On October 9, a LinkedIn account selling resume services posted a story that began, “I interviewed a single mother.” The day before, a different account had posted the same story. State of Brand found at least eight versions. The profile photos and names changed. The widow, the toddler, the master’s degree and the eight months stayed exactly the same.

It’s an extreme case, but it captures the fear almost every senior leader brings to ghostwriting: that someone else writing for them will produce something generic, or worse, something that isn’t true.

The fear is reasonable

Formulaic content is everywhere. Originality.ai estimated that 53.7% of long-form LinkedIn posts in 2025 were likely AI-generated, and in a July 2026 sample of 5,000 posts the figure reached 81.2%. LinkedIn has begun rolling out a way for members to flag posts that seem like AI slop.

Readers have learned the patterns: the dramatic one-line opener, the invented encounter, the numbered list of lessons, the question at the end. When a senior leader’s posts start to look like that, credibility drops quickly, because the whole point of hearing from a senior leader is that they have real experience.

Ghostwriting has always been normal

Executives have worked with speechwriters, editors and communications teams for as long as there have been executives. Most op-eds under a CEO’s name have had help. The question isn’t whether someone helps you write. It’s whose ideas, stories and judgment end up on the page.

Done properly, ghostwriting is an editing relationship. The leader supplies the substance: the decisions, opinions and experiences. The writer supplies the time and craft to turn that into clear, publishable writing, and the leader approves every word.

What makes ghostwriting generic

When ghostwritten content goes wrong, it’s usually for one of a few reasons.

The writer doesn’t have real material. Without a proper conversation, a writer falls back on general advice and trend commentary that could come from anyone.

The writer copies formats instead of voice. Viral templates get applied to everyone, so every client sounds the same.

Nobody checks against the leader’s actual voice. Drafts go out because they’re competent, not because they sound like the person.

Stories get invented or embellished. This is the line that should never be crossed, and it’s the one the single-mother posts crossed eight times.

How to keep it sounding like you

These are the rules we work to with every client.

1. Start from a real conversation. Each month we record a 30-minute call built around decisions, mistakes and opinions. Every post traces back to something the leader actually said.

2. Build a voice model. We document the phrases a leader uses, the stories they return to, how they open and close an argument, and the words they’d never use. Every draft is checked against it before the leader sees it.

3. Never invent experience. If a story didn’t happen, it doesn’t get written. Hypotheticals are labelled as hypotheticals.

4. Keep each leader distinct. When we write for several people at one company, each has a separate voice model so they don’t blur into one house style.

5. Let edits teach the system. When a leader changes a phrase or rejects a draft, the reason is recorded, so the next draft gets closer.

That process is Voice StudioX, and every draft goes through MeridianX for approval, so nothing is published without the leader’s yes.

A quick test for any draft

Before you approve anything written for you, ask three questions. Did this actually happen, the way it’s described? Would a colleague recognise this as something I’d say? Could anyone else in my field have posted this word for word? If the answer to the last question is yes, send it back.

Ghostwriting done well doesn’t make you sound like a creator. It makes you sound like yourself on a good day, more often than your calendar would otherwise allow.

Sources

• State of Brand: The single mother who doesn’t exist (Oct 12, 2026)

• Originality.ai: LinkedIn AI content study