News & Insights

Finance leaders in the building materials industry have stopped handing the numbers to decision-makers. They are the decision-makers now, and a growing number of them are running the company outright. Here is what that shift is doing to succession, candidate evaluation, and how offers need to be built.

The most important shift in the finance market right now is not a salary band. It is a change in who holds the pen. Finance leaders are no longer the people who produce the numbers and pass them upward for executive leadership to make the call. They are the ones pushing initiatives forward, thinking strategically, and driving the business. And I am watching a growing number of senior finance leaders move into positions where they run the company holistically rather than the finance function alone.

That is not a soft observation about titles. It changes what a finance search has to identify, what a succession plan has to build, and what an offer has to be structured around. The engine underneath all of it is movement: expansion, mergers and acquisitions, and strategic growth happening across this industry at the same time.

The Corner OfficeFinance is now a path to the top, not a terminal track

The CFO seat is no longer the top of a finance career. It is a step inside it. I am seeing senior finance leaders move out of the finance chair and into President seats, CEO seats, and board seats, where the decisions get made for the entire company. The distinction matters. These are not finance executives being handed a broader title as a courtesy. They are finance executives being handed the whole organization because financial discipline is what the business decided it needed at the helm.

A recent President search in the Midwest ran exactly this way. The company had internal candidates available and went outside anyway. What they wanted was someone with a diverse portfolio and a finance background: the knowledge base, the understanding, and the credibility that came with it. The decision was financially driven. This company wanted to take itself to the next level, and what they realized was that they needed a finance leader at the helm to run all facets of the organization.

If you are building a leadership bench, that search is worth sitting with. Those internal candidates were not passed over on performance. They were passed over because the profile the business needed for its next chapter had not been developed inside the building.

SuccessionFP&A is where the bench is thinnest, and the need is largest

We talk constantly in this industry about bench strength and succession planning. When I apply that to the finance space, one function comes up before any other, and it is financial planning and analysis.

My reasoning comes from looking at who is actually holding the senior seats. The CFOs, the VPs of finance, and the executives running finance departments today came up through the ranks on the FP&A side more than anything else. That is the track that produces the strategic thinker this market is paying for. It is also the track most companies have underbuilt, and the gap is widening, because the industry now needs that specific expertise in a way it did not in the past.

Bench strength is a phrase everyone uses. In finance, it has a specific address, and the address is FP&A.

The path forward is not complicated, but it does require a decision. Treat FP&A as a leadership track rather than a reporting function. Build the layer two levels below the CFO now, while there is still time to develop it. A company that waits until the CFO seat opens is not running succession. It is running a search under pressure, and pressure is expensive.

The Blended RoleThe finance and operations line has stopped being a line

Almost none of what the CFO role actually looks like today inside building materials companies lives on the balance sheet. The modern CFOs I work with are helping their organizations streamline operations, improve cash flow, and use technology to strengthen decision-making. They are building systems and installing accountability.

But the part I would point to as the real engine is the collaboration between finance and operations. That combined knowledge, and the ability to bring different departments and different aspects of the company together, is what drives growth forward. Operational excellence in this context is not a term for a slide. It is a working requirement of the finance leadership role.

Which means a finance search that screens only for financial acumen is screening for half the job. A candidate who can close the books cleanly and cannot work across the operations floor is not a candidate for this version of the role.

Reading CandidatesThe capability that decides finance searches is not on the resume

The thing that sticks out to me whenever I speak with a candidate, and it never shows up on a resume, is the way they can articulate what they do.

The old assumption was that you choose between the outgoing communicator and the analytical mind, that you rarely get both in the same person. What I am actually seeing in the best candidates in the market is that they can speak to their finance experience as though they are talking to someone who is not a finance person. And that matters more than it used to, because of how much cross-collaboration these roles now carry with other departments. Those departments do not speak finance language, and someone has to translate.

Technical accuracy gets a candidate to the interview. Translation gets them the seat.

This is exactly the kind of variable a credential screen cannot capture, and it is why SPACE evaluates candidates beyond the credential. Two candidates can present identical technical backgrounds and land in completely different places on the one dimension that determines whether they succeed inside a cross-functional executive team.

Candidate SignalAI adoption tells me something about initiative

I had a conversation recently with a candidate about exactly this: how finance and accounting executives integrate AI-driven systems into their work without feeling that their job security is under threat. My answer is the same one I would give anyone. The smartest ones, and the ones making the biggest impact, are using the technology to their own advantage to make their work more effective and more efficient.

The second half of what I am seeing is the more useful part for anyone hiring. Candidates are going out and earning additional certifications in AI and technology-enhanced software platforms on their own time, outside their profession and outside their full-time job, specifically to make themselves more marketable and more valuable.

A candidate who spent their own time and money building technology capability is telling you how they will operate once hired. That signal is available in the interview, if you ask for it. So ask for it directly. Not whether a candidate is comfortable with technology, because everyone answers yes to that. Ask what they went and learned on their own initiative in the last eighteen months, and what it changed about how they work.

CompensationThe offer is being won on structure, not on base

It is a competitive market. That is the first thing I say when a client asks me about compensation for finance leadership right now.

I have had conversations this week with senior finance leaders and executives who are open to a discreet, confidential conversation, and who expect any package to align with where they are in their career and what they have actually accomplished. What I am seeing on the company side is a structure built on considerably more than base salary. It is incentive-laden and bonus-driven, tied to specific KPI metrics on personal performance and on company performance together.

The logic behind that is sound. Companies want these leaders driving growth, and they want them to benefit when the company benefits. If revenue and EBITDA grow, the finance leader has done the job, and the compensation should reflect it.

Base salary alone is no longer a competitive offer at this level.

If a client is constrained on base, that is workable, and I will say so directly. But it is only workable if the package carries a real performance-linked component and a defined review point. An offer that is thin on base and vague on upside does not read as competitive to a senior finance leader. It reads as unserious, and the candidate will treat it accordingly.

The SpecExperience has moved ahead of certification

I want to close on something we do not talk about enough, because it runs against what a lot of job specifications still assume.

Certifications are valuable assets for individual candidates, and I would not tell anyone to skip one. But I am finding fewer clients and fewer companies looking for people who come with specific certifications, and less of a need for them overall. What has taken their place is experience. The proven ability to succeed across different roles and to move up through the finance organization now carries more weight than a specific certification at the end of a name.

The practical consequence is worth acting on before your next search opens. A certification requirement your team no longer genuinely cares about is a filter, and every filter removes qualified candidates from a slate. Write the specification against what the role actually requires, not against what the previous version of the posting said.

Where We Come InEvery finance search is built around what the business is becoming

We do not screen against what the job description says today. Every finance search we run is built around what the business is trying to become. That means a defined process, a structured evaluation through SPACE, and a compensation conversation that happens before the offer rather than after it.

If you are building a finance leadership team into a growth plan, an acquisition, or a succession event, we should be aligned on the market before the search opens.