In one board-level search, a technically strong CFO candidate did not progress. His financial expertise was evident, and his track record stood up to scrutiny. During the discussion, the board found his answers long, rigid and difficult to work with. They questioned how effectively he would advise a leadership team whose members had competing priorities.
In an interview, I would examine whether the candidate answered the question being discussed and made their recommendation understandable. If the board struggled to follow an answer, I would also want to know how the candidate responded to a request for clarification. That would help establish what lay behind the initial impression.
I use advisory presence to describe how a finance leader brings financial judgement into that exchange. It includes establishing what decision is being made and explaining how the financial evidence affects the available choices. Russell Reynolds Associates’ report on CFO turnover in 2024 describes similar expectations in its practitioners’ observations about strategic partnership and communication with boards. [1]
A decision to work through in the interview
To make this assessable, I would use a hypothetical exercise such as the following, separate from the search described above.
A company plans to open a new site. The forecast shows that the investment will pay off, but the opening requires substantial spending before customer payments arrive. The commercial director wants to move quickly to capture a market opportunity. The candidate is asked whether they would recommend proceeding.
Before giving a final recommendation, I would expect the candidate to establish the conditions under which the proposal has to work. Three questions would help.
The opening date
“What is driving the proposed opening date, and what would be the commercial consequence of opening later or at a smaller scale?”
This establishes how much freedom the company has to change the plan. A later opening might reduce the immediate funding requirement while also losing customers whose business depends on that date. Starting at a smaller scale might be workable, or it might make the site unable to deliver what customers need. The candidate needs the commercial reasoning before treating either option as a solution.
The timing of customer payments
“How much of the revenue forecast is supported by signed contracts, and when would we actually receive payment under those terms?”
A forecast built on signed orders has a different basis from one built on sales discussions. Even a signed order leaves a timing question: the company may have to pay for stock and staff well before the customer pays. This question connects the commercial forecast to the cash available to run the business. It also identifies which expectations still need testing.
The capacity to finance a delay
“If revenue is delayed, how much can we reliably fund, and for how long, while still covering the existing business and our other commitments?”
The candidate can then examine whether the company could absorb a slower start. Available funding has to be considered alongside payments already due elsewhere in the business. If the project would depend on an additional credit facility, its availability and terms become part of the recommendation.
How the candidate uses the answers
Suppose the panel adds that customer payments may arrive later than forecast. I would look at whether the candidate follows that change through to the funding requirement. They might recommend proceeding once sufficient finance is secured, or staging the investment if the commercial requirements allow it. If the information is insufficient, they should identify the calculation or confirmation needed before committing.
The explanation should make the dependency clear: the proposed opening date requires spending before receipts arrive; a delay extends the period the company has to fund; approval therefore depends on being able to cover that period without missing existing obligations. Colleagues can then examine the recommendation because they can see what it rests on.
A disagreement with the commercial director gives the panel further evidence. The candidate needs to establish which assumption is disputed and explain how a different assumption would affect the recommendation. Repeating the original forecast would leave the objection unresolved. Revising an assumption without checking its financial consequences would leave the board with an incomplete answer.
What would support the hiring decision
In this exercise, I would assess whether the candidate can keep the discussion connected to the decision as new information arrives. A long explanation may be necessary. If the recommendation remains unclear, I would ask for it explicitly and observe whether the candidate can clarify it.
An exercise of this kind would give the panel specific behaviour to examine alongside the candidate’s track record and references. The assessment should record how the candidate used the information provided and identify any concern that still needed checking before an appointment.
Source
[1] Russell Reynolds Associates (2025). Great Expectations: Where Next for the CFO Role? Global CFO Turnover Index Annual Report, covering 2024, pp. 5–7. The cited passages contain practitioner commentary on CFO responsibilities and board expectations.