Industry Insights

Effective onboarding combines preparation, training, support, clear expectations, and cultural integration to help new employees become productive, engaged, and successful as quickly as possible.

AI is changing recruitment by making resumes more polished, tailored, and persuasive than ever before. Candidates can use AI tools to enhance their resumes, match job descriptions, and present their experience more strategically, making it increasingly difficult for employers to determine what a candidate has actually done based on a resume alone. While this isn't necessarily dishonest, it does create a challenge for employers—particularly in accounting and finance roles where technical competence, judgment, and accuracy are critical.

This article focuses on helping accounting firms hire and develop people who can effectively act as the “Human in the Loop” when reviewing AI-generated work and implementing AI responsibly. Rather than discussing AI itself, it explains how existing APPQ Personality and Critical Reasoning assessments can identify individuals with the skills needed to oversee AI outputs.

This article argues that accountants can strengthen their role as trusted advisors by helping clients make better hiring decisions using objective assessments rather than relying solely on résumés, interviews, or personal recommendations.

The article outlines two practical hiring approaches: testing candidates before the first interview or after an initial interview. In both methods, candidates are scored objectively, and testing acts as a gatekeeper to eliminate weak applicants early. This leads to faster hiring, better candidate filtering, stronger legal protection, and fewer costly hiring mistakes.

Even with strong hiring processes, accounting firms will occasionally make hires that don’t work out. Underperformance can stem from many causes — skill gaps, lack of confidence, poor onboarding, unclear expectations, workload pressure, or difficulty adjusting to a new environment. Rather than treating it as immediate failure, firms should identify issues early, provide fair support, and make timely decisions if improvement doesn’t occur.

The blog explains that hiring accounting and bookkeeping professionals is difficult because many strong candidates are already employed and may only be casually exploring opportunities. Employers should therefore focus not just on technical qualifications, but also on understanding a candidate’s real motivations, career goals, and readiness to change jobs.

The blog argues that traditional job interviews are often unnecessarily stressful and ineffective, causing candidates to underperform and interviewers to misjudge true ability. It introduces transparent interviewing, sharing questions and expectations in advance, as a better alternative.

Firms apply far more rigor to buying software or equipment than they do to hiring employees—even though hiring mistakes often carry greater long-term costs. The blog argues that hiring should adopt the same “trust but verify” mindset as procurement, using more systematic, evidence-based methods to reduce risk and improve outcomes.

The author reflects on choosing accounting at a young age and argues that the profession is widely misunderstood and undervalued. While often seen as dull, accounting is actually a diverse and dynamic career involving problem-solving, strategy, communication, and work across many industries.

AI is rapidly reshaping accounting by automating routine tasks like transaction coding and reconciliations. As a result, accountants are shifting from “doers” to “reviewers,” responsible for interpreting and validating AI-generated outputs. While AI improves efficiency, it can still produce errors that appear correct, making human oversight essential. This shift makes curiosity a critical skill.

Performance reviews aim to be objective, but even well-designed processes can introduce bias. One overlooked source is self-assessments done before manager evaluations. Research shows that women—especially women of color—tend to rate themselves lower than men. When managers see these self-ratings first, their own evaluations are influenced downward due to anchoring bias.