I recently sat down with a GM Finance at one of Australia’s larger retail businesses.
What started as a conversation about transaction readiness quickly turned into something else — a look at what actually happens to a finance team when that readiness goes on longer than expected.
Because this isn’t a rare scenario.
And the longer a business stays “transaction ready,” the more pressure it quietly puts on the finance function.
The business had been running a dual-track IPO and M&A process. Deal close. Deal collapse. Restart. Another process falls over due to financing. Back into preparation again.
Each time, the expectation was the same: be ready.
Audit-ready. Diligence-ready. Investor-ready.
The numbers needed to hold up under scrutiny — from auditors, the ATO, external advisors — often all at once. And to their credit, the team delivered.
Clean external audit. No findings.
ATO combined assurance review with an outstanding rating.
IPO due diligence completed without issue.
Those are serious outcomes.
But the effort required to get there — and crucially, to stay there — is the part that doesn’t get talked about.
The reality of prolonged transaction readiness is simple.
You’re not doing one job. You’re doing two.
The first is running the business:
Month-end. Forecasting. Business partnering. Cost control. The core work that doesn’t pause just because a deal is in flight.
The second is everything the transaction demands:
Data remediation. Audit preparation. Investor reporting. Diligence requests. Compliance reviews. And none of it replaces the other. It just stacks. At some point, something gives. And it’s rarely the transaction work.
What gets pushed out are the things that actually move the function forward — system improvements, reporting redesign, structural changes, process upgrades. Anything that looks like “progress” gets parked in favour of stability.
You end up working harder than ever, but the finance function isn’t actually moving forward.
There’s a phrase that comes up constantly in these environments:
“We just need stability to get through this process.”
On paper, it makes sense.
Consistency matters in a transaction.
Buyers and investors want to see a stable finance function.
Key personnel shouldn’t be moving around mid-process.
But that logic has a shelf life.
When a six-month process becomes 18 months — or longer — stability stops being a strategy.
It becomes a constraint.
The same people who held the line through audits, rebuilt the data, and kept everything on track are the ones who now need development, recognition, and progression. And they can’t get it. Not because leadership doesn’t see it. Because the process won’t allow it.
That’s where the risk starts to shift.
Not just turnover — although that happens — but something quieter.
Disengagement.
The biggest risk in these environments isn’t always the person who resigns.
It’s the person who stays but disengages.
They stop pushing for improvements.
They stop challenging decisions.
They stick to what’s required and nothing beyond it.
On the surface, everything still looks stable.
Underneath, capability is eroding.
This is what prolonged transaction environments do well — they maintain output. But they can quietly flatten energy, initiative, and development if they run for too long without a clear endpoint.
In a normal finance function, progression comes from movement. Role rotation. Broader exposure. New responsibilities. Stretch assignments.
In a transaction-ready environment, the opposite happens.
People stay exactly where they are. Not because it’s best for them. Because it’s safest for the process.
Moving someone in a critical role introduces risk. Bringing in new hires creates uncertainty. Changing structure raises questions.
So everything stays fixed.
The result is a finance team that has worked incredibly hard and built deep experience in audit, compliance, and transaction processes — but hasn’t necessarily developed in ways that set them up for the next step.
The skills are real. They’re just narrow. And for individuals, that’s a genuine trade-off.
Time spent getting a business transaction-ready is time not spent broadening capability.
There’s another dynamic that rarely gets planned for properly.
What happens after the transaction.
Because all the things that were deferred don’t go away.
They stack up.
System changes. Structural redesign. Process improvements. Team development.
The difference is, they now need to happen quickly — often immediately post-deal — at the exact moment the team is most fatigued.
That’s where a lot of finance functions come unstuck.
Not during the transaction.
After it.
If you’re leading a finance function through a prolonged transaction process, a few things matter more than they might seem.
Be honest about the timeline.
People can handle pressure. They can’t handle indefinite ambiguity. If the process is stretching, say so.
Make the development visible.
Transaction exposure is valuable — audit management, investor reporting, diligence. But it only matters if people understand it as progression, not just pressure.
Create movement where you can.
Not everything requires structural change. Even small shifts in exposure, responsibility, or involvement can make a difference.
Watch for early signs of disengagement.
It’s rarely loud. It shows up in reduced input, fewer ideas, less challenge. That’s the signal to act on.
Plan for the reset now, not later.
The post-transaction phase is where capability gets rebuilt — or lost. Thinking about that early makes the transition far more manageable.
Transaction readiness is an achievement.
Getting a business to a point where it can withstand external scrutiny at that level takes serious capability, discipline, and effort. But when that state is extended indefinitely, there’s a cost.
To the team. To development. To the long-term capability of the finance function.
The best finance leaders are the ones who manage both sides of that equation — delivering what the transaction demands, while protecting the people who make it possible.
Because eventually, the deal gets done. And what you’re left with is the team.