The board of a £200m PE-backed consumer brand extended its CFO search by two months, and it was the right call. They had two credible offers on the table, but neither candidate had run a finance function through the specific event the business was about to face, a refinancing followed by a bolt-on acquisition, so the board paused rather than settled.
This is the story of that decision. It is anonymised, but the situation is common, and the lesson is worth more than the delay cost.
What was the business trying to hire for?
The company was a mid-market consumer brand, roughly £200m in revenue, three years into a private equity hold. The incumbent CFO had built the function from a founder-led finance team into something investable. He had done the heavy lifting on systems and reporting, and he wanted out before the next phase.
The next phase was the hard part. The sponsor wanted a refinancing to release capital, then a buy-and-build strategy starting with two bolt-ons. That meant the new CFO would inherit debt negotiations, integration accounting, and a board that expected monthly clarity on covenant headroom.
So the brief was not "a good CFO". The brief was a CFO who had personally sat across the table from lenders and had personally absorbed an acquisition into a group. Those are different skills.
Why did the first two candidates fall short?
Both shortlisted candidates were strong on paper. One was a divisional CFO from a larger consumer group, polished, board-ready, excellent on brand and margin. The other was a group financial controller stepping up, technically superb, cheaper, and hungry.
The divisional CFO had never owned a refinancing. She had contributed to one inside a big group, but the treasury team had led it. The step-up candidate had integrated a small acquisition once, but had never managed lender relationships directly.
Individually, either could have grown into the role. The problem was timing. The refinancing was six months out. There was no runway to grow into it.
The operating partner put it plainly in the debrief. "We are not hiring for potential here. We are hiring for the next twelve months."
What did the board actually do?
The board did three things, and the sequence matters.
First, they were honest about the gap. Rather than talk themselves into the stronger of two imperfect candidates, they named exactly what was missing. That took discipline, because there is always pressure to close a search that has already run ten weeks.
Second, they reset the specification with us rather than starting again from scratch. We narrowed the target list to CFOs and FDs who had led, not supported, a refinancing in a PE-backed environment, and who had integrated at least one acquisition end to end. That is a smaller pool, but a findable one.
Third, they kept both original candidates warm and respectful. One of them was later hired into a different portfolio company. Burning credible people to save two weeks is a false economy in a market where reputations travel.
The extended search took a further two months. The candidate they appointed had refinanced a consumer business twice and had run three bolt-ons through integration.
Was extending the search worth the delay?
Yes, and here is the mechanism. A CFO who has done the exact event before does not cost you time in the seat. They arrive with a mental checklist, a network of lenders and advisers, and a feel for where deals go wrong.
A CFO growing into the event costs you management attention. The CEO ends up half doing the job. The sponsor sends in support. The delay you avoided at the hiring stage reappears, larger, at the execution stage, and with more risk attached.
Two months of search is cheap next to a refinancing that stalls or a covenant surprise on the first board pack. The board understood that the cost of a delayed hire is visible, while the cost of a wrong hire is hidden until it hurts.
The wider lesson is that in PE-backed businesses, the CFO brief should be written around the value creation plan, not around a generic job title. If the next year contains a specific, high-stakes event, the shortlist should be built around people who have delivered that event before.
Getting that framing right at the start is where a specialist search partner earns its fee. You can see how we approach senior finance mandates at Harper May, and current live roles on our jobs page.
What should other boards take from this?
Be precise about what the next twelve months demand, and hire against that, not against a polished CV. Name the gap out loud in the debrief, because the pressure to close a long search quietly lowers the bar.
And treat a well-run extension as a sign of discipline, not failure. The board that paused looked slower for two months and looked far wiser for the two years that followed.
Common questions
When should a board extend a finance search rather than settle?
Extend when the gap between the best available candidate and the actual brief is a specific, near-term event they have never delivered. Settle only when the gap is genuine potential with time to grow into it.
Does extending a search damage candidate goodwill?
Not if handled openly. Keep strong candidates informed, be honest about the reset, and treat them well. Credible finance leaders understand a considered process and often surface again elsewhere in a portfolio.
How do you write a CFO brief for a PE-backed business?
Start from the value creation plan. List the events of the next twelve to eighteen months, refinancing, acquisitions, exit prep, and require evidence the candidate has personally led those events, not merely been present for them.
