The gap between confidence and trust

When we asked C-suite executives how confident they felt in their own AI expertise, 70% described themselves as “very confident”. 

When we asked the rest of the organisation how much they trusted C-suite AI expertise, the picture looked very different. 

Confidence in C-suite AI capability, by seniority:

• C-suite self-assessment: 70% very confident 
• Directors: 48% very confident in C-suite 
• Senior management: 50% 
• Middle management: 36% 
• Entry-level staff: 33% 
• Intermediate staff: 27% 

The further you get from the boardroom, the less trust there is in leadership’s ability to make informed AI decisions. 

Why this gap matters

A confidence gap might seem like a perception problem. It is not. It is a business risk. 

When employees do not believe leadership understands AI, three things happen: 

1. People stop flagging problems. If staff assume leadership will not understand the issue or will dismiss their concerns, they stay quiet. Small problems become big ones. 
2. AI initiatives lose momentum. Adoption stalls when the workforce does not trust the strategy behind it. People comply rather than commit. 
3. Trust erodes beyond AI. Confidence gaps are rarely contained. If staff question leadership judgement in one area, it spreads to others. 

The behaviour behind the numbers

The trust gap is not irrational. It reflects what employees are seeing. 

Our research found that C-suite executives are the most likely to engage in high-risk AI behaviours: 

• 93% of C-suite have made AI-informed decisions based on inaccurate data 
• 73% have uploaded confidential company data into AI tools 
• 78% have used AI for work they are not trained to do 
• 40% report serious business impact from AI-related errors 

These are not junior mistakes. They are leadership behaviours. And the rest of the organisation is watching. 

What needs to change

Closing the confidence gap requires more than communication. It requires visible action in four areas: 

Board-level expertise 80% of C-suite executives themselves say their company needs a dedicated AI specialist at board level. The demand is there. The appointments are not. 

Strategy that reaches everyone 56% of C-suite say their AI strategy matches reality “very well”. Only 16% of entry-level staff agree. If the strategy is not visible and understood at every level, it is not working. 

Governance with accountability Clear rules mean nothing if they do not apply to everyone. When senior leaders bypass safeguards, it signals that governance is optional. 

Honest self-assessment The leaders who will succeed are those willing to scrutinise their own confidence, competence, and decision-making. Seniority does not equal capability. 

Take the next step

If you’re concerned about AI readiness in your organisation, our Inovus team offers a free 30-minute consultation to discuss your AI strategy and data foundations. 

Book your free consultation

Read the full research

This article draws on findings from AI in the Workforce: The Hidden Risk for UK Businesses, our independent research with over 2,000 UK tech workers. 

The full report includes a practical framework for what to fix first. 

The post The AI confidence gap your board isn’t talking about appeared first on La Fosse.

Not another incremental technology upgrade. Not another short-lived hype cycle. But a genuine shift in productivity and capability that changes how organisations operate and how careers are built. 

As a CEO of a talent business, I sit in the flow of real hiring decisions, real budgets, and real commercial trade-offs. What I’m seeing doesn’t feel theoretical. It feels early. It feels uneven. But it also feels meaningful. 

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to Jeremy Khan, AI specialist and keynote speaker from Fortune, who described this phase of the AI revolution as the “Jagged Teeth” stage. Progress is sharp and irregular. Breakthroughs are followed by setbacks. Confidence surges, then stalls. Capabilities leap forward in one domain while lagging in another. 

That framing resonated with me. 

Because what we are experiencing right now does not feel smooth or linear. It feels disruptive at the edges, experimental in the middle, and quietly transformational underneath. 

History tells us this pattern is not new. 

Major productivity shifts rarely show up immediately in the data. Technology appears first. Excitement builds. Investment flows. But measurable gains only emerge when organisations change how work is structured, how capital is deployed, and how people are trained. 

Which brings us to the lesson we keep forgetting. 

AI, productivity, and the lesson we keep forgetting

There is a chart I keep coming back to. 

It shows US nonfarm business productivity surging from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, then stalling for almost two decades before accelerating again in the late 1990s as PCs and the internet became mainstream. 

That chart matters because it tells us something uncomfortable: technology does not automatically translate into productivity. 

The first productivity boom was not about new invention alone. It was about integration. Electricity, logistics, manufacturing scale, telecommunications. These capabilities were embedded deeply into operating models. Firms invested heavily in physical capital, redesigned workflows, professionalised management, and aligned education and skills accordingly. 

Technology, capital, organisation and people moved together. That is when productivity grows. 

The slowdown that followed was not a lack of innovation. The PC had arrived. Software was emerging. Data was being captured. But early productivity gains were muted because organisations layered new tools on top of old structures. Work was digitised, but not redesigned. Processes were enhanced, not reimagined. 

We may be at a similar inflection point now. 

AI capability is advancing at extraordinary speed. But capability alone will not deliver productivity. The gains will only show up at scale when leaders rethink how work is structured, how teams are composed, how decisions are made, and how entry pathways into careers evolve. 

In other words, this moment is not just about technology. It is about organisational courage. 

The long slowdown was not a lack of innovation

From the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, technology continued to advance. Computers were already in offices. Software existed. Data was being captured. But productivity stalled. 

Why? 

Because technology sat alongside work rather than reshaping it. Early IT lived in silos. Organisations digitised processes but rarely redesigned them. Roles remained structured around old assumptions. Capital investment slowed. Measurement lagged reality. 

You could see computers everywhere, but not in the productivity statistics. 

There is an important lesson here, and it is one that deserves empathy rather than criticism. 

Boards and investors quite reasonably expect returns on technology investment. When significant capital is deployed into new systems or AI capability, the expectation is that productivity gains will follow quickly. That pressure is understandable. 

The reality, however, is that structural change does not happen in parallel with tool adoption. 

Workforce planning takes time. Business process redesign takes time. Strategy reshaping takes time. Organisations often pause, elongate hiring cycles, or delay senior appointments while they work out what their future operating model should look like. 

We see this directly in our own permanent recruitment market. 

Processes are extended. Roles are put on hold. Executive searches are delayed while leadership teams reassess structure, automation potential, and long-term headcount design. It is not a lack of ambition. It is a period of recalibration. 

This is what transition looks like. 

The risk is not that AI fails to deliver. The risk is assuming the returns should appear before the redesign has happened. 

PCs ultimately delivered productivity gains not because they existed, but because organisations eventually rebuilt around them. Computing moved from back offices onto desks. Processes were re-engineered. Data flowed across functions. Decision-making sped up. Networks mattered more than hardware. 

The lesson is simple: productivity gains arrive after redesign, not after adoption. 

PCs worked because organisations changed

The productivity pickup of the late 1990s did not happen because PCs were invented. It happened because firms had the discipline and courage to reorganise around them. 

Computing power moved from back offices onto desks. Processes were rebuilt. Data flowed across the organisation. Coordination costs collapsed. Decision-making sped up. Networks mattered more than hardware. 

The lesson is simple. Productivity gains arrive after redesign, not after adoption. 

This is the uncomfortable truth about AI

AI feels different because adoption is faster and the tools are more powerful. But the structural risk is exactly the same. 

Most organisations today are experimenting at the edges. Drafting support. Search. Summaries. Copilots embedded into existing workflows. Productivity pilots in pockets of the business. 

That is progress. But it is not transformation. 

From what I see across our clients, the real hesitation is not about the technology. It is about what follows. Redefining roles. Rethinking workforce plans. Reworking incentives. Deciding which layers of decision-making still make sense in an AI-assisted environment. 

Just as in the 1970s and 1980s, the real gains will only appear when businesses redesign how work is done. How decisions are made. How data flows. How roles are defined. How performance is measured. How incentives are aligned. 

AI will not deliver productivity by sitting next to broken processes. 

Live coding, Codex, and the ERP question

Where this becomes particularly interesting is in software development itself. 

The emergence of live coding environments and increasingly capable systems such as Codex raises a more structural question. If AI can meaningfully accelerate development cycles, reduce dependency on large outsourced teams, and enable rapid iteration, what does that mean for traditional ERP-heavy operating models? 

We may see organisations gradually unshackling from highly customised, multi-year transformation programmes and instead bringing more development capability back on-site. Smaller, more agile internal teams augmented by AI. Faster experimentation. Reduced reliance on long change cycles. 

We are also seeing the early signs of something even more disruptive: the rise of the single-person software company. Individuals now have access to tools that allow them to design, build, test and distribute full software products with minimal overhead. What once required a team of ten may soon be achievable by one. 

We do not yet know how far or how fast this will go. But it challenges long-standing assumptions about scale, team size, and the economics of software creation. 

What this means for service businesses

For professional and service-based organisations, the parallel is stark. 

Buying AI tools is relatively easy. Embedding them into core workflows is where the real work begins. 

The opportunity is not marginal efficiency. It is structural change. Reimagining how demand is forecast. How pricing decisions are made. How talent is matched. How delivery is optimised. How time is genuinely freed up for higher-value work rather than absorbed by new layers of coordination. 

The constraint is rarely the technology. It is data discipline, process clarity, and organisational will. 

The leadership moment

History is clear. Productivity follows redesign, not invention. 

If this really is the start of another structural shift, three things matter more than anything else. 

1. Embed AI at the core.

 It must sit end-to-end in the operating model, not bolted onto the edges. 

2. Redesign work around what is now possible. 

Roles, workflows and incentives should reflect AI capability, not legacy assumptions. 

3. Treat data as infrastructure. 

Clean, shared, trusted data is not optional. It is the capital base of the AI era. 

If we get this right, AI may well power the next productivity expansion. 

If we do not, we will repeat a familiar story. Powerful tools. Ambitious expectations. Modest aggregate results. 

The difference will not be the technology. 

It will be the decisions leaders make now. 

The post What history teaches us about the AI productivity boom  appeared first on La Fosse.

US hyperscalers alone are expected to spend roughly $646 billion in capex this year. That is around 2% of US GDP and broadly equivalent to the entire GDP of countries such as Singapore, Sweden or Argentina. That level of capital deployment signals that this transition is structural, not cyclical. Governments can shape the edges, but they cannot stop the direction of travel. 

That does not make me pessimistic. Quite the opposite. 

History suggests we have been here before

Major technological shifts, from the democratisation of the desktop computer to the rise of the web, initially created friction and short-term displacement before unlocking significant productivity and GDP growth. There was often a lag of close to a decade before the full economic benefit materialised. 

We are likely in the early stages of a similar productivity cycle now. 

The key risk is not AI itself. The risk is how we respond. If we concentrate AI power and economic gains in too few hands, the outcome could be destabilising. If we combine innovation with broad-based access, skills development and responsible governance, the upside for productivity and living standards could be significant. 

The UK economic picture is more nuanced than headlines suggest

A tight fiscal stance is unlikely to boost hiring confidence in the short term. But the underlying picture is more complex. 

January saw the UK record a £30.4 billion budget surplus, the largest monthly surplus since records began in 1993, supported by stronger than expected tax receipts. Self-assessed income tax and capital gains tax receipts reached £46.4 billion, materially higher than the same month last year. Retail sales and private sector activity have also shown signs of improvement. 

That tells us there is resilience in the system. The question is how that fiscal headroom is used. 

With GDP growth of just 0.1% in the final quarter of 2025, annual growth of 1.3%, inflation still at 3% and unemployment edging up to 5.2%, the UK is operating in a cautious economic environment. Add to that higher employer National Insurance costs, and it is difficult to see the conditions for broad-based hiring acceleration. 

We do not expect to see widespread hiring growth. 

From headcount growth to capability growth

What we are seeing is a fundamental shift in how businesses think about workforce planning. 

Boards are no longer asking how many people they should add. They are asking what capability they need to compete in an AI-enabled economy. 

Any hiring expansion will be targeted. The main areas of growth will be technology and AI-led businesses racing to build capability and secure competitive advantage. Across the wider economy, hiring will be concentrated in areas that directly support productivity improvement: AI, data, cyber security and automation. 

We are not seeing a dramatic overnight shift in roles, but there is a gradual move towards greater specialisation. Organisations are looking for individuals who can apply AI and automation in specific commercial contexts rather than broad, generalist digital profiles. 

There is also rising demand for transformation leadership, both interim and permanent, to embed these capabilities into operating models at scale. 

Within engineering teams, AI-assisted development tools are beginning to influence workforce planning. While demand for some traditional UX and UI roles has softened, there is growing interest in strengthening core engineering teams with developers leveraging AI tools to increase velocity and output. 

In short, growth in hiring will be strategic and capability-led, not volume driven. 

The real challenge is skills, not wages

I do not think the central challenge is wage inflation. It is skills inflation. 

We are already seeing demand for AI-literate talent outpace supply. Employers are not simply bidding up salaries across the board. They are competing hard for a relatively small pool of individuals who can design, deploy or commercially exploit AI-enabled systems. That creates capability gaps rather than broad-based wage pressure. 

Youth unemployment remains materially higher than the national average, with 16 to 24-year-old unemployment sitting in the mid-teens as a percentage. This is a major systemic issue. At the same time, businesses are struggling to find AI, data and automation capability. 

Bridging that gap through modern, AI-focused apprenticeship and training routes is a clear economic opportunity. 

The direction of travel on apprenticeship flexibility is encouraging. Giving businesses greater freedom to use their apprenticeship levy to upskill existing employees, as well as create alternative pathways for early career talent, is exactly the right lever to pull. 

Where I would like to see more urgency is in scale and speed. AI adoption is not a five-year transition. It is happening now. The policy framework needs to move at the same pace as the technology. 

What is missing from the policy agenda

If anything is missing, it is a more ambitious productivity agenda linked to capital investment. 

Businesses have already shifted from headcount growth to output growth. Boards are asking how to deliver more value with the same or fewer people through automation, AI deployment and process redesign. That structural shift is happening irrespective of policy. 

What would materially accelerate UK productivity is stronger and more targeted incentives for capital expenditure, particularly in digital infrastructure, AI systems and automation. 

One of the very few clear economic advantages of the UK operating outside the European Union is greater flexibility over fiscal and regulatory decision making. That autonomy gives us the ability to move faster and more decisively in support of productivity and investment than many of our peers. From a business perspective, it can be frustrating if that flexibility is not fully utilised. 

If we want to unlock sustained GDP expansion, we need to make investing in productivity-enhancing technology as attractive as possible. Without that, we risk talking about growth without fully enabling it. 

The public sector cannot afford to wait

The public sector employs around 6.18 million people, roughly one in six UK workers. Public sector pay alone represents close to 10% of GDP, and broader government, education and health output accounts for somewhere between 12% and 19% of GDP. That scale means even marginal productivity gains have significant economic impact. 

In that context, automation is not optional. It is necessary. 

The real challenge is not pure AI talent volume. It is leadership, delivery capability and operating model redesign. The public sector needs the right senior sponsorship and execution expertise to modernise effectively. In many ways, this is about catching up with transformation that has already been underway in the private sector for several years. 

A note on CEO responsibility

My broader reflection would be this: in a fast-moving and AI-accelerated environment, it is every CEO’s responsibility to learn, adapt and lead thoughtfully. 

There is a real risk of knee-jerk decision making driven by fear of missing out on the latest AI tools that promise transformational results. In reality, meaningful productivity gains rarely come from technology alone. They require business process re-engineering, clear workforce planning and disciplined execution. That is one reason why, despite substantial investment, aggregate productivity gains from AI have so far been limited. 

Careful planning matters. A clear data strategy matters. Understanding what genuinely moves the needle for your specific business matters far more than adopting tools because competitors are doing so. 

This is easier said than done. The pace of innovation is extraordinary, and leaders must immerse themselves in the learning curve. But the goal should not be to chase every wave. It should be to apply AI responsibly, deliberately and in a way that enhances human capability rather than replaces it indiscriminately. 

The balance we need to strike

It is not the government’s primary responsibility to protect specific roles or slow technological progress. Its responsibility is to create the right conditions for sustainable growth. 

Protecting employment in the long term is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors. Businesses must invest in their people, reskill their workforce and design operating models that generate opportunity. The public sector must modernise responsibly. The government’s role is to provide clear governance, sensible guardrails and competitive tax and policy incentives that enable both sectors to grow. 

If we focus too heavily on protecting existing roles, we risk constraining productivity. If we focus solely on efficiency without supporting transition, we risk social friction. 

The right balance is about enabling growth while accelerating skills development, not attempting to freeze the labour market in its current form. 

If we can combine ambition with discipline, and maintain a human-first mindset rather than concentrating power and wealth in too few hands, the long-term opportunity is significant. 

The post AI, Productivity and the UK Labour Market: A CEO Perspective appeared first on La Fosse.

London, March 2026 – UNBOUND, the women in tech community founded by La Fosse’s Chief Marketing Officer, Lucy Kemp, held its latest event on 12th March 2026 in London. The event, themed around this year’s International Women’s Day theme of Give to Gain, brought together senior leaders for a panel discussion on the career support, advocacy, and honest conversations that genuinely accelerate careers in technology. 

The event was facilitated by Lucy Kemp and featured three panellists: Amy Farrer, Director of Sales Solutions at TUI; Ed Davies, Chief Information Officer at West P&I; and Nene Yamasaki, Analytics Manager at UK Power Networks. 

The panel explored the distinction between mentoring and sponsorship, the dynamics of pay and promotion conversations, flexible working cultures, and what it takes to build the kind of network that opens real doors. 

A key thread throughout the evening was the argument that sponsorship, rather than mentoring, is often the most powerful accelerant for women in tech. Panellists shared specific moments in their own careers where having someone advocate for them behind closed doors made the difference between getting an opportunity and missing it entirely. 

The event also addressed salary conversations directly. The panel’s consensus: go in with data, not a feeling. Benchmark against what you are actually doing, build a body of evidence over time, and do not treat the conversation as a single high-stakes moment. 

Lucy Kemp, Chief Marketing Officer, at La Fosse and founder of UNBOUND, said: “UNBOUND was created because we wanted to focus on the things that actually change outcomes for women in tech. Sponsorship, real talk about pay, and the kind of networks where people give and gain in equal measure. That is exactly what we saw in the room on Thursday.” 

The UNBOUND LinkedIn community was officially launched at the event. The private community provides a space for ongoing discussion, coaching resources, masterclasses, and priority access to future events. 

UNBOUND’s next event will be announced through the community. 

About UNBOUND

UNBOUND is La Fosse’s community for women in technology, founded with the mission of unlocking the full potential of women in the industry. Through events, mentorship programmes, research and community, UNBOUND focuses on the conversations and connections that lead to real career progression. 

About La Fosse

La Fosse is a UK-based technology recruitment and talent consultancy. Its house of brands spans recruitment, executive search, the La Fosse Academy, and Inovus, its transformation and consulting arm. 

The post UNBOUND brings together senior tech leaders to tackle sponsorship, salary, and what actually accelerates careers for women  appeared first on La Fosse.

On 12th March, we gathered an intimate group of women in tech and their allies for an honest evening exploring what it really takes to accelerate a career. Not theory. Real experiences, specific moments, and practical advice from people who have lived it. 

Our panel, facilitated by Lucy Kemp, brought together three leaders with different career stages, industries and perspectives: 

• Amy Farrer, Director of Sales Solutions, TUI 
• Ed Davies, Chief Information Officer, West P&I 
• Nene Yamasaki, Analytics Manager, UK Power Networks 

Here is what they shared. 

Sponsorship is not the same as mentoring

We talk a lot about mentoring in tech. We talk much less about sponsorship. The distinction matters enormously. 

A mentor shares their experience and wisdom. A sponsor advocates for you. They say your name in the right rooms. They back you when decisions are being made and you are nowhere near the table. 

Amy’s career has been shaped by moments of sponsorship that went far beyond guidance. When she had a poor interview, her sponsor told the hiring manager: “I work with her every day. I see what she is really like. I think she just had one bad day.” She got the role. When she was considering a diagonal move across functions and upwards at the same time, her sponsor coached her, connected her with the right people, and helped her prepare. She got that role too. 

Ed’s experience reinforced that sponsorship often goes unnoticed until much later. Early in his career, a line manager championed him behind the scenes in ways he only recognised in hindsight. “I sort of took it for granted at the time,” he reflected. “But I realised that was a really good step in terms of seeing I deserved to be there and I could do it.” 

Peer sponsorship might be the most underrated career asset

One of the sharpest insights of the evening came when Lucy challenged the assumption that sponsorship always flows downwards from those above you. 

Ed pointed out that peer relationships can matter just as much. The colleagues you work alongside every day are often the ones who speak up in conversations that move careers forward. “It’s also ensuring that your peers can see your work, and they are also pushing,” he said. “What tends to happen is someone off the leadership team will be speaking across the organisation and saying, what do you think of so-and-so. And those peer voices carry a lot of weight.” 

The connections built sideways are not just professional relationships. They are the people who will eventually be in positions to champion you. 

Talking about your work is not boasting. It is strategy.

Amy’s coach once sat her down and showed her a picture of a duck. “Your head is down under the water,” the coach told her, “and you are doing nothing to sell yourself or tell your story. Nobody knows what you do.” 

It is a sentiment many women in the room recognised immediately. We are often conditioned to believe that excellent work will speak for itself. It does not. The evening made clear that telling your story is as much a part of career progression as the work itself. 

Amy’s shift was to approach her time as 50/50. Half delivering, half building relationships and communicating what she was doing. “Networking opens doors not just for your own career, but for business results as well,” she said. “I just wish someone had told me earlier.” 

Lucy added her own strategy: identify the key people in an organisation who others listen to and invest in those relationships specifically. “I want everyone to know how great this person is,” she said. “Sending positive feedback not just to someone’s direct manager but to their skip level as well. It builds the case for them over time.” 

The salary conversation nobody wants to have

One of the most direct exchanges of the evening came around pay. The panel did not flinch. 

Nene’s approach in a regulated-budget environment is to make the conversation continuous, not a single high-stakes moment. “It should not be a moment thing. It is a continuous process of showing up, showing value, and helping leadership understand what we are bringing.” Quantifying impact and making it visible to those with decision-making power is her way of building the case over time. 

Ed made it clear that the most effective managers do not wait for their team members to come to them. “I try to ensure I am putting a case forward for my team so that they do not feel they need to come and ask me.” Building a body of evidence over time, benchmarking against the market, and documenting outcomes together means the conversation is easier when it matters most. 

Lucy was direct about her own experience. “Benchmark what you are actually doing, because often you are doing way more than your role says. Go in with data, not a feeling.” Amy added that a strong business case should also include the honest reality that talented people have options: “Sometimes you have to be honest that you can jump ship. I am a valuable person who can contribute anywhere.” 

Nene, who is in the earlier stages of her career and navigates the salary conversation as an East Asian woman with English as a second language, shared a mindset that was one of the most memorable of the evening. “I am here despite all of these challenges. How amazing is that? And that gives me the confidence and positivity when I talk about the impact I have made.” 

When you are not inside an organisation

Not everyone in the room is a permanent employee. Several questions came from contractors, consultants, and people mid-transition. 

Lucy’s answer was vivid. When she was consulting, she would give away small pieces of work for free. “That is how I would get in front of influential people. When you give something of value, they will always remember you.” Ed echoed the importance of long-term relationships with trusted partners, including with recruitment firms like La Fosse. “Keep those relationships going even when you are not necessarily looking for something. Maintain them and think about what you can give. You never know what will come back.” 

Career paths are not linear. And that is fine.

Nene’s supervisor told her something when she was early in her career that has stayed with her: “You will see different views depending on where you are. You will find out more things. Just enjoy it at the time.” The permission to stop mapping a rigid 20-year plan and to focus on what was valuable to build right now was, she said, genuinely freeing. 

Ed talked about a difficult restructuring where a new leadership layer was placed above him and his sponsor moved on. His sponsor’s parting advice was simple: “Do not make a rash decision. Think it through. I know your worth.” He stayed, persevered, and the new team eventually recognised what he was capable of. The experience taught him something lasting: “Your loyalty is not necessarily to an organisation. Your loyalty is to people who value your work.” 

On the harder questions

The evening was not all structured panel discussion. The floor opened up, and so did the room. 

There was a frank conversation about menopause and what organisations are still failing to do. Lucy was honest. “No organisation I know is getting this right. But what I try to think about is: where do I want to be in five years? What can I get from this organisation that helps me get there?” The reframe, she said, is not about making peace with something that should not be happening. It is about making sure you are still building, still moving, and still finding ways to extract value for yourself even when the system has not caught up. 

Someone in the room had recently graduated. She was unsure what she had to offer and felt like she was all gain and no give. Every panellist told her the same thing: just ask. “Anyone who comes up to me and says they would love a mentor or some advice, I walk on air for the rest of the day,” said Lucy. “Please just go and ask someone. They are going to be overjoyed, and even if they cannot help, they will point you somewhere.” 

What we launched

At the event, we officially launched the UNBOUND private LinkedIn community. This is the space where everything UNBOUND happens: event access, coaching resources, masterclasses, conversations, and our Give to Gain network. The questions asked at events like this one will continue there. The connections made will continue there. 

This is what giving and gaining looks like in practice. 

Join the UNBOUND LinkedIn community to access ongoing support, priority event access, and a network of people who are genuinely committed to the same thing you are. 

The post Beyond mentoring: what sponsorship really looks like, and why it changes everything appeared first on La Fosse.

The numbers make uncomfortable reading. Women in tech wait, on average, three to four years to advance, compared to the two-year industry norm. They earn 16% less per hour than their male counterparts. And one in four leaves the industry altogether when progression stalls. 

These aren’t personal failings. They’re structural ones. But while systemic change takes time, there are practical steps women in tech can take right now to strengthen their position in the conversations that shape their careers. 

As CMO at La Fosse, and through the work we do with UNBOUND, our community for women in tech and transformation, I’ve spoken with hundreds of women navigating these exact challenges. Here’s what I’ve learnt. 

1. Stop waiting until you feel ready

This one comes up again and again. Women are often encouraged (explicitly or implicitly) to wait until they’re fully ready before making a move. In tech, that usually means waiting too long. 

Promotion conversations should be grounded in evidence, not feelings. If you’re already delivering outcomes at the next level, leading projects, influencing decisions, driving results, that’s your signal. Don’t sit on it. 

If you’re already operating at that level, make it visible. Promotion conversations should be based on impact, not perfection. 

2. Frame promotion discussions as business cases 

The strongest promotion conversations in tech are structured like business cases, not appeals. Talk about outcomes, not effort. Show how your work has increased revenue, reduced risk, improved delivery, or strengthened capability. 

Map your current responsibilities against the role you want. If you’re already doing the job, say so. If you’re not quite there, ask what specifically needs to happen and by when. Clear criteria turns vague feedback into a roadmap. 

3. Prepare for salary negotiations like a business conversation

Salary negotiations can feel intensely personal. But reframe them: they’re business conversations about value. 

Research market benchmarks. La Fosse’s annual Salary Index is a useful starting point. Understand internal salary bands where possible. Come prepared with specific examples of measurable impact. The more factual the conversation, the less emotional labour you carry. You’re not asking for a favour. You’re aligning pay with contribution. 

If the organisation struggles to engage transparently, that information is valuable too. It could signal an unhealthy culture.

4. Don’t internalise structural barriers as a confidence problem

Research consistently shows women are less likely to negotiate salary or proactively seek promotion. But this isn’t a confidence deficit. It’s a rational response to opaque systems. 

When promotion frameworks are unclear and decisions happen behind closed doors, hesitation makes sense. Instead of assuming you need to be more assertive, seek clarity. Ask direct questions about progression pathways, salary bands, and expectations. The clearer the system, the easier it becomes to advocate within it. 

5. Build allies and visibility before you need them 

Career progression rarely hinges on a single conversation. Advocacy starts months before the promotion meeting, in how visible your work is and who understands your impact. 

There’s a meaningful difference between mentors and sponsors. Mentors offer guidance. Sponsors put your name forward, recommend you for opportunities, and advocate for you in rooms where decisions are made. Women in tech need both. 

Build relationships with senior colleagues who will actively champion your progression, not just advise you from the sidelines. 

Why career progression for women in tech still matters

Data from La Fosse’s UNBOUND initiative shows that 43% of female career exits are driven by a lack of clear progression. Inflexible working and limited support for skills development compound the problem. 

When progression feels unclear or inaccessible, staying stops making sense. But while we push for systemic change, women in tech don’t have to wait for the system to catch up. 

Don’t wait to be recognised. Track your impact. Ask clear questions. Prepare thoroughly. And remember, negotiating pay or promotion isn’t being difficult. It’s being strategic. 

About the author

Lucy Kemp is Chief Marketing Officer at La Fosse and a passionate advocate for building workplaces where people can do their best work. She leads La Fosse’s UNBOUND initiative, a community for women in tech and transformation that brings together mentorship, events, and peer connection to support career growth at every stage. 

If this resonated with you, UNBOUND is open to women working in tech and transformation roles across the UK. Whether you’re looking for a mentor, want to connect with a community that gets it, or simply want to stay close to the conversations that matter, we’d love to have you involved. 

Find out more and join the UNBOUND community here 

The post Women in tech: how to get promoted and negotiate pay appeared first on La Fosse.

There are several reasons we see fewer women entering, or working, in cybersecurity. At the core, I believe there’s still a perception and representation issue. Not just in cyber, but in tech careers more generally. 

By the time career decisions are being made, many women have already self-selected out of highly technical pathways because they don’t see themselves reflected there. They assume it isn’t for them. And that assumption goes largely unchallenged. 

The myth of the traditional route

There’s a widespread perception that to work in cybersecurity, you need to have gone down the traditional computer science route. 

In reality, we’ve seen strong cyber talent come from backgrounds in psychology, physics, the military, and from career switchers across all kinds of industries. The issue isn’t ability. It’s finding accessible ways to enter the industry. 

This has a very practical consequence. Many cyber roles require experience before you can actually get experience. The talent pool stays narrow because there aren’t enough early-career pathways or reskilling programmes available. That directly contributes to the diversity problem. 

Where the biggest gender gaps are

I see the biggest gender gaps at senior levels and in deeply technical roles. 

Through our recruitment business, we work closely with senior cybersecurity leaders and CISOs to address this. But the candidate pool is still heavily male-dominated. While gender diversity at entry level is improving, progression into senior cyber, architecture, and CISO-track roles clearly diminishes. 

Getting more women through the door is only part of the answer. What happens after they join matters just as much. 

What needs to change

There is a very real diversity issue in cybersecurity, but it is underpinned by an overall capability challenge. Cyber skills shortages are significant, and organisations cannot afford to overlook available talent when there is a role to fill. 

That means we need to do two things at once: increase the overall number of people entering cybersecurity careers, and address the specific barriers that prevent women from entering and remaining in the industry. 

There are lots of initiatives out there that widen gender diversity at entry level. But hiring women into cyber without addressing progression, sponsorship, and workplace culture creates retention issues. Women come in, and they don’t stay. That isn’t progress. 

How La Fosse Academy approaches this

At La Fosse Academy, our free programme is designed specifically to widen access into areas like cybersecurity. We select applicants based on aptitude and mindset, rather than prior technical exposure. We then provide structured training and long-term development opportunities that encourage organisations to intentionally open up career accessibility, which naturally improves representation. 

Our UNBOUND network is also playing a role here. Designed to create systemic change for women working in all aspects of tech, UNBOUND is helping to give women and organisations the tools needed to progress, dismantle and break through the ongoing barriers that prevent women from thriving in the industry. 

The road ahead

There is still a long way to go. The “1 in 3 by 2031” ambition is possible, but only if organisations actively redesign how they build and progress talent. 

That means creating entry points that don’t demand experience women have had no opportunity to gain. It means investing in progression, not just hiring. And it means building cultures where women don’t have to choose between ambition and belonging. 

Cybersecurity needs more talent. The women are out there. We just need to make the path clearer. 

Interested in a career in cybersecurity?

Find out how La Fosse Academy can help you get started. 

 ………………….

Claudia Cohen is Director of La Fosse Academy, a free technology training programme that finds and develops diverse tech talent for businesses across the UK. To find out more about the Academy and how to get involved, contact Claudia.Cohen@lafosse.com

The post Why there are so few women in cybersecurity and what needs to change appeared first on La Fosse.

Nearly half of UK charities struggle to recruit and retain senior expertise. The solution? Britain’s most influential executives, volunteering the skills they’ve spent careers building. 

La Fosse, the tech and transformation recruitment specialist, has relaunched ConnEx, its groundbreaking programme that connects top C-suite executives with charities that need them most, at no cost to the organisations involved. 

The relaunch comes at a critical moment for the sector. Almost half (44%) of UK charities report difficulties in recruiting and retaining employees in 2025, leaving many organisations without the senior strategic expertise needed to navigate rapid digital change, growing financial pressures, and increasing demand for their services. 

The official relaunch event took place on Thursday 12th February at the Natural History Museum, bringing together confirmed charity partners including Action for Children, MHA, Parkinson’s UK, RNLI and the RSPCA. Each organisation presented its transformation challenges directly to executives in attendance, who were then invited to apply to join their advisory boards on a voluntary basis, covering areas including Data and AI, cyber security, and finance transformation. 

Ross Tanner, Managing Partner for La Fosse Executive, commented: “The commercial world is evolving at unprecedented speed, and charities are experiencing those same pressures. Yet the harsh reality is that many of the most influential leaders, particularly the top 1% of talent who could drive the greatest change, remain far beyond the financial reach of most third sector organisations. 

“ConnEx exists to bridge that divide. By connecting world-class executive expertise with purpose-driven organisations, we’re not simply offering guidance. We’re delivering measurable impact, strengthening the sector for the future, and ensuring leadership is mobilised for good.” 

Expertise where it’s needed most

ConnEx brings together executives across the full breadth of senior leadership, calling on CFOs with strategic financial and commercial insight, CTOs driving digital innovation, CISOs tackling information security and data protection threats, CDOs evangelising the use of Data and AI, CPOs building high-performing cultures, and COOs building resilient and efficient operations. 

The programme has already delivered multiple successful charity-executive partnerships. The Natural History Museum is one such example, having been strategically matched with senior advisors to tackle pressing transformation challenges with expert support. 

Ross added: “This is a meaningful opportunity for executives to apply their expertise for social good, connect with like-minded leaders, and find flexible advisory roles that really make a difference. We wanted to create a platform that allows people to give back in a meaningful way, but utilising the skillset they’ve built over their careers. 

“For charities, it’s a gateway to strategic consultancy, cross-functional expertise, and long-term partnerships that enable more funding to reach their patrons, without the usual trade-offs.” 

A bigger, bolder return

ConnEx returns larger and more ambitious than before, and at exactly the right moment. The third sector needs bold, innovative support more than ever. For executives with the capability to provide it, the opportunity to do so has never been more accessible. 

“ConnEx is returning at a critical time,” Ross continued. “The third sector needs bold, innovative support more than ever and we’re proud to be meeting that need head-on. This marks a pivotal time for La Fosse as we relaunch our bigger and better pro bono offering, set to create lasting impact where it matters the most.” 

Interested in becoming a future sponsorship partner, or to learn how your charity could benefit from the scheme, visit lafosse.com/pro-bono/ 

The post La Fosse relaunches pro bono programme to put world-class executive talent in reach of UK charities  appeared first on La Fosse.

Interim leadership at C-suite level has moved from exception to established practice. And the reasons are not hard to understand. 

Why boards are thinking differently

When outlook is uncertain, budgets are tighter, or change needs to happen at pace, boards often choose interim leaders to bring in expertise without locking themselves into a permanent appointment. 

From personal experience, I hired almost 30% of my own C-suite initially on an interim basis before converting some roles to permanent. We needed very specific expertise at a pivotal moment in our growth, and interim gave us flexibility while still raising the bar. 

That flexibility is not a weakness. It is a strategic choice. 

The structural drivers are not going away

In the short term, the interim market is cyclical. In the medium to long term, it is structurally growing. 

The wider UK recruitment industry generates more than £40 billion in annual turnover (REC Recruitment Industry Status Report 2024/25). Interim executive search represents a smaller proportion of that total, but it is a high-value segment. Day rates are higher, mandates are strategically critical, and assignments are often linked to moments of material change: restructuring, digital transformation, private equity-backed growth. 

The structural drivers remain strong: 

• Private equity ownership 
• AI adoption 
• Cyber risk 
• Digital transformation 

All of these require experienced operators who can step in and execute. Over time, that supports continued expansion and professionalisation of the sector. 

Where demand is strongest

Demand is clearest for roles that help businesses adapt structurally to technological and capital shifts. 

That includes: 

• Interim transformation directors 
• Chief Technology Officers and Chief Data Officers 
• AI programme leads 
• Cyber specialists 
• Chief Financial Officers with strong change and capital discipline experience 

These are complex, time-bound mandates that require objectivity, pace, and deep subject-matter expertise, which naturally lends itself to interim capability. 

That said, none of us has perfect visibility on the horizon. Artificial superintelligence, quantum computing, automation: these could reshape large parts of the workforce. My own view is that we will see a short-term growth slowdown before things pick up quickly, likely faster than in past cycles. Productivity might drop at first, but then it should rise sharply. 

Compressed, non-linear change creates volatility. And volatility tends to increase demand for leaders who can step in quickly and guide organisations through it. 

Why interim is becoming a deliberate career choice

There is now a well-trodden route into becoming a professional interim. It can be a deliberate choice, with clear expectations around what you are brought in to fix, stabilise, or build. 

For experienced leaders, interim leadership offers the opportunity to have high impact over relatively short periods of time, and to repeat that impact across different companies, ownership models, and industries. That breadth of exposure is hard to replicate in a single long-term role. 

However, there are trade-offs. You sacrifice some longevity, deeper cultural imprint, and the upside of long-term incentive plans. But those can often be balanced by higher day rates and the professional autonomy that comes from being hired purely for delivery. 

For the right personality, it is a conscious, performance-led career model. 

The pitfalls worth knowing

It is important to be clear and honest about the risks. 

Interim work is a little like boxing. You are only as good as your last fight. Your last mandate largely determines your next one. Reputation compounds quickly, both positively and negatively, and the market has a long memory. 

Income is not always linear, and you are responsible for managing your own pipeline between assignments. There is no corporate safety net. 

In interim leadership roles, you are often stepping into organisations at moments of stress or uncertainty, so you need to build trust quickly, operate with humility, and make decisive calls. It suits people who are commercially disciplined, emotionally robust, and comfortable being judged purely on results. 

What makes the difference

If you are looking to move into interim leadership, a few things matter more than others. 

Be clear on your niche. Interim leaders are hired to solve a specific type of problem repeatedly. You need to evidence outcomes, not just experience. 

Be proactive with references. Offering credible board-level referees early in a process signals seriousness and builds trust quickly. 

Build depth, not breadth. Work with a small number of credible interim search firms, rather than trying to blanket the market. Most first mandates come through reputation and relationships, not volume applications. 

Keep an open mind. Some of the strongest interims I know have stepped into permanent roles because they wanted to leave a deeper cultural imprint. Going into an assignment fully committed, rather than keeping one eye on the exit, is the best approach. 

A final thought for CEOs hiring interim leaders

Clarity is everything. If you are hiring an interim, define the problem precisely. Be explicit about outcomes and success measures. Treat the interview process with the same rigour as a permanent executive hire. Precision attracts the right talent. 

Businesses are operating in shorter cycles, with faster technological change and tighter capital discipline. They need access to specialist capability at moments that matter. Interim is part of that structural shift. 

A healthy interim market reflects a mature and flexible labour economy. AI embedded across business processes could unlock significant productivity gains, whether that plays out over a decade or accelerates over a few years. Either way, the need for leaders who can navigate change at pace is not going away. 

The post The rise of interim leadership: why more boards are choosing flexibility at the top appeared first on La Fosse.

At our AI Reality Check roundtable, we gathered senior leaders from financial services, media, pharmaceuticals, law and consulting to tackle the hard questions about what’s working, what’s failing and why. 

The 70% problem 

Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth: 70% of AI projects fail in their first year. That’s not a technology problem. It’s an expectation problem. 

Ollie Whiting, CEO of La Fosse, put it in historical context. The desktop PC took over a decade to achieve meaningful productivity gains. The web followed a similar pattern. We’re four years into the AI revolution and somehow expecting instant transformation. 

“The impatience of boards, investors and shareholders to get ROI over the line in such a short space of time is one of the key reasons for failure. We’re letting history repeat itself and wandering a bit blindly into this.” 

Who actually owns AI governance? 

Ask ten organisations who’s responsible for AI governance and you’ll get ten different answers. Legal thinks they own it. Security thinks they own it. The CTO wants centralised control. Individual business units are just getting on with it. 

The roundtable revealed a common pattern: ambitious governance forums that aim to track every AI initiative, but reality falling short. As one participant from Pacific Life Re put it, the intention is good but the execution is fragmented. Different territories have different regulatory understandings, and when something goes through legal and compliance first, the immediate answer is often no. 

The Guardian’s Chief AI Officer, shared their approach: principles first, product second, monitoring third. They’ve published AI principles, built governance into their product development and continuously take the temperature of both staff and readers. Media organisations face particular scrutiny, with readers anxious to know whether AI is involved in journalism. 

The AI veneer is cracking 

Remember when every company rushed to build mobile apps in the early 2010s? Those apps were essentially mobile websites, and they quickly revealed all the cracks in back-end infrastructure. Five years of data infrastructure spending followed. 

We’re about to see the same pattern with AI. Organisations are throwing agents onto badly designed processes and wondering why they don’t deliver value. The shiny AI tool you bought last quarter? It’s probably falling over because the whole end-to-end process hasn’t been designed. 

Anu Doll, Founder of Synexra, provided the strategic anchor for the session, arguing that AI’s true value lies in weaponising a firm’s competitive moats through an Agentic Operating Model. Her framework identifies the high-leverage capabilities where intelligence creates genuine market distinction rather than mere efficiency. By bridging the “Autonomy Gap”; the distance between strategic ambition and foundational readiness, Synexra ensures that infrastructure, data and governance are hardened to support “Autonomous Flow,” transitioning teams from task executors to Intelligence Orchestrators of unique, high-growth value chains.

The democratisation imperative 

Here’s a stark reality from La Fosse: 40-50% of a recruiter’s working week is spent on tasks that could be automated. They could be driving double the productivity doing work they actually enjoy. But they can’t, because AI hasn’t been democratised. 

Too much energy is being spent on centralised governance and not enough on getting AI into end users’ hands with the right guardrails. The desktop PC only delivered productivity gains when everyone had one on their desk. The web only transformed business when it was democratised. AI will follow the same pattern. 

One participant, working with Soho House, described the advantage of smaller organisations: no labyrinthine governance structures, no siloed AI officers blocking everything. Instead, they’re showing business people how tools like Claude work, planting seeds and watching ideas develop. That’s where the real ROI comes from. 

The leadership learning gap 

Research shared at the roundtable revealed a troubling lack of trust in board-level AI decision-making among tech professionals. Part of this is communication. Does your front-line team know about the AI training the exec team did over Christmas? Probably not. 

But it’s also about humility. As one CEO put it, leaders need to admit they might not have the answers they had for the last decade. The CTO who doesn’t understand business processes is destined to fail. The Chief AI Officer who only knows AI and not the heritage of technology is equally doomed. 

The consensus: AI literacy must be mandatory from top to bottom. Cross-functional leadership isn’t optional. Gone are the days of siloed executives who only understand their own domain. 

Don’t forget the humans 

When ROI is measured in headcount saved and roles reduced, employees get scared. Redundancy announcements and layoffs erode psychological safety, regardless of the productivity gains promised. 

But reframe the conversation around personal productivity, around how many hours a week can you save, and something shifts. People feel empowered. They want to perform better. They engage with the tools rather than fearing them. 

This isn’t soft thinking. It’s fundamental to successful AI adoption. The organisations that crack this balance between transformation and cultural safety will be the ones that succeed. 

What’s next? 

This roundtable was the start of an ongoing conversation. We’re committed to bringing together leaders who are navigating AI implementation in the real world. 

If you want to be part of the next discussion, or if you’re wrestling with AI challenges in your organisation, get in touch. Sometimes the best insights come from people facing the same problems. 

Download our AI in the Workforce whitepaper

Join our next panel event

The post AI reality check: why 70% of projects fail and what to do about it appeared first on La Fosse.

• Over half of UK tech workers say AI decisions at their company are made by leaders without the right expertise
• 78% of C-suite executives admit to using AI for work they are not trained to do
• 93% of C-level leaders say they have made AI-informed decisions based on inaccurate data, with 40% experiencing serious business impact as a result

UK businesses racing to adopt AI in the workplace are being put at risk – not by junior staff or immature technology, but by their own senior leadership, according to our new research.

Our survey of more than 2,000 UK tech workers finds that the riskiest users of AI are the very executives responsible for governance – combining high usage, weak oversight, and a willingness to override expertise.

Senior leaders hold the most decision-making power – but not always the AI expertise

More than half (52%) of all tech workers report that AI decisions have been made without the right expertise – and this isn’t just frontline cynicism. 65% of C-suite executives acknowledge that such decisions occur at the most senior level.

And the executives responsible for AI governance are also the most likely to engage in high-risk behaviours.

The survey uncovers a worrying pattern:

• 93% of C-level executives say they have made decisions based on AI outputs generated from inaccurate data
• Nearly three-quarters (73%) of C-suite executives admit to uploading confidential company data into AI tools – almost double the rate of entry-level staff* (42%) and far higher than intermediate-level employees (35%). Directors are slightly higher at 74%
• 78% of C-suite executives rely on AI for work they are not trained to do, compared with fewer than half of junior and mid-level staff

These high-stakes decisions carry tangible consequences: 40% of C-suite executives report serious business impacts from AI errors, compared with 32% of entry-level staff* and just 11% of intermediate employees.

Ollie Whiting, our CEO, comments: “The people with the greatest autonomy over AI are also the ones most exposed to its risks. Concentrated at the top of organisations, this risk is often hidden behind confidence and speed, while gaps in governance, skills, and accountability widen beneath the surface. Organisations must ensure leaders have the right expertise before these decisions cause real business impact”

The seniority blind spot around AI and compliance

The research shows a clear trend: greater responsibility, autonomy, and time pressure at senior levels translates into greater exposure to AI risk. C-suite executives and directors use AI more intensively, for higher-stakes decisions, and operate with less oversight than their teams.

Interestingly, entry-level staff* – while less likely to engage in risky AI behaviours – report higher rates of serious business impact (32%) than middle management (17%) or intermediate staff (11%). When errors happen at the front line, consequences can still be severe.

Confidence vs competence: the AI trust gap

While seven in ten (70%) C-suite executives describe themselves as ‘very confident’ in their AI expertise, that confidence is not widely shared across the workforce:

• Directors: 48% very confident in C-suite AI capability
• Senior management: 50% very confident
• Middle management: 36% very confident
• Entry-level staff*: 33% very confident
• Intermediate staff: 27% very confident

Yet, despite this self-assurance, 65% of C-suite executives admit AI decisions are still made without the right expertise, and 80% say a dedicated AI specialist is needed at board level. Leaders are simultaneously confident in their own ability and aware of gaps that require specialist support.

“The disconnect between confidence and competence is undermining trust and adoption of AI across organisations,” explains Ollie. 

“When employees don’t believe leadership understands AI, they are less likely to embrace AI initiatives, flag problems early, or trust AI-driven decisions being made at a high level. Boards can no longer assume seniority equates to capability – governance, expertise, and scrutiny are essential.” 

What business leaders can do to accelerate AI enablement

Unchecked overconfidence at the top is putting organisations at serious risk. Closing the awareness gap and leveraging AI for business transformation requires recognising that senior leaders such as C-level executives and directors may need additional support, while specialist expertise is also lacking across the broader workforce.

Our survey also found that half (50%) of tech workers expect AI to lead to job losses at their company within three years, signalling a workforce bracing for disruption.

Ollie adds: “Even the most experienced experts are still learning about AI – and those in the C-suite scrutinising their own confidence, competence, and AI-related decision making thoroughly are going to win long-term. Organisations need to be willing to look beyond the headlines, confront uncomfortable realities, and take action before those risks compound. 

“Our purpose at La Fosse is to deliver the future-proof technology talent organisations need to succeed. We work closely with leaders under pressure to move quickly and stay competitive, and understand the enormous opportunity AI presents.”  

“We work with organisations to identify where AI decisions are being made using inaccurate data, at the wrong pace, or without the right expertise, and where teams need reskilling rather than redundancies, to ensure leaders have the capability they need before those decisions make real business impact.” 

Download our ‘AI in the Workforce’ report here

Want to learn more about AI risk management and how to implement AI safely and effectively into your business? Get in touch today to see how we can support with AI transformation and executive recruitment of high-impact tech leaders.

Methodology

The research was conducted by Censuswide, among a sample of 2020 Employees in the UK working in tech (Aged 18+). The data was collected between 16.12.2025 – 23.12.2025. Censuswide abides by and employs members of the Market Research Society and follows the MRS code of conduct and ESOMAR principles. Censuswide is also a member of the British Polling Council.

Respondents span all seniority levels: C-suite executives: 545 (27%), directors: 388 (19%), senior management: 550 (27%), middle management: 304 (15%), intermediate level: 191 (9%), and entry level: >50 (2%).

*Please note comments on entry-level executives throughout indicate directional trends due to a reduced sample size.

The post AI in the C-Suite | New survey reveals confidence vs capability gap appeared first on La Fosse.

At Conrad London, UNBOUND brought together our newly formed steering committee of senior technology leaders to move beyond discussion and start building the roadmap for 2026. This wasn’t another networking event. It was a working session designed to define what meaningful change looks like and how we’re going to deliver it. 

Lucy Kemp, Director of Brand and Marketing at La Fosse and founder of UNBOUND, opened the evening with a clear challenge: “When I’m here with you all next year with this glass of champagne, what are we cheering on? What does good look like, what barriers are there, and how can UNBOUND help you overcome them?” 

The steering committee approach 

UNBOUND is taking a deliberately different approach to driving change in tech. Rather than operating in isolation, we’re building a steering committee of leaders who can shape the direction, provide honest feedback, and help us create programmes that solve real problems rather than tick diversity boxes. 

The committee brings together perspectives from across the technology sector: CTOs, transformation directors, programme managers, and executives who’ve navigated the challenges themselves and are committed to clearing the path for others. 

As Jon Price, Director of Recruitment at La Fosse, explained his commitment: “I’ve been fortunate enough to work in a number of businesses with my wife, who is a performance and people coach. I would see time and time again her ideas either get passed over or picked up by another director and passed off as theirs. The reason I got excited about UNBOUND was it felt really different for us. We’re now at the size and scale where we can actually start to have an impact with our clients and how we shape hiring decisions.” 

What meaningful change actually looks like 

The evening’s discussion revealed several critical themes that will shape UNBOUND’s work in 2026. 

Power skills are not “soft” 

One of the most passionate discussions centred on what many still mistakenly call “soft skills.” The committee was unanimous: the skills that differentiate senior leaders from technical specialists are anything but soft. 

As one member noted: “When you develop your career based on certifications where you know how technically good you are, that works at a base level. But when you want to move to director or head level, the technical certifications aren’t working anymore, and that is a shock for a lot of women.” 

The challenge is real. Women often excel at building technical expertise, accumulating qualifications, and proving their capabilities through measurable achievements. But the transition to leadership requires different skills: strategic thinking, confident communication, navigating difficult conversations, and projecting authority without apology. 

These aren’t innate qualities. They’re learnable capabilities that many men develop through observation, mentorship, and cultural permission to be assertive. Women need structured support to build these same capabilities without waiting years to figure them out through trial and error. 

The mentorship multiplier effect 

The discussion kept returning to mentorship, but with an important evolution. It’s not just about connecting junior women with senior women. It’s about creating mentorship at every level, including reverse mentorship where senior leaders learn from those coming up through the ranks. 

One member shared: “I really like that idea of reverse mentorship, because you need someone maybe that is more senior to be aware of how people are feeling coming up the ranks, because they might have come up at a different time with different challenges.” 

The committee also identified a critical gap: male leaders need mentorship from women to understand what they don’t know. Without this, even well-intentioned allies struggle to recognise problematic behaviours or understand the barriers women face. 

Beyond visibility to accountability 

The conversation challenged the typical approach of simply “spotlighting” successful women. While visibility matters, the committee pushed for something deeper: creating pathways and removing barriers rather than just celebrating those who’ve made it despite the obstacles. 

As one member put it: “Having those women that are in the C position talking about their challenges, we’ll be like, ‘Oh yeah, so I can do it. Because she’s not special.’ When you really have a conversation with them and they’re telling you all the challenges, you realise they are exactly like us.” 

This connects to a broader insight: success shouldn’t require superhuman resilience. The goal isn’t to help more women survive toxic cultures or navigate impossible demands. It’s to change the systems so that success becomes genuinely achievable for talented people regardless of gender. 

The barriers we’re tackling 

The committee identified several specific obstacles that UNBOUND will address in 2026: 

The confidence gap that’s actually a communication gap 

Women often internalise feedback differently, seeing constructive criticism as evidence they don’t belong rather than guidance for improvement. One member shared an example of a mentee who interpreted her boss’s suggestion to “think about Plan B” as a sign she wasn’t good enough, when he was actually showing care by helping her prepare for all outcomes. 

Workplace inflexibility that treats parenting as a women’s issue 

Multiple committee members raised the challenge of shared parental leave and flexible working that’s only truly available to women. One member noted: “It’s a partnership. It’s not like one or the other. We have to do this together and we have to go on the journey together.” 

Male-dominated leadership teams that lack perspective 

When the committee discussed La Fosse’s own executive team makeup (six members: two women, four men), the conversation was honest about the challenges. As Lucy Kemp explained: “Would we love it to be 50/50? Yes. But what is nice is my CEO, when I came to La Fosse, I said I want to do something for women externally in tech, but I also want to do something internally. And Ollie was so open. He was like, ‘Go and find out what’s happening. Come back to me. We’ll do a plan.’ Although we’re not 50/50, I have a team there who isn’t afraid to almost break things in order to fix it.” 

The shortage of female role models at every career stage 

The pipeline problem isn’t just at the top. Women need to see other women succeeding at every level to understand what’s possible. The committee emphasised the importance of showcasing achievements across all stages, not just celebrating those who’ve reached the C-suite. 

What UNBOUND will deliver in 2026 

Based on the evening’s discussion, the steering committee helped shape several key priorities: 

Structured power skills development 

UNBOUND will create focused programmes teaching the strategic communication, confident presentation, and leadership capabilities that women need to transition from technical roles to senior positions. This includes difficult conversations, self-advocacy, and projecting authority. 

Multi-level mentorship programmes 

Building on the successful launch of the UNBOUND mentorship programme, we’ll expand to include reverse mentorship and peer mentoring opportunities. The goal is creating support networks at every career stage, not just connecting junior women with senior mentors. 

Male allyship education 

The committee was clear: we need more men in the room. Not as saviours, but as partners who understand the challenges and actively work to address them. UNBOUND will create programming specifically designed to educate male leaders on effective allyship and challenge behaviours they might not recognise as problematic. 

Practical workplace solutions 

Rather than just discussing problems, UNBOUND will work with companies to implement specific changes: gender-balanced shortlists, flexible working that’s truly available to all parents, transparent promotion criteria, and accountability measures for diversity commitments. 

Regular measurement and iteration 

The steering committee will reconvene in April 2026 to assess progress and adjust strategy. This isn’t a static programme, it’s an evolving response to what women actually need. 

The honest conversation we need 

One of the most powerful moments of the evening came when discussing the challenges of calling out bad behaviour in workplaces that punish those who speak up. 

A committee member shared: “There are real challenges in calling out behaviours in a certain way that’s acceptable. Sometimes you feel like you can’t because you either get put as the troublemaker, or they don’t want you to be involved because you’re not aligned 100% to their values and you’re challenging the status quo. That, for me, is not okay. I don’t agree with the values here. I don’t want to be at that company anymore.” 

This honesty is exactly why UNBOUND exists. Too many diversity initiatives avoid uncomfortable truths. They celebrate small wins without acknowledging systemic problems. They put the burden of change on women rather than addressing the cultures and structures that create barriers. 

The steering committee’s willingness to have these difficult conversations gives UNBOUND the foundation to drive genuine change rather than just creating another well-intentioned programme that makes no real difference. 

Join us in driving change 

The energy at Conrad London was electric, not because we solved all the problems, but because we moved from talking about what should happen to planning what will happen. 

If you’re a woman in tech looking for mentorship, skill development, or a community of people facing similar challenges, the UNBOUND mentorship programme is now accepting applications. 

If you’re a leader committed to creating genuine change in your organisation, get in touch. The steering committee has shown there’s appetite for real solutions and willingness to do the difficult work of systemic change. 

This isn’t about quick fixes or performative diversity. It’s about creating an industry where talented women don’t just survive, they thrive. Where success doesn’t require superhuman resilience. Where the path to leadership is visible, achievable, and supported at every stage. 

The conversation has started. Now it’s time to build. 

Learn more about the UNBOUND mentorship programme here.

Get in touch about UNBOUND: lucy.kemp@lafosse.com

The post Charting the path forward: insights from UNBOUND’s leadership steering committee appeared first on La Fosse.