In our searches this year, one pattern keeps repeating: boards are hiring fewer technology leaders, but asking more of them.
The traditional split between infrastructure, applications, data and security is blurring. A VP Engineering is now expected to have a view on platform costs, AI adoption and product velocity. A CTO is expected to explain risk to the board in commercial language. A Head of Data is expected to build a team that finance and product actually use.
That changes the search.
The shape of the market
We are seeing fewer pure “scale-up” leadership roles and more composite mandates. A single appointment might cover engineering, platform, data and delivery. The title is often VP Engineering or CTO, but the scope is closer to a chief operating officer for technology.
In our searches, base salaries for VP Engineering roles across our European markets typically sit between £140,000 and £180,000, with equity or bonus depending on the business. CTO packages vary widely; the difference is usually the scope of the mandate and the amount of transformation expected.
The candidates who are moving are not always the ones with the most impressive titles. They are the ones who can show a decision they owned, a team they built and a commercial outcome they influenced.
What boards are asking for
Four themes come up repeatedly:
- Delivery at scale. Not just shipping software, but doing it with reliability, cost control and a team that stays.
- Commercial judgement. The ability to explain trade-offs to a CEO or board, and to say no to work that does not pay.
- AI fluency. Not a research background, but a practical view of where AI changes the operating model and where it does not.
- Succession. A leader who can build the next layer, not just run the current one.
The last point is often the hardest to assess. It is easy to interview a strong operator. It is harder to tell whether they will develop the people around them.
Where the pressure sits
The pressure is most acute in businesses that have grown quickly through acquisition. They have several technology teams, several ways of working and no shared definition of “senior”. The new leader is expected to create a whole system, not just run a function.
We also see pressure in businesses that have delayed a leadership hire. The interim solution has become permanent by default, and the team has adapted around the gap. The search is then as much about organisational design as it is about the individual.
What this means for candidates
The strongest candidates are asking better questions earlier. They want to know the decision rights, the budget, the state of the technology estate and the board’s real appetite for change. They are less impressed by a title and more interested in whether the mandate is deliverable.
That is a healthy shift. It makes the first conversation more useful and reduces the risk of a mismatch later.
What we are doing about it
Our leadership searches now start with a longer briefing session, often with two or three stakeholders rather than one. We spend more time on the operating context and less on the job description. We also assess against a broader scorecard: delivery, commercial judgement, team building, ambiguity and board communication.
The result is a smaller shortlist, a clearer rationale and a better conversation at offer stage. It is slower at the start. It is usually faster where it matters.