What I'm Hearing About AI in Accounting (And What It Signals to Employers)

About ten years ago, I sat in an IMA meeting where someone mentioned moving accounting systems to the cloud. I remember a partner from a CPA firm being adamant: “My clients will never do that. Everything stays in‑house. It’s about control.”

I’m hearing almost the exact same language now when AI comes up in conversations with Controllers and accounting managers. “We don’t need that.” “It’s not ready for serious work.” “Our way works fine.”

I’m not an expert on AI in accounting—that’s not my lane. But I am noticing a pattern in who I’m able to place easily versus who’s struggling to get interviews.

The candidates who are exploring these tools, even cautiously, are getting more interest from companies. The ones who dismiss them outright are finding fewer opportunities. Not because companies expect them to be AI experts, but because the resistance signals something about adaptability.

I had a Controller candidate recently who was very qualified technically—CPA, solid background, good systems knowledge. When we talked about their approach to new technology, they said something like, “I don’t trust anything I can’t verify manually. AI makes too many mistakes.”

Fair concern. But when I submitted them to a manufacturing company looking for a Controller, the CFO asked during the interview about their experience with automated tools. The candidate’s answer was defensive—focused on all the reasons automation can’t be trusted rather than how they’ve evaluated and used it where it makes sense.

They didn’t get the offer. The CFO told me later, “I need someone who’ll help us work smarter, not someone who’ll defend why we should keep doing things the hard way.”

That’s not really about AI. It’s about whether someone approaches new challenges with curiosity or resistance. I’m seeing the same thing with communication skills.

The Controllers I place successfully aren’t necessarily the ones with the most technical credentials. They’re the ones who can explain financial information to people who aren’t accountants. When I ask them to describe a time they had to communicate something complex to a non‑financial colleague, they have clear examples. They understand that being right technically doesn’t matter if nobody can use the information.

The ones who struggle in interviews often can’t do this. They assume everyone understands accounting terminology. Or they get frustrated when asked to simplify things. They’re technically strong, but they can’t translate that knowledge into language the rest of the business can use.

I’m not saying every Controller needs to become an AI expert or a communications specialist overnight. I’m saying the market is rewarding people who are open to new tools and can work effectively with non‑finance colleagues. The ones resisting both are finding it harder to land roles, especially at growing companies.

The companies calling me right now aren’t asking for candidates with ten years of AI experience—that doesn’t exist. They’re asking for people who are curious, adaptable, and can help the business make better decisions. Technical skills are assumed. What differentiates candidates is everything else.

If you’re a Controller or accounting manager looking for your next role, pay attention to how you talk about new technology and how you describe working with non‑accounting colleagues. If your default response to new tools is skepticism and your explanation of financial concepts is heavy on jargon, that’s showing up in interviews—and it’s costing you opportunities.

If you’re hiring, ask candidates how they’ve evaluated new tools or processes, even if they decided not to adopt them. Ask them to explain something complex in simple terms. The answers will tell you more about how they’ll perform than their technical credentials.

I’ve been doing this long enough to recognize when I’m seeing a shift. This feels like one. The candidates who understand it are landing better roles faster. The ones who don’t are wondering why it’s taking so long.