I met a GM Finance in a large Australian infrastructure business recently, and the conversation crystallised something I see repeatedly in complex finance environments. When growth accelerates, finance doesn't just support it — it absorbs the friction. Systems lag. Structures stretch. Decisions are required long before anything feels ready. Here's what that conversation revealed about who actually thrives in these roles — and who doesn't.
Investment commitments are large, approval cycles are ongoing, and new requirements land mid-planning cycle. The result is constant re-forecasting and stakeholder recalibration — not as an exception, but as the operating rhythm.
If you need clean process and certainty to perform well, this will feel uncomfortable very quickly. If you can operate while the plane is still being built — prioritising what matters, parking what doesn't, helping leadership make decisions anyway — this is where you get noticed.
Multi-year ERP transformations are underway, but like most real-world implementations, they're imperfect. Interim solutions are keeping reporting and analytics moving while remediation continues. Finance still owns decision support and protects data integrity — it isn't waiting passively for vendors to catch up.
"Candidates who understand data flows, question outputs, and can work around limitations without losing rigour build credibility fast. Those who need everything fully implemented before they can add value rarely do."
Good people aren't leaving because they're underpaid. They're leaving when their role stops expanding. In high-growth environments, titles tend to lag behind responsibility. Progression comes from taking on more stakeholders, more ambiguity, more complexity — not from waiting your turn.
Ask yourself honestly: do you want structure and predictability, or exposure and acceleration? These environments reward capability quickly, but they expect you to step up before everything is clearly defined.
Finance in this context sits between executives, delivery teams, regulators, and system vendors. Being able to interpret numbers is expected. Being able to explain what they mean, challenge assumptions, and guide decisions across competing priorities — that's where value is created and where careers accelerate.
Candidates who've only operated within narrow reporting lanes can struggle here. Those who can translate complexity into action gain visibility at levels many peers don't reach until much later.
These roles suit people who are comfortable with ambiguity, want senior exposure over a clean job description, and see unfinished systems as a challenge rather than an excuse. They don't suit candidates looking for tightly defined boundaries or incremental change — and there's no shame in knowing which camp you're in before you apply.
The worst outcome for everyone is a candidate who takes a role like this expecting it to settle down. It won't. That's the point.
If you're a finance candidate weighing up a move into a high-growth or transformation-heavy environment and want an honest conversation about fit, feel free to reach out. Getting that assessment right before you move is worth the conversation.