How AI Is Reshaping Careers, Salaries, and Hiring

A strong résumé used to help you stand out. Now, hundreds of people applying for the same job can produce one in minutes. For employers, that means more applications to review. For candidates, it means looking qualified on paper is only the beginning.

On the Founder2Founder podcast, Aaron Spivak sits down with recruiter Mateo Polic to discuss what this shift looks like inside businesses. Their conversation covers falling salary offers, smaller teams, changing expectations for senior employees, and the relationships that still open doors. Drawing on his recruiting experience, Polic describes a market where past success matters, but employers increasingly want proof of what someone can do today.

More Applications, Less Room to Stand Out

When Polic started recruiting around thirteen years ago, he would typically see between 60 and 100 applicants for a job. Today, he says that number can reach 500 to 1,000. Those figures reflect his experience, but they explain the frustration running through the conversation. Applying has become more convenient while getting noticed has become harder.

Spivak has seen the same problem when hiring for his businesses. Applications arrive in huge numbers, and many résumés sound as though they came from the same tool. He describes losing interest when the writing feels generic. A polished document offers little reassurance if it reveals almost nothing about the person behind it.

Polic’s advice is to move beyond submitting an application and waiting. A relevant introduction, a thoughtful message, or a conversation at an industry event can give a hiring manager more context. The aim is to show genuine interest and a reason to talk. Persistence helps when it remains polite and purposeful.

For someone applying, that could mean explaining one relevant project instead of repeating a list of strengths. Describe the problem, your contribution, and what changed because of your work. Give the reader something they can ask you about in an interview. Specific details make it easier to see where you might fit.

Relationships Can Succeed Where Messages Fail

Spivak shares the story of someone who eventually joined the Founders Club team after years of trying to connect. Only after the hire did Spivak discover roughly ten LinkedIn messages from that person. The messages had gone unnoticed. What changed the outcome was meeting other team members at an event.

The candidate stayed in contact, arranged conversations, and developed relationships before a suitable position opened. When a role became available, he reached back out through those connections. By then, he was more than a name in an inbox. People on the team had already spent time with him.

The story gives Polic’s advice some weight. A missed message does not necessarily mean rejection, and sending more of the same message may not solve the problem. A different approach can create a better opening. Building relationships also takes patience, especially when the company does not have an immediate vacancy.

Why Some Salary Offers Are Falling

Polic says he has seen compensation fall for some development and growth marketing roles. Developers he previously placed above $200,000 may now receive offers closer to $150,000 to $170,000. He also describes growth marketing directors who once commanded $200,000 to $250,000 facing lower offers. These are examples from his placements, rather than salary benchmarks for every employer.

Spivak offers a similar observation from customer experience leadership. In his experience, tools and automation have changed how much specialist knowledge a company needs to build an effective support operation. That can change the budget attached to leading it. The responsibilities may still matter even when the employer believes they require fewer resources.

For professionals, the difficult part is that previous compensation does not guarantee the next offer. Polic’s examples show employers reconsidering what they will pay for particular capabilities. Candidates need to explain the outcomes they can produce under current conditions. Years of experience become more persuasive when connected to specific business results.

Sales Still Offers Opportunity, With Conditions

Asked where strong earning opportunities remain, Polic points to sales. He mentions a young salesperson earning close to $250,000 while selling an AI product. He also describes account executive roles where commission can substantially increase earnings beyond the base salary. His point is that businesses still value people who can bring in revenue.

Spivak adds an important distinction between possible earnings and guaranteed pay. He recalls speaking with someone excited about a sales opportunity supposedly worth $700,000. The base salary was actually $80,000, and nobody had achieved the larger figure being discussed. The headline number depended on performance that had not been demonstrated.

That difference matters when comparing opportunities. A candidate should understand the product, the commission structure, and whether the sales targets are realistic. Spivak also stresses the importance of believing in what you sell. A large commission loses its appeal if making the sale damages customer trust and your own reputation.

Smaller Teams Are Changing the Work

One of Polic’s most striking examples involves a company where his agency helped hire almost fifty developers over several years. He says the business later reduced that team to around six or seven. According to its engineering leader, experienced developers using AI tools could handle work that previously required a much larger group. It is one company’s account, but it illustrates the scale of change he is seeing.

Spivak raises a concern about what happens beneath those senior positions. If companies remove junior roles, where will future senior employees gain experience? People develop judgement by working through problems, making mistakes, and learning from colleagues. A smaller payroll today can leave difficult questions about the talent pipeline tomorrow.

The conversation also challenges the assumption that smaller teams automatically make leadership easier. Someone still needs to understand the work, review outputs, and take responsibility for results. AI may change how tasks get completed. It does not remove the need to decide whether the finished work serves the business.

There is also a difference between knowing that AI tools exist and knowing where they help in your own work. The latter takes practice and a willingness to check the results. That practical understanding is what makes the technology useful to a team. Simply adding AI to a résumé says very little about that ability.

Seniority Now Comes With Different Expectations

Polic sees a growing demand for leaders who can plan and execute. A marketing executive may need to choose a direction, then work directly inside advertising platforms. Someone accustomed to delegating that work can find the change uncomfortable. The role still involves strategy, but the distance between leadership and delivery is shrinking.

He describes an experienced marketing professional who had previously found a role quickly but was now struggling after months without work. She understood strategy, yet employers wanted practical familiarity with newer channels and campaign tools. Her financial responsibilities made the uncertainty especially painful. The story shows how changing requirements can disrupt an established career.

Although the speakers discuss this through a generational lens, the useful distinction is about current capability. Age alone does not explain whether someone can use a tool or deliver a campaign. Experienced professionals can strengthen their position by staying involved in execution. Employers, in turn, need to assess demonstrated ability rather than assume it from someone’s age.

Work Frustration Can Extend Beyond the Office

The discussion broadens into how professionals feel about their prospects in Canada. Polic describes a client whose employee survey results differed sharply between Canadian and American team members. In his account, follow-up conversations suggested some frustration came from the wider environment. Employees were worried about opportunity and life outside their immediate roles.

Both speakers connect their concerns to personal experiences of living and building businesses in Canada. Polic remembers arriving from Croatia with limited money and finding a place where he could build a career. His disappointment is tied to that earlier sense of possibility. Their comments express personal perspectives, rather than a comprehensive picture of either country.

For employers, the relevant lesson is to ask what is behind declining morale. An employee may like their manager and still feel anxious about their future. A satisfaction score alone will not explain that difference. Direct conversations can help leaders understand which concerns they can meaningfully address.

Why Fractional Leadership Appeals to Both Sides

Polic says he is seeing more professionals offer their services as fractional executives. Instead of joining one business full time, they provide leadership to companies for part of their working week or for a defined period. A business can access experienced support without immediately committing to a permanent executive position. The professional gains another route to paid work.

This comes up as Spivak discusses people creating opportunities for themselves. Polic adds that some new businesses may represent experienced workers setting up companies to deliver fractional services. That makes the story more complicated than a sudden wave of people launching large ventures. Some are changing how they sell their existing expertise.

The attraction is understandable for both sides. Employers want to manage the risk of an expensive appointment, while professionals want to keep their experience useful and their income moving. The arrangement still needs clear expectations. A smaller commitment does not remove the need to agree on responsibilities and results.

For a founder, clarity should begin before the vacancy is advertised. If the business needs someone to manage strategy and build campaigns, say so from the beginning. Otherwise, both sides can spend weeks discussing different versions of the same job. A familiar title does not necessarily communicate what the company now expects.

A Bad Hire Costs More Than Salary

Spivak challenges the habit of calculating hiring risk through wages alone. A founder might assume that trying someone for three months limits the potential loss to their pay and related expenses. But the role exists because the business needs something to happen. If it does not happen, the cost can extend well beyond payroll.

Polic points to delayed growth, replacement searches, recruitment fees, and the time required to recover. A leadership mistake may also affect the people working under that person. Those consequences are harder to calculate, but they matter. His broader point is that avoiding a rushed appointment can save more than negotiating a lower salary.

When evaluating candidates, he wants to understand what they have actually achieved. How did they help a company grow, and which decisions were theirs? He also discusses speaking with former colleagues to understand how someone works. Strong interviews become more useful when backed by concrete examples and relevant references.

Your Team May Know Your Next Hire

Spivak describes a founder who regularly asks employees to identify people they enjoyed working with and rate their experience. Over time, repeated recommendations help the business spot potential recruits. Instead of starting every search from scratch, the company builds knowledge through its existing team. People who have worked together can offer context that a résumé cannot.

The approach also recognises that employees care about their colleagues. Bringing in someone they trust can make collaboration more appealing from the start. Polic compares the process to the relationship building he does as a recruiter. The company is using its own network to find people worth approaching.

The practical lesson is to ask specific questions about former teammates. Who delivered strong work, handled pressure well, or made others better? Recommendations can provide a useful starting point for assessment. They become more valuable when people explain why they would want to work together again.

Consistent Effort Still Has Value

Near the end, Polic reflects on playing basketball and the discipline of repeated training. Spivak connects that experience to his own background in hockey. Both see team sports as preparation for showing up, handling setbacks, and contributing to something beyond individual success. Their focus shifts from tools and salaries to habits built over time.

That brings the conversation back to the candidate who kept finding ways to connect. He could not control when a position opened or whether a message was read. He could control the effort he made to build relationships. The same distinction applies to learning new tools and keeping practical skills current.

AI is changing the conditions around work, but the episode leaves readers with decisions they can act on. Applicants can show evidence of their abilities and build real connections. Leaders can examine hiring decisions more carefully and stay close to execution. Neither side can make the market predictable, but both can be more deliberate about their next move.

‍