Search this site

Two out of three ain't bad (until you're the one living with the hiring decision). I've placed hundreds of finance people over the years, temporary and permanent, and there's a moment in almost every briefing where the same quiet negotiation happens. Speed, cost, quality - you get two. Which one are you giving up? Faster. Cheaper. Better. Pick Two For most SMEs that was never really a choice. The budget gets set, the deadline is whatever's left of the notice period, and quality becomes the thing that silently absorbs the difference. The trade-off was never a myth (it was a maths problem). Working through 400 applications properly costs about a week of someone's time. So it didn't get done properly. Every shortcut after that - the shallow screen, the reference nobody chased, the third candidate you never met - was the cost of that week turning up somewhere else, usually six months later. Speed used to cost you quality (now it mostly costs you nothing). A $6m member services business lost its Financial Controller on four weeks' notice, six weeks before the annual audit. An interim was in the seat in nine days, a fully-assessed best-fit permanent hire signed inside four weeks. Two years ago that's two separate processes, two fees and a very nervous September. Today, it’s seamless single value-led process. Cheap used to mean compromise (now it often means re-cutting the role). A fast-growing $2m e-commerce business was paying for a part-time bookkeeper and getting no forecasting for it. We didn't just fill the role, we split it - transactional work as automated as possible, plus six days a month of a commercially-minded +CFO-level to interpret the data. Today, that visibility costs way less than employing someone directly. Quality was always about specificity (and specificity used to be luck). A $15m refrigeration company had a 14-day month-end close that was always a little bit 'off'. The fix wasn't software. It was a management accountant who had transformed that exact EOM process in two previous roles. Finding that one person used to be a happy accident. Today, there are signals that can be relied upon, you just need to know how to read them. In a future post I'll share the four questions I'd want answered before anyone briefs me on a finance hire so that all options can be presented - faster, cheaper, better. There’s seriously never a better time to be looking for the person who’s looking for you. The bigger picture matters: the sift was always noise, the conversation was always the signal. What's changed is how much of your money and your calendar gets burned on the noise before you ever reach the signal. There's a lot of talk about AI recruitment platforms flattening people into keywords, and some of that is fair. But done right, the tech takes the grunt work, not the judgement - and the judgement is the whole job. Knowing what 'good' looks like in a $4m business is not a shrunken-down version of what good looks like at $40m. It’s an SME's own version of great.

The hiring landscape has changed dramatically with the rise of artificial intelligence. For CPA firms, this shift demands careful attention, especially when new hires will handle sensitive client data, financial records, tax documents, and audit workpapers. While AI presents new challenges, it also offers opportunities. Let's explore how your firm can navigate this evolving environment and make smarter, safer hiring decisions. Navigating AI in Hiring For Accountants The Double-Edged Sword of AI in Recruiting AI is transforming both sides of the hiring equation. Job seekers are using generative AI tools to polish resumes, organise their experience, and prepare for interviews. Meanwhile, employers can leverage AI to draft job postings and streamline candidate management. But there's a catch. According to a Robert Half survey, 65% of hiring managers say AI-generated resumes are creating significant hiring challenges. It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine whether candidates truly possess the skills and experience their resumes describe. The "Resume Illusion": What It Is and How to See Through It AI tools can help candidates present their experience in confident, keyword-rich language that sails through initial screenings. The problem? A polished resume doesn't always reflect reality. This is what we call the "resume illusion": a disconnect between what's written and what's real. How to Combat It Use resume details as a springboard for deeper questions. Here are some examples: Resume Claim Follow-Up Question Month-end close experience: "Walk me through how you handled reconciliations, variance explanations, or competing deadlines." Tax preparation experience: "How did you handle missing documentation? Describe how you manage pressure during the busy season." Client-facing advisory skills: "Tell me about a time you had to communicate difficult news or manage client expectations." These questions move conversations beyond polished language and reveal a candidate's actual experience, judgment, and readiness for the role. Beyond Resumes: Interview Fraud Is Real AI's impact doesn't stop at resumes. Employers are now encountering: Candidates relying on AI prompts during virtual interviews Polished but substance-free answers to common questions Identity misrepresentation and deepfake interviews Real-world examples include candidates who couldn't name a major road in the city they claimed to be from, and new hires who showed up on day one looking nothing like the person in their video interview. The Numbers Are Sobering 6% of candidates have admitted to interview fraud (Gartner) By 2028, Gartner predicts 1 in 4 candidate profiles worldwide will be fake Practical Safeguards You don't need to treat every candidate with suspicion, but taking reasonable precautions is smart: Ask unscripted follow-up questions Require live discussion of work samples Add a final in-person interview when practical Building a Complete Picture of Your Candidates A resume tells only part of the story. To reduce risk, dig deeper: Verify employment history through references and background checks Cross-reference LinkedIn profiles and other professional platforms Look for consistency in timelines, job titles, and responsibilities Ask about gaps or transitions in a candidate's career path Taking these extra steps protects your firm, your clients, and ultimately improves the candidate experience. Just be sure to stay agile; a slow or cumbersome process can cost you great candidates. and Setting Clear Expectations Around AI Use The goal isn't to penalise candidates for using AI. Many are simply using these tools to organise their thoughts and communicate more effectively. In fact, AI-savvy talent is often exactly who CPA firms want to hire. Instead, promote transparency by communicating your expectations: "AI may be useful for preparing resumes or researching our firm, but live interviews, assessments, and work discussions should reflect your own experience and judgment." This balanced approach reduces risk while giving qualified candidates the opportunity to shine. When to Bring in Reinforcements With application volumes rising and evaluation becoming more complex, many firms are turning to specialised recruiters for support. According to Robert Half: 71% of finance and accounting leaders say AI challenges have made them more likely to use specialised recruiters 91% report that staffing firms have been effective at addressing AI-related hiring challenges The Bottom Line AI is reshaping hiring in ways that demand attention—but not panic. With a clear understanding of the risks, practical verification strategies, and the right resources, your CPA firm can: ✅ Identify top talent more accurately ✅ Reduce hiring mistakes ✅ Maintain a competitive, efficient hiring process The key is diligence without sacrificing speed. In today's AI-enabled environment, that balance is your competitive advantage.

As promised we have provided one month of internet access and technology education to children in Ghana via B1G1 , because of your valued feedback on the Role-Match website. In northern Ghana, pupils learn IT from a blackboard - most have never even seen a computer. For young people to learn and for communities to thrive, this must change. B1G1 is helping by enabling not-for-profits to give students access to technology and the internet through tech zones. They’re equipping them with vital IT skills, access to online learning, and connection to the wider world empowering them to break the cycle of poverty. These projects aren't just about computers; they're about creating opportunity and preparing young people for the future. This project has dedicated staff who provide training and support as students access 37 computers throughout the day, after school, and on Saturday mornings that’s around 55,000 hours of computer access and training each year! I trust you like the new improved Role-Match website, take a look around and feel free to send us more feedback . One month of smiles

Resumes are so 2025. Some shifts are incremental, some are swift. And after decades of using resumes in roles as the single source of truth, I am so happy to announce that increasingly the employment version of the dodo - resumes - are no longer the employment calling card they once were. RIP. Don't Be a Dodo Yes, they're useful, but I would argue they are more usefully used to build your profile as to who you are professionally. Let me explain. For example, when we match people to roles in the finance space, we have a swift ten-step process to authentically match compatibility. We don't even look at your resume. It's not that we don't care, it's that it presents you to your professional world in such a 2-D way, it does you a great disservice. Same goes for the Position Description. How can it possibly reflect what the role's about? Even if it's been updated, and often it hasn't been looked at since the last person left. I'm excited about lots of things this year. Top of my list is how tech and business models will smash the way we fit people to roles and roles to people. Just watch.

A 'let's try it on for size' isn't what the Probation period was really designed for. It's what I'm hearing most often right now - 'this wasn't what I thought I was getting into'. It might have been in times past, but today, with the ability to vet employee and employer compatibility more effectively before a role starts, a Probation period should be much more about settling in and getting the job underway. It's a time of great change and uncertainty for everyone involved as it is. Often, the first six months in a new role becomes a sizing up exercise on both sides, where everyone's asking...is this what I signed up for? When Probation Becomes Discovery The cost of a mismatched hire is ever-increasing. Sure lots of numbers are thrown around about the cost of going again if what you chose doesn't work out (the latest I've seen is a six-figure number being touted as the cost of replacing the wrong hire in a CFO role - six figures!!) But this isn't just about money. There's the trust broken between both employer and employee as words don't follow-through into actions. There's the impact on the team that gets someone new, only to find they need to un-couple from them in short-shift. There's the confidence it shatters when everyone thought they were certain in their decision, only to be left scratching their heads as to what they missed. What makes it so difficult is that recruitment has always been more art than science, and this will continue even with the emerging tech in this area, but we are developing smarter ways of getting the compatibility more aligned to reduce the risk. Mis-hires and mis-fires cost more than people realise. The financial impact is just the start.

Not that long ago, many SMEs saw fractional services as an 'end of the road’ stopgap - great for plugging a crisis or shoring up an under-resourced project at the last minute. All drama. No joy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still great for that, but that’s not all. Today, using this type of resource is a strategic operating model used by smart business leaders, who can tap into support resources to deliver outcomes, transfer capability, and scale up or down with the business as it's needed. Fractional Baby Finance has been at the front of this shift because its tasks can more easily be sectioned off (incidentally where fractional gets it’s name - a part of a whole rather than the whole thing) and it is much easier to hold these types of tasks to account (pun intended). It’s also a myth that it’s only for big business or something that can be done through recruitment temp desks. Here’s four examples of how we’ve supported businesses in the last 12 months fractionally: · Provided back-fill support in the early days for a new in-house Finance Manager - it meant that they weren’t overloaded from the get-go, could learn their new role with a clear head, and received clear signalling from their new boss that they were supported and valued · Filled the gap between a finance person leaving (their new role needed them urgently), and the new person being ready (they had trouble leaving their old role because their new person wasn't ready). Similar to everyone selling whilst their buying their houses simultaneously, rather than selling and then buying, the timing for everyone needs to be aligned - tricky in the current market · Established a stop gap for an organisation who had been through five finance people in as many years. Something was off with the role design and the filters they were using to select their finance people. We could go in and impartially provide an outsider’s perspective AND complete the role before they hired number 6 · Created a ‘try-before-you-buy’ opportunity – in this case a CFO role. Did they really need a CFO or was a senior Financial Controller with CFO aspirations (with the skills and attitude to match) the right next step? No-one knew for sure but we could provide them with the space and resources to really design the right role and find them the right person with purpose, who turned out to be their new future CFO who would grow with them So don’t discount it. You’re not too small, too established, too structured, too…anything. It might just change the way you match your people with what needs to be done.

The Importance of Being Proactive in Your Job Search It’s time to drop the myth that the right professional opportunity lands in your lap by chance. Good networks matter and timing plays a role, but real results demand a smarter approach. The finance world moves fast, and so do your priorities. No one can be everywhere at once, in every conversation, or in the perfect spot the moment that next big opportunity appears. Relying on luck or waiting for fate to intervene just isn’t efficient. To advance your career, you need a process you can trust to work in real time, regardless of shifting circumstances. That’s where Role-Match.com comes in: we keep you connected, visible, and ready for quality opportunities so you’re not relying on being in the right place at the right time. Don’t leave your next step up to chance. Make your move with confidence. It’s akin to searching for your life partner while lounging at home in front of Netflix, dressed in trackies with take-out on your lap. Happy? Sure. Giving yourself the best shot at finding the love of your life? Nope. Our Journey in the Finance Space Our story is that we’ve interacted with over 1,000 finance roles within SMEs during our long history in this space. Looking, Not Looking We’ve matched people with opportunities that are truly their next role. We’ve weathered downturns, experienced periods of massive growth, navigated pandemics, and survived tech tsunamis. One thing is clear: you need to be "Looking, Not Looking" at all times if you want to stay relevant. So why are finance professionals ditching job boards and recruiters for smarter matches through platforms like Role-Match.com that focus on a 360-degree fit, not just the sliding-door moments of fate? Tailored Matching: A Personal Touch 🎯 Tailored Matching : We have developed intellectual property that uncovers everything critically important about both finance roles and finance-focused candidates - like you! This ensures that roles align with your experience, goals, preferred work style, and where you are right now. We combine the benefits of a 20-year specialization in our profession with the reach and depth of job boards. Time-Saving Discovery: Efficiency at Its Best ⏱️ Time-Saving Discovery : In building your 360-profile quickly, we cover your technical skill assessments, soft-skills assessments, referee endorsements, police checks, and qualification checks. You’ll be ready to slot into a role that’s perfect for you as soon as it becomes available or when employers are fishing in the market. And we do it fast! No more endless scrolling, crossing your fingers that the right role is at the top of your feed - just relevant, high-quality opportunities optimized for you and your potential employers. Identifying Gaps: Bridging the Divide 💼 Identifying Gaps : We all have them - gaps in skills, blind spots in knowledge, and the constant challenge of outsmarting changing algorithms to position yourself for the best outcome. Whether that’s more money, optimum flexibility, or added benefits that matter, it’s crucial to be aware of these gaps. As my grandmother used to say when I was looking for my first serious boyfriend, “Every saucepan has its lid…you just need to find yours.” The Need for Constant Vigilance The truth is, you should be looking at all times, whether you’re happy in your current role or not. When things change, they change quickly and without notification. So if you’re "Looking, Not Looking," get ready to stop searching and start matching as part of your career journey. It’s time to explore a smarter way forward. Join the Movement 👉 Join the movement and discover how you can take control of your career path. Don’t wait for opportunities to find you. Instead, be proactive and ensure you are always ready for the next big step. In the end, it’s about making the hiring process less frustrating for everyone involved. So, let’s get started!

Reliable Ways to Identify Top Finance Talent This still floors me. If you’ve ever hired (or been hired), you’ve seen it: 5+ years required. 10+ years preferred. It’s written like a proxy for certainty - like time served automatically equals capability. But years of experience is often a comfort metric, not a performance predictor. Time is a Weak Predictor of Performance Here’s the uncomfortable truth: two people can have the same number of years and wildly different levels of competence, judgment, pace, and impact. One has spent seven years doing progressively harder work, learning new systems, building relationships, and improving decision-making. The other has spent seven years repeating Year One…seven times. So why do we keep using it? Because it’s easy to screen, easy to justify, and easy to explain. It feels objective. It isn’t. Below is why I believe ‘years’ breaks down, and how candidates and employers can move to signals that actually predict whether someone will perform. 1. Time doesn’t measure difficulty, scope, or complexity Two roles can share a title and have nothing in common. A Finance Manager in one business might oversee AP/AR, payroll, month-end, and cashflow in a stable environment In another, the same title might mean building forecasting from scratch, wrangling messy data, implementing a new ERP, and partnering with sales on pricing. Both might be five years in duration but the context determines whether those years contained real problem-solving or just routine execution. What to look for instead: Scope (budget size, stakeholder breadth, systems owned) Complexity (ambiguity, pace, data quality, multi-entity, change) Decision depth (advising vs reporting) 2. Experience can create muscle…or scar tissue Experience is not automatically positive. It can reinforce habits that worked in one environment but fail in another. Some people become faster, sharper, and more commercial over time. Others accumulate coping strategies: over-control, risk aversion, 'that’s how we’ve always done it' or performing busywork to avoid judgment calls. In many roles, performance is rarely about knowing more - it’s about making better decisions with imperfect information and communicating them clearly. That’s not guaranteed by tenure. Sometimes it’s blocked by it. So what’s potentially a better predictor? How someone reacts to new constraints. What do you do when you are up against a deadline and things are running late? What’s your approach when stakeholders disagree? Tell me about a time you changed your view after new data arrived 3. Tenure is a poor proxy for learning velocity In fast-moving SMEs, learning velocity is everything. A person who learns quickly can step into ambiguity, pick up your business model, understand your data, and start improving decisions within weeks. A person who learns slowly might take months to become functional, and still never move beyond 'tell me what you want me to do'. Years of experience doesn’t reveal how quickly someone turns new information into better output. A better predictor is operating from first principles, thinking and adaptability Ask for an example where they entered a new industry or system Give a small scenario and see how they structure the response Look for clarity, not jargon 4. Years required hides bias and shrinks your talent pool This matters for both sides of the market. For employers, hard time requirements can eliminate: Return-to-work parents Career changers with strong adjacent skills High-performing juniors from high-growth environments Candidates with non-linear paths For candidates, it creates a fake hierarchy where the most ‘eligible’ person is simply the oldest on paper. When organisations rely on years, they often miss the people who can actually do the job, and accidentally select for those who are best at appearing experienced. So what should we use instead? For employers - hire on signals, not tenure. Replace ‘5+ years required’ with a short scorecard: Outcomes (what they must deliver) Produce a weekly cashflow view with driver commentary Deliver a forecast we can make decisions with Improve month-end close by X days Capabilities (how they’ll do it) Systems thinking (process + data + controls) Commercial judgment Stakeholder influence Communication clarity Evidence (how you’ll verify it) A 30-45 minute work sample (short, realistic, paid if substantial) A structured interview with scenario questions Reference checks focused on behaviours, not personality For candidates - prove impact in one page. Instead of leaning on years, lead with: Here’s what I improved Here’s what I built Here’s the decision I influenced Here’s how I think A short portfolio beats a long timeline: a dashboard screenshot (anonymised), a forecast approach, a one-page memo you’d send to a founder explaining variance and actions. And the bottom line of approaching the matching process like this? Years of experience measures exposure, not effectiveness. And in most roles - especially in SMEs - effectiveness is what matters. So let’s stop treating time like a credential. The better question isn’t ‘how long have you done it?’ but ‘can you produce the outcomes we need, in the reality in which we’re living?’

A new year needs a more effective way of hiring, but how does hiring without using a resume as the single source of truth work IRL? To date, the choices for hiring SMEs have been woeful – job posts on one hand, recruiters on the other. Both rely heavily on someone's resume. Hiring Without a Resume Looking back, 2025 was the year of loud resistance amongst many in the recruitment fraternity. AI will never replace us! We add Value! The tech bros are delusional! Those in business who feel the pain of hiring people on a regular basis, hear you. But we don’t believe you. As with everything long-accepted going through a huge transition, absolute positions are dangerous. And ultimately unhelpful. No, AI won’t replace the whole hiring process but my goodness, it’ll refine and streamline so much of it and make it more effective, faster and outcome driven for both employer and employee Some recruiters deliver exceptional value but many are still struggling to map the value of what they deliver with what business sees as valuable (just ask them both) Tech bros will be delusional for as long as it took Xero to challenge MYOB. Just ask Sir Rod Drury how that worked out And job posting sites? Honestly, they just reorder the deluge of candidates so it looks like you’ve got less to do, but in reality, you still have to trawl through the candidates who have applied. So what does exceptional hiring in 2026 look like? No resumes - ever. Assess potential employees through scenario-based judgment tests, structured skills challenges and mindset profiling tailored to the role level. You see actual signals of capability and fit, not just a list of job titles Use the best of tech + human judgment . Matching engines can now narrow the field to high-probability matches, craft and customise human-led interview and referee questions and treat people in interview as the individuals they are Start with a balanced outcomes approach from the get-go . A re-engineering of the hiring experience is finally possible to meet people where they are. Where role-fillers balance cost with outcome, and role-seekers are heard and valued So what changes most when you ditch the resume? You remove bias tied to formatting flair, brand-name employers, and pedigree. Instead, you prioritise problem-solving, speed-to-competence, and values alignment You hire for the role and the stage you’re at. Early-stage growth? You need doers who communicate well, simplify chaos, and get things done. Established or scaling? You need different skills You get faster confidence in the hire. No more crossing your fingers and hoping the person behind the CV will match the person you actually need. The Probation Period is a risky way to test your hunches Our mission has always been simple: help SMEs hire people that drives growth - without paying a premium in either time or money just to read resumes and roll the dice.

I’ve interviewed hundreds of people over many years but there’s five minutes in every hiring conversation that’s almost always awkward: the moment you’re invited to name your number. For a lot of brilliant humans - especially introverts and many women - this is where confidence gets wobbly, words get stuck, and perfectly good leverage quietly walks out the door. There’s a lot of noise about emerging AI recruitment platforms and how they are perpetuating biases, making it even harder for some candidates to get the role they want. I believe that done right, future recruitment practices will improve many things including how rates are set so that everyone is happier with where they land. Here’s what’s going on under the hood (and how to work with it, not against it): Asking For What You Want Can Be Hard The ‘backlash tax’ is real (and rational to anticipate). Women don’t just feel more risk when they push for more - they’re often treated differently for doing it. Classic experiments show interviewers penalise female candidates who negotiate for higher pay, rating them as less likeable and less hireable than identical male candidates. That’s a reputational cost men don’t typically pay. ‘Women don’t ask’ is outdated (yet outcomes still diverge). Recent research finds professional women are now more likely than men to negotiate initial offers; the problem is they get turned down more often and still end up with lower pay over time. Translation: effort isn’t the issue - systemic response is. The starting line isn’t the same (and it really matters). Even before anyone negotiates, women are more likely to receive lower initial offers. When your anchor is set lower, you have to climb further just to reach parity - and many negotiations never make up the gap. Large-scale offer data put that offer gap at ~5.5% after controlling for role, employer and human capital factors. Introverts aren’t allergic to negotiating (they’re allergic to noise). If you prefer to process deeply, the fast paced, performative vibe of offer talks can feel like conflict, not conversation. Physiological and behavioural research shows people with an introversion preference are more likely to avoid conflict, particularly in overstimulating environments. That makes the high stakes, time boxed money chat uniquely draining. Culture often misreads quiet (as ‘less passion = less value’). Interviewers routinely over ascribe passion to extroverted displays and overlook quieter signals - leading to more attention, sponsorship, and yes, better compensation outcomes for the loudest voices. Quiet performers can be perceived as less hungry at exactly the moment hunger gets rewarded - and the ‘name your number’ conversation can be confronting, especially if you don’t like talking about money. Pay transparency help (but it doesn’t magically remove the ask). We love transparency because it shrinks information frictions and can narrow pay gaps. But it also changes how employers’ bargain (sometimes more aggressively) and the framing of salary information matters for negotiation behaviour. Ranges are a starting point, not a salary guarantee, but they do help in getting you comfortable with the conversation to start with. So what do you do when your wiring and the system both nudge you to stay quiet? Build your anchor before the interview. Use external, role specific data to pre set your number. Or use something like Role-Match to give you a market range for you based on your experience and the role you are going for with us. If you’re introverted, prep is your superpower - document outcomes, scope, and market rates so you don’t have to think on the spot. Change the medium, keep the message. Introverts often communicate best in writing. Ask for the range in advance and follow with a crisp email that ties your ask to scope and repeatable outcomes. You’re not less assertive, you’re low noise, high signal. Name the value, not just the number. Because interviewers sometimes react to how women ask, tether the ask to business outcomes and mutual benefit. This needs some homework on the organisation, the role and some thinking outside the box around value best done in preparation. Use the range, then bracket it. If a role is posted at $X–$Y, position yourself with evidence near the top third and explain why you’ve put yourself there (scope fit, scarce capabilities, speed to competence, etc.). Transparency is your scaffold, not your ceiling. If the answer’s ‘no’, bank a ‘when’. People who struggle to ‘sell’ themselves at interview get turned down more often even when they ask. Close with specifics and ask what outcomes in 90 days trigger moving to $X? Lock the next decision point into the offer letter. The bigger picture matters: resumes are noise; real world capability and mindset are the signal. When you walk into an offer conversation anchored in outcomes (not adjectives), you neutralise some bias, lower the temperature for quieter communicators, and make 'the ask' feel less like combat and more like calibration. That’s good for you, and great for the business that hires you.