The chair conversation we now hear at the 12-month mark of every new CFO in seat centres on three specific things. All three are visible without asking. Their absence is the tell.
One: has the CFO built a genuine second layer
Not a delegate. Not a right-hand person the CFO leans on selectively. A real senior below them that the chair could call directly if the CFO were unreachable, and get a substantive answer.
The absence of this is the first sign the CFO is trying to hold too much personally. It is usually the earliest signal of the failure mode where the CFO is fully absorbed by operational work and has no time left for the strategic mandate they were hired for. A CFO with no credible number two by month 12 is a CFO whose function will not scale with the business.
The chair's private question at month 12 is not "has the CFO hired anyone." It is "could I ring the number two directly right now and get what I need."
Two: has the CFO brought the chair one hard problem the CEO did not want brought
The chair does not want the CFO to bypass the CEO regularly. That would break the executive-team dynamic and turn the CFO into an informant. Once a year is a health check.
If it never happens, the chair starts wondering whether the CFO is genuinely independent or whether they have been fully captured by the CEO's version of events.
The hard problem does not need to be dramatic. A candid heads-up about a working-capital issue the CEO has been optimistic about. A quiet flag that a specific senior hire is not landing. A concern about the audit relationship the CEO is not prioritising. Small, honest, direct. Brought to the chair with the phrase "I have raised this with the CEO, they see it differently, and I want you to know I see it this way."
The chair does not need to act on it. The chair needs to know that when something genuinely material is off, the CFO will bring it.
Three: has the CFO changed anyone's mind about anything material
Not delivered numbers. Actually shifted an executive team decision. Talked the Commercial Director into a different pricing model. Persuaded the COO to slow down a hire. Convinced the CEO to pull back on a capex ask.
Chairs read this as the difference between a finance function and a finance influence. Finance functions produce numbers. Finance influence changes outcomes. The chair is paying CFO-level money for the second, not the first.
The signal is often subtle. The CFO does not need to have won a big public battle. The chair just needs to see evidence that when the CFO has a strong view, the executive team takes it seriously enough to change course sometimes.
What to do with these three signals
The three questions are worth asking, in that order, at the 12-month CFO review.
If all three are strongly present, the hire is landing well and the conversation should shift to what the CFO needs to grow into the role for year two.
If one is absent, name it directly with the CFO and give them 90 days to close the gap. Most CFOs, given a direct conversation, close it.
If two or more are absent, the harder conversation has started. That does not necessarily mean a change of CFO. It usually means a change of scope, support structure, or reporting cadence. Occasionally it means a change of CFO. Either way, month 12 is when to have the conversation, not month 24.
If you are approaching a 12-month CFO review and would like an external view on how the three signals are showing up in your business, get in touch.
