Search this site

The decision's been made. Now they have to decide what happens to a Finance Officer everyone likes. This is the third post in a series built around a real client. In Part 1 (The Empathy Trap), I shared their hesitation about bringing us in. It wasn't the cost or the risk. It was their Finance Officer: dedicated, well-liked, part of the fabric of the place. Part 2 (How Cutting Costs Gets You More) covered how this isn't an easy decision but provides pointers on things to consider. They've now decided to move forward. And they're working through the balance of what happens for her the right way. Choices Under Fire I'll be upfront. I'm not neutral here. We're the firm coming in. And I'll be honest about something else. After 20 years, this part still sits uncomfortably with me. What we do helps businesses get through tough conditions, and that can protect the jobs of everyone else on the team. But it often means someone loses a role they're good at. I don't think I should ever get comfortable with that. Which is exactly why I think we have a responsibility to talk openly about the human side of these decisions. When businesses reach this point, there are really three options. Option 1: Do nothing. Park it. Wait for things to pick up. Revisit it next quarter. I'm seeing this a lot right now, and I understand why. It's the option that avoids a hard conversation today. But it isn't neutral. Every month you wait, you're still carrying the cost. Still carrying the single-person risk. Still running processes nobody has looked at in years. And honestly? Nothing I'm seeing suggests conditions are about to turn quickly. The businesses that come through this in the best shape are strengthening their position now, not waiting for the market to do it for them. Waiting rarely makes the decision easier. It usually means making it later, under more pressure, with fewer choices. This client looked hard at the numbers and decided waiting wasn't an option Option 2: Redeploy her. This is where every good leader should look next. It's also the law. Under the Fair Work Act, a redundancy isn't 'genuine' if it would have been reasonable to redeploy the person elsewhere in the business. But here's the honest part. Redeployment doesn't reduce your headcount cost. Her salary stays on the books. So it only works if there's a real role that genuinely needs doing, one where her knowledge of the business adds real value. If that exists, it's the best outcome for everyone. If it doesn't, creating one is just Option 1 in disguise. It delays the conversation, and it isn't fair to her either Option 3: A redundancy, done with genuine support. If redeployment isn't the right fit, the question becomes: how do we make sure she lands well? This is where we've offered outplacement support as part of the transition of bringing our services in. We've spent 20 years placing finance professionals across Australia, and that network doesn't switch off because we're on the other side of the change. → Practical career support: Resume coaching, interview prep, positioning her experience → Access to the roles we see every day, including ones never advertised → Someone in her corner who knows what good finance people are worth Whichever path a business takes, some things don't change: → Consult early and genuinely. People cope with hard news far better than with feeling blindsided → Separate the person from the role. Say it plainly, and mean it → Respect what they've built. Involve them in the handover and credit what they've carried → Think about timing. Not pay week. Not the week before Christmas → Remember the team is watching. How you treat someone they care about is ultimately how you'll treat them After two decades of doing this, here's what I believe. Taking cost out of a business is the easy bit. Any spreadsheet can do it. Doing it in a way you can still be proud of in five years? That's leadership. The care this client has shown since that very first email tells me their people are in good hands. To everyone else facing a version of this right now: Which of the three options are you seeing most? And if you've been through a redundancy, as the leader or the person affected, what made the difference between it being handled well and handled badly? (As always, get proper employment advice for your specific situation. Every business, every Award, every personal situation is different.) Part 4 next zooms out: why this dilemma is about to land on every leader as AI arrives as the tidal wave after the one SMEs are all facing now.

A business was about to cut the cost of its finance function by 25–30%. The only thing holding them back was one person. And she'd done nothing wrong. I got an email recently I haven't stopped thinking about. A CFO we'd been talking with wrote back to say they were still weighing things up. The sticking point wasn't the numbers. It was their Finance Officer. Dedicated. Well-liked. The kind of person everyone wants on their team. And the thought of making her role redundant was giving them real pause. The Empathy Trap I've been doing this for 20 years. I've read some version of that email hundreds of times. And I've never once thought it was the wrong instinct. But it sits right at the centre of a problem a lot of Australian businesses are wrestling with right now. Costs are up. Wages, insurance, rent, finance costs. Revenue is softer than the forecast promised. Owners, boards and executive teams are being asked the same question: where can we take cost out without breaking something? The finance function often ends up in the spotlight. It's an overhead. It doesn't win new customers. So it gets squeezed. Here's the trap. Most businesses think they have two options: → Cut, and lose capability → Keep everything as is, and keep bleeding cost So they do neither properly. They freeze hiring. They stretch whoever's left. They put off the system upgrade for another year. The result? A finance function that costs about the same and does a bit less every year. After working with more than 1,000 SMEs, I can tell you there are usually three things hiding underneath. 1/ Processes nobody has looked at in years. The finance run that takes more days than it needs to because it relies on a spreadsheet someone built in 2014. The month-end that needs three sign-offs because of an issue that happened once, a decade ago. Nobody designed it to be inefficient. It just grew that way. 2/ Single-person dependency. This is the big one, and it's usually built by accident. One person knows how finance actually runs. Where the support files live. Which supplier gets paid early and why. That's not a criticism of that person. It's usually because they're good, so everything flows to them. But ask yourself honestly: What happens if she's sick in any given week? What happens if she resigns? What happens if something goes wrong and nobody else can check her work? That's not loyalty. That's risk. For her as much as for the business. 3/ Nobody knows what the finance function should cost. Most owners can tell you what it does cost. Very few can tell you what it should cost for a business their size, in their industry, with their transaction volumes. Without a benchmark, every decision is a guess. So the real question isn't "how do we cut cost?" It's "how do we spend less and end up with something better?" That's what the next three posts are about. Part 2: what that actually looks like in practice, and the numbers behind it. Part 3: the hard part. What to do when the right decision for the business means a conversation with someone you genuinely value. Part 4: why this dilemma is about to land on every leader as AI arrives. (Spoiler: they've since made their decision. I'll share what they chose, and how they're handling it, in Part 3.) If your key finance person was unavailable tomorrow, how long before what really matters stopped?

We’ve done this for more than 1,000 organisations. Cut costs and end up with something better, not worse. Most businesses think they have to choose: cut costs or keep capability. After 20 years and more than 1,000 SMEs, I can tell you it's a false choice. Cutting Costs Can Get You More In Part 1 (The Empathy Trap), I shared an email from a CFO who was hesitating about whether to bring us in, because it would mean making their well-liked Finance Officer's role redundant. Before we get to that (Part 3), let's look at what's on the other side of the decision. Because if you're going to make a hard call, you need to know it's the right one. Here's what we do. 1/ We tell you what your finance function should cost. Not a guess. A benchmark. We've done this for more than 1,000 organisations. That means we can compare your finance function against businesses just like yours: similar size, similar complexity, similar volumes. Most owners have never had that number. When they see it, the conversation changes. It stops being "can we afford to change?" and becomes "can we afford not to?" 2/ We bring an objective eye. Our Optimum Process is the hallmark of what we do. We come in, map how things actually work (not how the procedures manual says they work), and strip out what doesn't need to be there. The double handling. The workarounds. The report nobody reads. Not because anyone did anything wrong. Because nobody had the time, or the distance, to look. 3/ We do it onshore. This matters more than people realise. Australian SME finance is not simple. It often includes nuance that's difficult to nail. Reporting that needs context. Payroll with modern Awards and an EBA thrown in for good measure. That's not something you want handled by a team that's never heard of an enterprise agreement, working while you're asleep. Onshore means local knowledge, your time zone, and people who understand how Australian businesses actually run. 4/ We remove the single-person dependency. Instead of one person holding everything in their head, you get documented processes and a team behind them. Leave is covered. Work is reviewed. Nothing stops because one person is away. That's not just efficient. It's a genuine reduction in business risk, and in fraud and error risk too. And the numbers? For businesses in the 1m–20m range, we're typically reducing the cost of the finance function by 25–30%. From day one. Not after a two-year transformation program. Lower cost. Better process. Less risk. That's the 'something better' I talked about in Part 1. On paper, it's an easy decision. And the client from Part 1 has decided to go ahead. But anyone who's run a business knows signing off on the numbers is the easy bit. The hard part is the person sitting at the desk. In Part 3, I'll share how they're approaching that, and the three options every business in this position faces. In the meantime: Do you know what your finance function costs as a percentage of revenue? And do you know what it should cost? Don't miss Part 3. It's the one that matters most.

For 20 years, my work has made businesses stronger. And sometimes, it costs a good person their job. AI is about to hand that same dilemma to every leader. If you lead people, this one's for you. Leading With an AI Heart Over the past three posts, I've followed a real client through one of the hardest calls a CFO leading a team makes: restructuring their finance function, knowing it would affect a Finance Officer everyone valued. In Part 3, I admitted something I don't often say out loud. Our work helps businesses survive tough trading conditions, and that protects jobs. But sometimes someone loses a role they're good at. Both things are true. And after two decades, I've stopped trying to make that discomfort go away. Here's why that matters now. AI is going to create this dissonance at a scale we haven't seen before. Tasks that took a team a week will take an afternoon. Some roles will change. Some will go. Most leaders will face a version of my dilemma for the first time. And many will try to resolve the discomfort the fastest way possible: by telling themselves it's just business, or by avoiding the decision altogether. Neither works. Here's what I've learned about leading with heart and still making the hard calls. 1/ Hold both truths at once. You can believe a decision is right for the business and feel the weight of what it costs a person. Those aren't in conflict. The moment you lose either one, you lose something as a leader. 2/ Don't let efficiency become the whole story. AI, outsourcing, restructuring: these are tools. The question isn't whether they make you more efficient. It's what you do with what you gain. Reinvest some of it in your people. Upskill them. Move them towards the work that machines can't do. 3/ Don't hide behind the decision. The worst redundancies I've seen weren't the ones that happened. They were the ones where people found out last, or second-hand. If change is coming, say so early and honestly. Your people can handle the truth far better than the silence. 4/ Measure yourself by how people land. Not by whether you avoided the decision. By whether the person affected walked out with their dignity, their confidence and a real path to what's next. That's why we offer outplacement support. It's the part of the work I'm proudest of. 5/ Stay a little uncomfortable. The day these decisions stop costing you something is the day you'll start making them carelessly. That discomfort isn't weakness. It's your conscience doing its job. Heart-led leadership was never about avoiding hard decisions. It's about making them clearly, early and kindly, and owning what follows. AI won't change that. It will just make it matter more. So I'd love to ask you to contemplate something... How are you preparing your people, and yourself, for the changes AI will bring? I'll keep writing about leading finance teams through AI change: the practical side and the human side. Part of this very personal experience is creating conversations that I want to be part of.

Every week there's a new post telling us AI is going to strip the humanity out of hiring. Bias baked into algorithms, candidates flattened into keywords, recruiters replaced by a chatbot with a nice font. I understand why people feel that way. All change is hard, and change that touches people's livelihoods is harder still. But I've spent a long time on both sides of the briefing table, and I think the fear is drowning out something important. Done properly, this tech doesn't just make hiring faster or cheaper. It makes it better. Monster Under the Bed Here's what the noise is missing: The fear is fair (it's just pointed at the wrong thing). Bad AI in recruitment looks exactly like bad recruitment without AI - keyword filters, lazy screens, nobody reading past the first page of a resume. The problem was never the tool. It was a shallow process being called a valuable service. Matching was always a synthesis problem (and we were solving it with half the information). A good placement depends on dozens of things. Skills and competencies, yes, but also how a business actually runs, the pace of the team, what the last person in the seat struggled with, and what the candidate wants and needs from the next three years. No recruiter, however experienced, holds all of that in their head for 300 applicants. So we matched on job titles and other key words, and hoped. Now the tech can synthesise everything we know about the candidate and everything we know about the role, side by side, including all the prompts we didn't even know to ask, before a human ever makes the call. Better matching shows up later (in who's still there). We've measured it where it counts. Satisfaction sits at 87%. And more than 90% of our placements are still in the role at the 18 month mark. Yes, it's early days (we only went live in 2024) but the numbers sit well against the spray+pray norms. And this is also a particularly useful stat for roles with a checkered history. This isn't a quicker process (although it often is that too). That's fewer people starting a job that was never right for them, and fewer businesses paying for it twice. Progress is quiet (fear is loud). A bad AI hiring story travels a thousand times further than a good placement. Nobody posts "started a job that suits me, still happy two years on." But that's the story playing out, again and again, for the businesses and candidates willing to try it. The bigger picture matters: the tech doesn't replace the judgement, it feeds it. It takes the pile of information we used to skim and turns it into something a person can properly weigh up. The conversation is still the signal. It's just a far better-informed conversation.

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.