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.
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.
Key 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.
Check first: Ask for audience analytics and a defined partnership offer before buying.
Main ideas
An empty finance chair is a cost nobody owns · HR owns time-to-hire, so its cost never reaches the board pack · Covering a vacancy quietly lowers standards and pushes people out
Lisa M. writes about finance recruitment and the costs of leaving roles unfilled.
In five LinkedIn posts, she connects hiring delays to problems that can be hard to see on a budget: lost output, extra work for finance teams, weaker reporting and capable employees leaving.
The posts also offer practical ways to improve a search, from calculating the weekly cost of a vacancy to revisiting a recruitment plan that has stopped working.
Lisa M. makes recruitment problems visible through their effects on finance work.
One post turns an empty role into a weekly cost calculation: annual role output divided by 52, plus interim cover.
Another traces a four-month vacancy through delayed month-end work, extra reconciliation for the CFO and a thinner board paper.
She also looks beyond immediate costs: when colleagues absorb a vacancy for months, standards can slip quietly, and a new hire may inherit undocumented workarounds.
Across these examples, she pairs a clear diagnosis with a next step, such as rewriting the role description, agreeing deliverables before a search or tracking time-to-hire.
Readers interested in finance hiring, vacancy costs and their effects on teams can follow her for this practical, finance-focused perspective.
Lisa M. writes about finance recruitment with one recurring priority: an unfilled role is a real cost, and it stays unmanaged because nobody owns it.
Read more
Three claims run through the posts: the weekly cost of a vacancy can be calculated and put in front of budget-holders; HR or talent acquisition owns time-to-hire while finance bears the damage, so the number never reaches the board pack; and covering a vacancy with existing staff quietly lowers standards and pushes good people out. Another theme is diagnosis before process: a role open for months usually has stale requirements, and the cost of a bad hire is best controlled before the search starts.
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.
Read more
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.
A month-long debate over a salary band ended in one meeting when someone calculated the weekly cost of the empty chair. With that figure on the table, paying slightly above the band looks like a financial win, not a concession, and a six-week delay looks like a cost, not just a delay.
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.
Read more
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.
A Financial Controller vacancy open for four months leads to a delayed month-end, a finance chief doing reconciliation work and a board paper light on detail because nobody had time to build it. Forecast quality drops before anyone connects it to the empty chair.
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.
Read more
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.
Two people each run two roles at 70 per cent capacity.
Nothing visibly fails, but reviews get lighter and checks get faster.
Nobody flags it because everyone knows why.
When a hire finally arrives, they inherit undocumented workarounds and spend their first six months unpicking coping mechanisms rather than doing the job.
A vacancy you've successfully covered is the one most likely to remain open next quarter.
Lisa presents this as a pattern from interviews with people leaving businesses they liked, not as a measured attrition study. They say money is almost never the stated reason for leaving.
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.
Read more
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.
A Head of Finance search passed its second quarter with the same specification, salary band and three-stage process that had already failed in week three. The market moved; the search did not.
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.
Read more
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.
Every week a finance leader is unavailable means a week of payroll with zero output.
A third interview stage rarely improves the hire; it just extends the payroll gap.
The post invites readers to make contact at a named recruitment email address.
Two levers, one cost: pay above the band or tighten the process
The same cost logic supports opposite moves across the posts.
Read more
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.
The salary-band post argues that paying above the band becomes a clear financial win, not a concession.
The mis-hire post says a third interview stage extends the payroll gap and should be cut.
Both reach different decisions using the same weekly-cost framing.
The posts carry no dates, so they show a tension between positions, not a change of view over time.
This answers the question a newcomer is most likely to arrive with — why does a slow finance hire matter in money terms? — and offers a reusable calculation rather than an opinion.
Read more
Lisa M. describes watching a month-long argument about a salary band end in a single meeting after someone worked out the weekly cost of the unfilled seat.
Finance teams track recruitment fees precisely, the post argues, but the cost of a vacant role goes unmeasured because no one owns the line.
It sets out a simple 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.
With that number on the table, a six-week delay stops looking like an annoyance, and paying slightly above the band stops looking like a concession.
Treat a slow shortlist as spend, the post concludes, and finance leaders can set the terms before a search begins rather than react to it.
For brands planning a campaign
This is a natural anchor for a cost-of-vacancy campaign. A brand could build a downloadable calculator or worksheet around the formula and use the “payroll with zero output” framing as a hook in social copy aimed at finance leaders who control budgets but not hiring processes.
This explains why the problem in the other posts persists even when everyone involved can see it.
Read more
A newcomer who understands the reporting gap understands whom the topic has to convince.
The post opens with a list of what a board pack normally contains: revenue, margin, cash and headcount.
What it almost never shows is how long a role sat open before anyone started.
The reason is structural rather than careless: HR or talent acquisition owns time-to-hire, while the consequences land on finance, so nobody reports on a cost that appears in someone else’s column.
The example follows a Financial Controller vacancy open for four months: it becomes a delayed month-end, then a finance chief doing reconciliation work, then a thin board paper because nobody had time to build it.
Forecast quality falls before anyone connects it to the empty chair.
A number you don’t track is a number you can’t defend in the room where decisions get made.
For brands planning a campaign
Put this in front of a joint finance and HR audience: it names the ownership gap that blocks action. A campaign could pair it with a simple one-page reporting template for time-to-hire, positioning the brand as the party that bridges two functions rather than selling to one.
It gives readers something to check on their own desk immediately, making it a strong second or third stop after the cost arguments.
Read more
The diagnostic framing also shows how Lisa M. turns a complaint into a question.
The argument is that a role open for four months rarely tells you much about the market; it tells you the role specification hasn’t changed since month one.
The post describes a Head of Finance search running past its second quarter with the same specification, salary band and three-stage process that was already failing in week three: the market moved, the search did not.
Rewriting the role specification is presented as the fastest way to find out whether the salary is being asked for a skillset that no longer exists at that price, whether one person is being asked to cover two jobs, what the role genuinely requires as opposed to what the last incumbent happened to be good at, and at which stage candidates are dropping out.
Four months of the same approach is not persistence, the post concludes, but a decision not to look at why the first attempt failed.
It ends by asking readers whether they have ever rewritten a role specification to fill a stubborn vacancy.
For brands planning a campaign
A brief-rewrite checklist is the obvious companion asset, and the closing question is a ready-made prompt for comments. The “market moved, the search didn’t” line is short enough to carry social posts on its own.
It shows readers practical steps behind the argument, helping them judge whether the thinking goes beyond commentary.
The post starts with the claim that a mis-hire in finance rarely shows up as a single line item: it is three to four months’ salary, plus the notice period, search fees, and roughly a quarter of lost output while the role sits empty.
It separates what finance leaders see (the salary) from what follows: a chief executive re-running the process, a team absorbing extra work, and a finance director explaining variances to the board.
It then sets out four cost-control measures: agree the first six months’ deliverables in writing, with no moving targets or hidden assessment costs; lock decision-makers’ diaries early, because every week a finance leader is unavailable is a week of payroll with no output; cut interview stages to two, since a third rarely improves the hire and extends the payroll gap; and separate behavioural fit from technical skill, because most costly mis-hires fail on team fit rather than capability.
The post closes by inviting readers to make contact through a listed email address.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the strongest candidate for a downloadable pre-search checklist and demonstrates the direct-response close a campaign may want to copy. The four measures also break cleanly into a carousel or short series.
This is the most human of the five and the one a non-specialist reader will remember.
Read more
It shows what the same problem looks like inside a team rather than on a budget line.
The piece opens by rejecting the obvious explanation: people do not resign because of an open vacancy; they resign because of the eight months they spent covering it.
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, and once that redistribution works, the urgency to hire drops.
Those two then run their own jobs second, described as doing two roles at 70 per cent each: nothing visibly fails, but reviews get lighter, checks get faster, and nobody flags it because everyone knows why.
The post argues that the strongest performers learn that competence is rewarded with more work, and that people leaving businesses they liked almost never cite money as the reason.
When a hire finally arrives, they inherit undocumented workarounds and standards nobody admits were lowered, so their first six months go on unpicking coping mechanisms.
A vacancy you have successfully covered is the one most likely to still be open next quarter.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the retention and burnout angle, reaching HR and finance leadership at the same time and working well as a standalone quote. A campaign could run it as the emotional counterweight to the cost arithmetic elsewhere; the closing line works as a headline.
Approach: diagnostic, checklist-led posts for finance decision-makers5
The cost of an empty chair as a finance metric2
Vacancy cover, retention and quiet standard slippage1
Stale briefs and the search that does not move with the market1
Mis-hire cost control before the search starts1
The cost of an empty chair as a finance metric
Lisa M.’s posts argue that the weekly cost of a vacant finance role is real but rarely measured: time-to-hire sits with HR or talent acquisition, while the consequences land in Finance.
Read more
One post supplies a formula — annual output of the role divided by 52, plus interim cover cost — to make the cost visible and turn a salary-band debate into a financial decision. Another points out that board packs show revenue, margin, cash and headcount, but not how long a role sits open.
A simple formula and a contrast with board packs turn an operational delay into a number finance leaders can defend.
For brands planning a campaign
A finance recruitment firm could build campaign assets around a cost-of-vacancy calculator or board-ready metric. Lisa M.’s framing gives the campaign a practical, CFO-facing hook rather than a generic hiring message.
Vacancy cover, retention and quiet standard slippage
Lisa M. describes how an unfilled niche role gets absorbed by the two most capable people, who then run two jobs at reduced effectiveness.
Read more
Standards slip without a visible failure: reviews get lighter, checks get faster. The post says people leave over the months spent covering a role, not the vacancy itself, and that a successfully covered vacancy is more likely to stay open.
Treat the retention claim as interview-led insight; ask for attrition data before using it as an evidence-backed claim.
For brands planning a campaign
This supports a retention-and-burnout angle within the cost-of-vacancy theme. A campaign can pair the finance metric with the human cost, which may resonate with CFOs and finance directors who own both budget and team stability.
Stale briefs and the search that does not move with the market
A four-month-old role often signals a job description unchanged since month one, according to Lisa M.
Read more
Rewriting the job description exposes whether the salary band no longer matches the market, whether one person is being asked to cover two jobs, and at which interview stage candidates drop out.
For brands planning a campaign
A campaign can offer a brief-rewrite workshop or diagnostic checklist, giving the recruitment firm a concrete, service-led content piece rather than just thought leadership.
Lisa M. breaks mis-hire costs into salary, notice period, search fees and lost output, then lists four pre-search controls: written first-six-month deliverables, locked decision-maker diaries, a two-stage interview process, and separating behavioral fit from technical skill.
Read more
For brands planning a campaign
The firm could turn this checklist into a downloadable pre-search resource or a short assessment that generates leads.
Approach: diagnostic, checklist-led posts for finance decision-makers
Across the posts, the recurring format is a short diagnostic argument followed by a small set of named checks or a formula.
Read more
Lisa M. writes for CFOs, finance directors and hiring managers, using first-person observations and direct questions. Commercial calls to action point to a named recruitment contact.
Posts typically open with a counterintuitive claim, explain the hidden mechanism, then give a short list or formula.
Only one of the five posts carries a direct commercial call to action; the others stay analytical.
For brands planning a campaign
A content-led campaign should follow the same structure: a specific finance problem, a compact framework or checklist, and a clear next step. Longer essays or generic employer-brand posts would sit outside the demonstrated approach.
Lisa M.'s hiring posts point to one business: Morgan McKinley, a finance recruitment firm.
Read more
One post invites readers to contact Lisa at a morganmckinley.com email address for help running a finance search; another carries the #morganmckinley hashtag.
Morgan McKinley
Employment
Lisa M.'s post on the cost of a mis-hire invites readers to contact lisamacgregor@morganmckinley.com for support with a finance search, giving her Morgan McKinley email address.
Read more
A separate post about covering unfilled roles carries the #morganmckinley hashtag. Together, the posts place Lisa's hiring advice within the finance recruitment firm Morgan McKinley.
Lisa M. writes short, diagnostic posts about hiring for finance roles, built around one recurring idea: nobody in the organisation owns the cost of an unfilled role.
Read more
Start with the posts that put a number on it—the weekly cost of an empty chair and the board pack that never shows how long a role has sat open—then move to the process posts.
They argue that a vacancy open for months usually means the role requirements are outdated and the interview process is too long.
A separate thread covers what happens to the people who absorb the work: standards slip quietly, and the resignation comes months after the vacancy appears.
The posts use checklists and short frameworks rather than essays, making them easy to read in sequence; their commercial call to action points to a named finance recruitment contact.
For hiring and retention, Julia Weingartner's posts on process speed and trust are the closest next step.
For how finance leaders make hiring decisions, turn to Anthony Castro or Victoria Shcherbakova.
Writes about the same hiring and retention problems from the recruiting side: why good people leave, what a slow interview process signals to candidates, and what turnover really costs.
Read more
Both argue that a slow process is a decision, not a neutral default, and write short posts that end with a direct question to the reader.
Weingartner frames the cost in terms of trust and culture, writing for healthcare and broader leadership audiences rather than pricing a finance vacancy for CFOs. Where Lisa M. turns the problem into a number and a pre-search checklist, Weingartner treats it as a signal of how decisive a company is.
Both write for finance leaders making hiring and resourcing decisions, and start from the position that adding a person is not automatically the answer.
Read more
Castro's pressure test of a strategic hire before approval covers similar ground to Lisa M.'s pre-search controls.
Castro writes from inside private-equity-backed operating environments, focusing on value creation, leverage and sponsor alignment.
One post is largely a set of principles credited to another CFO.
Lisa M. focuses on the mechanics of recruitment: briefs, interview stages, vacant seats and salary bands.
Shares the CFO and finance-leadership audience and short-post format, and writes about the strain continuous change puts on finance teams—a theme that connects to Lisa M.'s account of capable people absorbing extra work until they leave.
Read more
Shcherbakova focuses on the finance function's capacity to absorb transformation, AI and reporting change, rather than hiring or vacancies. Her posts are numbered series installments, not diagnostic arguments with a commercial next step.
For a finance-recruitment campaign, the audience section supports a scale check, not a fit check.
Read more
The only measured figure is a LinkedIn following of 5,797, observed on 9 October 2026.
The five posts dated between 14 September and 7 October 2026 cover finance hiring topics: the cost of a vacant role, rewriting stalled briefs, and where hiring delays land on CFOs, Financial Controllers, FP&A, and Treasury teams.
That focus makes an audience of finance leaders plausible, but does not establish its composition.
Before booking, request LinkedIn follower analytics covering geography, seniority, industry, and function; engagement rates on posts about cost-of-vacancy and hiring strategy; and any audience survey results covering employer, occupation, or job seniority.
Lisa M.'s five posts focus on finance recruitment, not partnership offers.
Read more
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.
A finance and accounting recruitment firm wants a content-led thought-leadership campaign on the cost of vacant finance roles and hiring-process strategy, aimed at CFOs, finance directors and hiring managers.
Read more
Conditions
Audience composition is unverified. The only measured figure is a LinkedIn following of 5,797, observed on 9 October 2026. Ask for geography, seniority, function and engagement data before making a reach claim; for now, sell the campaign on topical precision.
The posts include no sponsorship format, rate card or partnership inquiry route. Commission this as an editorial content engagement with agreed deliverables, and ask for a defined partnership offer before buying from a media kit.
The posts include an employer hashtag and a recruitment contact address, but neither indicates a paid arrangement. Set up a campaign response path rather than using the contact route in the post.
Reusable assets
A weekly cost-of-vacancy calculation: annual output of the role divided by 52, plus interim cover cost, framed as the number that ends a salary-band argument.
A board-pack argument: revenue, margin, cash and headcount are reported, but not time-to-hire, because HR owns the metric and Finance absorbs the consequence.
A brief-rewrite diagnostic: does the band still match the market, is one person being asked to cover two jobs, what does the role actually require, and where do candidates drop out?
A pre-search control list: written first-six-month deliverables, locked decision-maker diaries, two interview stages, and behavioural fit separated from technical skill.
A retention piece: the two most capable people absorb the vacancy, standards slip without a visible failure, and the role stays open because covering it worked.
Verdict
Strong fit.
Why
The brief and reviewed work cover almost identical ground. Lisa M. writes about the cost of an unfilled finance role, why that cost never reaches the board pack, why a four-month vacancy usually signals an unchanged brief, what a mis-hire costs, and how covering a role quietly erodes a team. These are the arguments a recruitment firm wants in market, already organised as reusable assets rather than opinion: a weekly-cost formula, a reporting-gap diagnosis, a brief-rewrite test, a four-item pre-search checklist, and a retention counterweight. The writing targets the people named in the brief — CFOs, finance directors, Financial Controllers, FP&A and Treasury leads, and hiring managers — and each piece ends with an action rather than a slogan, making it well suited to a campaign seeking attention from a budget-owning audience.
When to choose a specialist
A B2B software vendor selling month-end close and FP&A automation wants a paid, video-first awareness campaign across several channels, measured on reach and video views, with the creator presenting product walkthroughs and demo clips.
Read more
Verdict
Poor fit as briefed.
What would change it
Ask for platform analytics showing the share of followers in senior finance roles and engagement rates on the hiring-cost posts.
Ask for at least one example of a video or live format the creator already uses well.
Ask for a documented partnership offer covering deliverables, cost and inquiry handling, so the vendor can buy a defined package rather than invent terms.
Why
FP&A directors and Financial Controllers appear in the posts, but the proposed product-walkthrough campaign goes beyond what they demonstrate. The posts are written analysis, with no video, visual material or product demonstrations, and no endorsement of a tool or platform. They discuss hiring cost, brief quality and retention, not software, so a demo format would need to be built from scratch rather than extended from a demonstrated strength. The reach requirement is also unsupported: the only available figure is a follower count, with no engagement, geography or seniority data. Ask for those analytics and documented partnership terms, deliverables and an inquiry route before proceeding with a paid awareness campaign.
A worked campaign example
Asset sequence
Week 1–2: the cost argument. A short diagnostic post built around the weekly-cost formula, closing with a simple calculator readers can complete in a few minutes using their own vacancy. The hook: finance teams track recruitment fees to the penny, while no one measures the cost of the empty chair because no one owns the line.
Week 3–4: why nothing changes. A post on the reporting gap: board packs show revenue, margin, cash and headcount, but not how long a role has been open. Time-to-hire sits with HR, while the consequences land in Finance. Companion asset: a one-page time-to-hire line readers can add to their own board pack.
Week 5: the diagnostic. A brief-rewrite piece built around four questions: is the band paying for a skillset that no longer exists at that price; is one person being asked to cover two jobs; what does the role genuinely require, rather than what the last incumbent happened to be good at; and at which stage are candidates dropping out? Companion asset: the four questions as a working checklist.
Week 6: the operational close. A pre-search control list: written first-six-month deliverables, locked decision-maker diaries, two interview stages, and behavioural fit separated from technical skill. This piece carries the direct call to action because it reads as a service offer.
Week 7–8: the retention counterweight. The eight-months-covering-a-role argument, aimed at the same buyers from the team-stability side, closing with the line that a vacancy you have successfully covered is the one most likely to remain open next quarter. This is the piece most likely to be shared within a finance team.
Assumptions
The firm must build or commission the calculator, board-pack line and checklist; the posts provide the arguments, not the finished tools.
Set up a campaign inquiry route. The recruitment contact address in one post handles hiring support and should not be reused for campaign responses.
Brief
The same finance recruitment firm wants an eight-week, content-led campaign on the cost of vacant finance roles and hiring-process strategy, aimed at starting search conversations with CFOs and finance directors who have an open role.
Campaign angle
Lead with the number, not the salary band. Move finance leaders from “the role is open and we are coping” to “I can put a weekly figure on this chair and defend it in the room where decisions get made” — then give them tools to act. Call it The Empty Chair.
Handoff
The campaign gives the firm a prospect who has costed the vacancy, seen the reporting gap in their board pack and answered the brief-rewrite questions. The search team can open with that material rather than a cold pitch. The final asset offers a defined next step — a search-planning conversation — making the handoff a specific request, not a general invitation.
Measurement
Track calculator completions, checklist downloads, and how often prospects arrive at a first conversation with their weekly vacancy figure or a rewritten brief. Measure engagement on campaign posts and the quality of the conversations they start. Before planning paid amplification, request LinkedIn follower and engagement analytics, plus video performance evidence.
Worked angle
A campaign page or series intro could invite readers to work out what an open chair costs each week, put the number in front of the people who control the budget, then test whether their current hiring brief can fill the role. End each asset with one action, following the posts’ pattern of closing analytical pieces with a question or next step rather than a pitch.
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.
Read more
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.
Neither post puts a figure on an open role or reworks a stale search brief, so a campaign built on cost-of-vacancy arithmetic would need to source that argument elsewhere.
The focus is leadership and talent, not finance-process diagnosis.
A recruitment firm targeting CFOs would trade the specific hook of costing an empty chair week by week for a broader message about process and retention.
Choose Anthony Castro when the buyer task is helping private-equity-backed finance leaders decide whether to hire at all.
Read more
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.
This is written from the CFO's chair about resisting or reshaping a hire, not from the recruiter's chair about running one.
There is no vacancy-cost method, brief-rewrite test or pre-search control list.
The posts date to May 2025, so a campaign needing current-market commentary would rely on older material.
A recruitment firm would also be paying for an argument that sometimes concludes a hire is not the answer, which sits awkwardly beside a message that starts search conversations.
Choose Victoria Shcherbakova when the campaign moves away from recruitment and towards how much change a finance function can absorb.
Read more
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.
Neither post touches hiring, vacancy cost or search process, so neither serves the task of starting a search conversation with a CFO who has a role sitting open. The tradeoff is relevance, not quality: a change-capacity message attracts transformation budgets and finance-transformation audiences, while recruitment-specific audiences and the reusable recruitment assets used elsewhere are absent.
Five LinkedIn posts about finance recruitment and hiring do not show publication dates, so this profile does not assess how Lisa M.’s views may have changed over time.