Why most transformations change at the hiring stage

Most finance transformations do not fail because of systems

They fail because of people.


More specifically, they fail because businesses hire the wrong types of people to deliver them.

This is uncomfortable for many organisations to admit, because it is far easier to blame technology, budgets or timelines than recruitment decisions.

But in practice, this is where most finance transformations quietly break down.


The promise of finance transformation


When businesses talk about finance transformation, they usually mean:


  • Better insight
  • Faster decisions
  • More commercial influence
  • Greater automation
  • A more strategic finance function


All sensible aims.

But these ambitions rarely match the profiles being hired to deliver them.


Where it goes wrong


Most transformation programmes still recruit in the same way as business as usual finance roles.


They prioritise:


  • Technical accounting backgrounds
  • System familiarity
  • Process experience
  • Industry match


All of which matter.

But transformation is not built on stability. It is built on change.

And the skills required to run a stable finance function are not the same skills required to redesign one.


Operators versus builders


This is where many organisations get stuck.

They hire operators when what they really need are builders.


Operators thrive when:


  • Processes are defined
  • Rules are clear
  • The system already works
  • Change is incremental


Builders thrive when:


  • Things are unclear
  • Processes need redesigning
  • There is ambiguity
  • Change is constant


Most finance transformations require builders.

Most hiring processes deliver operators.


That mismatch is fatal, even when the people themselves are strong.


Why businesses default to the wrong profiles


This usually happens for very human reasons.


Hiring managers look for what feels safe.
They hire what they know.
They choose familiarity over fit.

There is also a fear factor.


Transformation is already risky. So businesses try to reduce perceived risk by hiring people who look like a “sure thing”.

Ironically, that is exactly what increases the real risk.


The cost of getting this wrong


When the wrong profiles are hired into transformation roles, a few things happen.


Change slows down.
Decisions get deferred.
Processes are improved instead of rethought.
Legacy thinking survives under new systems.


On paper, transformation is happening.


In reality, the function stays largely the same.


What successful finance transformations do differently


The finance transformations that succeed usually start with a different hiring mindset.


They look for people who:


  • Question before they optimise
  • Challenge rather than accept
  • Are comfortable with unfinished thinking
  • Can influence without formal authority
  • Think commercially, not just technically

They hire people who are as comfortable building something new as they are running something existing.


A more useful hiring question


Instead of asking:
Has this person done this role before?

A better question is:
Has this person built something like this before?

That shift alone changes who you attract, who you hire and ultimately whether transformation becomes real or just cosmetic.


The uncomfortable truth


Most finance transformations fail long before the system goes live.

They fail when the wrong people are put in charge of delivering them.

Technology matters. Budget matters. Governance matters.

But none of them compensate for hiring people who are not wired to create change.


Man in light blue shirt, adjusting dark tie, eyes closed against a gray background.
By Eliot Acton January 28, 2026
There is a lot of confidence right now in finance. AI will fix reporting. AI will speed up forecasting. AI will improve insight. AI will free finance teams up to be more strategic. Some of that will be true. But there is an uncomfortable truth that rarely gets discussed. Most finance teams are not ready for AI. And AI is not the reason why. The illusion many finance leaders are buying into AI has become a convenient shortcut. A way to believe that technology will solve problems that are actually rooted in people, structure and decision making. If the tools are smart enough, the thinking will improve. If the dashboards are better, decisions will follow. If the output is faster, the function will become more strategic. That logic sounds attractive. It is also flawed. AI does not fix weak judgement. It does not fix unclear ownership. It does not fix poor challenge. It does not fix a finance team that lacks confidence or commercial understanding. It simply accelerates whatever already exists. Why AI exposes finance weaknesses rather than solving them In many organisations, finance already produces more information than the business can properly use. More reports have not led to better decisions. More data has not led to clearer strategy. More analysis has not led to better outcomes. AI increases volume, speed and sophistication. But it does not tell you: Which numbers actually matter What trade offs to make When to challenge a decision When to say no Those are human responsibilities. If a finance team struggles to influence decisions today, AI will not suddenly give it a stronger voice tomorrow. The real risk leaders are ignoring The real risk is not that AI replaces finance professionals. The real risk is that it exposes which finance roles never moved beyond production in the first place. As automation removes transactional work, the remaining roles become more exposed. They require: Judgement Commercial awareness Confidence Influence Accountability for decisions Some people step into that space naturally. Others retreat from it. AI does not create that divide. It reveals it. Where most organisations are getting this wrong Many businesses are investing heavily in tools while changing very little about: How finance roles are defined What finance people are hired for How performance is measured Where decision ownership sits So finance teams are asked to be more strategic without being hired, structured or rewarded to do so. That is not transformation. It is expectation inflation. Why hiring matters more than technology right now Two organisations can implement the same AI tools. One gets better decisions. The other gets faster confusion. The difference is not software. It is capability. The businesses seeing real value from AI are: Hiring people who can interpret and challenge outputs Building finance roles around decisions, not reports Developing commercial confidence, not just technical depth Being honest about who can step up and who cannot They understand that AI raises the bar. It does not lower it. The conversation finance leaders need to have The most important AI question for finance is not: What tools should we buy? It is: Do we have the people who can actually use this well?  Because AI does not replace weak finance functions. It makes their weaknesses impossible to hide. And for leaders willing to face that honestly, that is not a threat. It is an opportunity.
Tortoise resting in front of rock wall, shaded by leaves.
By Eliot Acton January 27, 2026
Speed has become a badge of honour in recruitment
Advertisement comparing old and new finance skills: calculator, notebook, charts, data analysis, and a man at computer.
By Eliot Acton January 27, 2026
There is a lot of noise right now about talent shortages in finance.