# Lisa M.

Lisa M. shares advice on finance recruitment, hiring strategy, and the business costs of leaving roles vacant. Their posts explain how hiring delays affect finance teams and offer practical ways to improve recruitment search instructions and control recruitment costs.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/lisa-m/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisa-m-53808714
- LinkedIn followers: 5,797
- Topics: leadership, recruiting, employee-retention
- Based on 11 dated posts, latest 2026-10-07

## Summary

Most useful for content-led thought leadership on the cost of vacant finance roles and hiring-process strategy.

- Best for: A finance and accounting recruitment firm running a content-led campaign for CFOs, finance directors and hiring managers.
- Not for: A paid video-first product walkthrough campaign measured on reach and video views.
- Check first: Ask for audience analytics and a defined partnership offer before buying.

### Takeaways

- An empty finance chair is a cost nobody owns.
- HR owns time-to-hire, so its cost never reaches the board pack.
- A role open for months is usually a stale brief, not a bad market.

## Main ideas

- **An empty finance chair is a cost nobody owns**: Lisa M.'s central argument is that finance teams track recruitment fees to the penny but ignore the cost of a role sitting empty because no one owns that line. Calculate the weekly cost, and a hiring delay becomes spend rather than an annoyance; the salary-band debate changes, too. Lisa proposes a formula: annual revenue or output of the role divided by 52, plus the cost of interim cover, equals the true weekly cost of the vacancy.
- **HR owns time-to-hire, so its cost never reaches the board pack**: In Lisa's account, the cost stays invisible for structural reasons, not through carelessness: HR or talent acquisition owns time-to-hire, while finance bears the consequences. No one reports a cost that lands in someone else's column. The priority, then, is measurement: a number you don't track is a number you can't defend where decisions get made.
- **Covering a vacancy quietly lowers standards and pushes people out**: An unfilled niche role leaves no gap in the org chart because the work still gets done, which is exactly why the cost stays invisible. Usually, the two most capable people absorb it. Once that redistribution works, the urgency to hire drops, and their own jobs come second. In this account, people do not resign over the open vacancy; they resign over the months they spent covering it.
- **A role open for months is usually a stale brief, not a bad market**: A long-open role rarely says much about the market; it suggests the requirements haven't changed since month one. Rewriting them is the fastest way to find out whether the salary band still buys the skills required, whether one person is being asked to cover two jobs, what the role genuinely requires beyond the last incumbent's strengths, and where candidates drop out. In this view, four months of the same approach isn't persistence; it's a decision not to investigate why the first attempt failed.
- **Control mis-hire cost before the search starts**: A finance mis-hire rarely appears as a single line item: three to four months' salary, plus the notice period, search fees and roughly a quarter of lost output while the role sits empty. Lisa's priority is to fix the process up front: agree first six months' deliverables in writing, lock decision-makers' diaries early, cut interview stages to two, and separate behavioural fit from technical skill. Most costly mis-hires fail on team fit rather than capability.
- **Two levers, one cost: pay above the band or tighten the process**: The same cost logic supports opposite moves across the posts. If the vacancy is the unit of cost, one answer is to pay slightly above the band and close quickly. The other is to cut interview stages, lock decision-makers' diaries and define deliverables before the search opens. The consistent position is neither “move fast” nor “be careful” but “price the vacancy, then decide”, using the weekly cost of the empty chair to settle it.

## Work to read

- [Making the cost of an empty chair a number, not an argument](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7507711542939852800-1RW4)
- [Why the cost of a vacancy never reaches the board pack](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7505176109865455616-ZLPq)
- [A four-month vacancy usually means an unchanged brief](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7512784960416702484-uNpN)
- [What a mis-hire really costs, and four controls before the search starts](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7505899597928591360-0WMZ)
- [Nobody resigns because of an open vacancy — the retention side](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7513509708213940224-NJwC)

## Brand relationships

- **Morgan McKinley** (employment)

## Partnerships

Lisa M.'s five posts focus on finance recruitment, not partnership offers. The only commercial-looking elements are a recurring employer hashtag and a recruitment contact address; none discloses sponsorship, a branded content format, pricing, deliverables, or terms a brand could buy against. The posts establish a consistent editorial platform: cost-of-vacancy calculations (the weekly cost of an empty chair), hiring-process diagnostics such as rewriting stale job briefs and shortening interview stages, and arguments about staff absorbing unfilled roles. Any collaboration would need to fit that column-style format rather than a documented partnership menu. Before buying, ask for a sponsor policy, media kit, advertising specification, and official partnership inquiry route.

## Alternatives

- Julia Weingartner: Choose Julia Weingartner when the campaign focuses on the hiring process itself rather than what a vacancy costs: how many interview rounds a company runs, how long it leaves candidates waiting, and what slow, indecisive processes signal to the people it wants. Their posts argue that speed signals respect and decisiveness, top candidates do not wait for a process to circle back, and the real loss in turnover is trust, relationships and undocumented knowledge—not recruiting fees. They are also a better match when the campaign expands beyond finance to HR, talent acquisition and healthcare leadership audiences, because the retention and staffing arguments speak to people-side buyers as well as finance buyers.
- Anthony Castro: Choose Anthony Castro when the buyer task is helping private-equity-backed finance leaders decide whether to hire at all. The posts pressure-test a proposed hire against the value-creation plan, an ROI thesis, org readiness, cultural fit and sponsor alignment, and argue that headcount growth is not the same as value creation. That speaks directly to PE sponsors, CEOs and CFOs weighing a strategic hire against productivity levers. It is the right voice when the campaign wants to question the hiring reflex rather than speed up a search.
- Victoria Shcherbakova, MSc Finance and HR: Choose Victoria Shcherbakova when the campaign moves away from recruitment and towards how much change a finance function can absorb. The posts describe finance teams in permanent transformation, identify transformation fatigue as a business risk affecting trust, productivity and adoption, and argue that stable processes, trusted data and disciplined leadership matter more than constant reinvention. That is the better match when the buyer sells transformation, automation or advisory work and needs to reach finance leaders about change overload, AI adoption and sustainable improvement.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/