and decision-making, digital literacy, and learning and investigating.

The same assessment describes AI-driven changes in technology work, including a shift away from some routine coding and testing towards oversight, verification, communication and judgement.

That could increase the importance of people who can develop those capabilities over time.

For employers, the opportunity is to think about junior hiring as part of a longer-term talent pipeline rather than simply a way to fill lower-cost positions.

Someone who enters a technology team with strong fundamentals and develops alongside changing tools may become more valuable as their experience grows.

How Should Employers Hire Junior Technology Talent?

The first step is to define what the junior employee will actually do.

Employers should identify the technical foundations that matter, the responsibilities the person can reasonably take on and the skills they can develop through training and experience.

AI capability can then be assessed as part of that wider picture.

The candidate may not need specialist AI expertise. They may simply need enough understanding to use AI tools responsibly, question their output and continue developing their technical judgement.

This approach can also help employers avoid creating unrealistic entry-level vacancies.

If every junior role requires previous professional experience, advanced AI knowledge and multiple technical specialisms, employers risk shrinking the very talent pipeline they will eventually depend on.

Could AI Change the Meaning of “Entry-Level”?

It probably will.

Entry-level may increasingly describe a person’s stage of professional development rather than the simplicity of the tasks they perform.

A junior employee could work with sophisticated AI tools from their first day while still developing the judgement and experience needed to operate independently.

That creates a different model of progression.

Instead of starting with simple work and gradually moving towards more advanced tools, new professionals may work with advanced tools immediately while learning how to evaluate, manage and apply them effectively.

The responsibility for developing that capability will not sit entirely with candidates.

Employers will also need to create roles that allow junior professionals to learn.

The Future of Entry-Level Technology Hiring

AI may change what “entry-level” means in technology, but the bigger question for employers is whether their hiring and development practices change with it.

If the pathway into technology becomes narrower, organisations could make future skills shortages harder to solve. Employers that continue to create realistic entry points and develop people early in their careers will be better placed to build the talent they need as technology evolves.

The challenge is not simply deciding which tasks AI can perform. It is deciding how people at the beginning of their careers will gain the experience needed to become the technology professionals of the future.