Industry Insights

Hiring accountants is meant to be objective, but research shows that first impressions—based on faces, voices, and even names—often influence decisions before real skills are evaluated. 

AI is transforming accounting by automating much of the technical work that traditionally trained new accountants, such as reconciliations and preparing accounts. While this increases efficiency, it also removes the hands-on experience that historically helped professionals develop judgment, pattern recognition, and a deep understanding of financial information. Without spending years working through the numbers, future accountants may enter advisory roles earlier but lack the experience needed to interpret business context and ask the right questions. As a result, the profession may face an “experience gap,” where professionals are skilled at using AI but less familiar with how financial data is built and understood. To address this, firms will need to intentionally redesign how accountants develop—through mentoring, real business exposure, and critical thinking about financial insights—ensuring that human expertise continues to complement advancing technology.

Although only 2% of accountants reach partner level, research from the BDO Alliance USA Emerging Leaders program shows there is no single “ideal” personality type that determines leadership success. Emerging leaders were not significantly different from the broader accountant population; they were simply slightly stronger in areas like calmness, self-confidence, and teamwork, while tending to score lower in emotional stability — particularly resilience under pressure.

Many organizations assume that bigger bonuses lead to better performance. However, research suggests the link isn’t that simple. For accounting firms, the takeaway is clear: bonuses may change behavior, but they don’t necessarily improve results. They can undermine intrinsic motivation, fuel internal competition, and fail to lift high performers.

Performance conversations are a normal part of leadership — uncomfortable but necessary. However, before addressing underperformance, leaders should first reflect on their own role in the situation. Performance is shaped by clarity, workload, support, alignment, and leadership — not just individual effort.

Hiring offshore accounting staff carries the same risks as in-office hiring—but often with higher hidden costs. A bad hire leads to lost productivity, rework, frustrated managers, and strained client relationships, and these issues can be amplified in remote settings.

AI hiring has entered a new regulatory era. A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in California against Eightfold AI alleges that its hiring algorithms evaluated candidates using hidden scores, sensitive personal data, and opaque processes—without disclosure, consent, or the ability for applicants to review or challenge the results. The case claims potential violations of U.S. consumer-protection laws, fair employment regulations, and, for non-U.S. use, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.

Accounting firms are turning to AI to ease talent shortages and improve efficiency, but this shift increases—not reduces—the importance of strong hiring decisions. As AI handles routine tasks, accountants must focus more on judgment, critical thinking, ethics, and clear communication—skills that are hard to assess through Resumes and interviews alone.

The story of “Winston” illustrates the high cost of a bad hire in accounting. Despite a strong, AI-polished resume and confident interview, Winston lacked core technical skills, which became obvious within weeks. After failed improvement efforts, he was terminated, forcing the firm to restart the hiring process. Bad hires are common, damaging morale and productivity, and can cost at least 150% of salary—made worse by firms delaying tough decisions.

The piece argues that modern hiring has become distorted by AI. Employers use AI to improve job descriptions and screen applications, while candidates use the same tools to tailor resumes and cover letters—sometimes embellishing them. This results in “perfect” applications that reflect AI skill rather than real capability, while more authentic candidates are disadvantaged.

When two top candidates make it to the final stage, choosing between them can be surprisingly difficult — and waiting too long risks losing both. To decide with confidence, take a long-term view by considering each candidate’s future growth potential, not just their ability to fill today’s needs. Look closely at cultural fit by having them interact with your team to see who aligns best with your workplace environment. Use objective testing — technical, cognitive, and personality — to gain an evidence-based comparison beyond interviews and résumés. And if both candidates are truly outstanding, consider whether hiring both could be a strategic advantage, depending on budget and workload. If you do select only one, keep the other warm through ongoing connection, as they may be a strong future hire.

The blog outlines two effective ways to integrate pre-hire testing into your recruitment process to improve decision-making and reduce time spent on unsuitable candidates. Both strategies lead to faster, more focused hiring and can result in offers being made within a week. The post invites readers to share their hiring processes via a LinkedIn poll and offers support for firms wanting help with testing.