What actually drives culture inside a finance function
Three things do most of the work, and none of them appear in an employer brand deck.
The first is resourcing. Finance teams are running leaner structures and higher workloads, as a downstream effect of the headcount cuts in 2025, which forces more deliberate hiring decisions.[1] On top of that, finance teams frequently face increasing reporting requirements without a corresponding increase in headcount.[2] A team carrying more scope than heads has a workload culture regardless of what anyone intends.
The second is the leader. When leadership changes, the entire philosophy of the business shifts, with real consequences for centralised versus decentralised reporting, risk appetite, capital expenditure approvals, performance expectations, headcount decisions and the CFO's engagement with the executive team.[3] The function you join in March can be a different place by September if the person above it changes.
The third is whether the work matters. Numbers matter, but trust matters more, because without it even the best reporting will not get used.[4] A finance team whose output is ignored develops a particular kind of low morale that no amount of flexibility policy fixes.
The healthy version
The best leaders build finance teams that are commercially minded enough to pivot quickly and resilient enough to handle volatility without burning out.[5] That sentence contains the whole test. Commercially minded means the team is close to the decisions. Resilient without burning out means the resourcing is honest.
You can see the healthy version in concrete outputs. Where finance ownership is strong, reporting gets clearer, forecasts become more believable, board prep gets less chaotic, cash conversations get more accurate, and hiring plans get properly tested before they become commitments.[6] Where the culture is poor, every one of those is a scramble in the last week of the month.
| Signal of a struggling finance culture | Signal of a healthy one | |
|---|---|---|
| Resourcing | Reporting requirements have grown but headcount has not. Every close depends on the same two people. | Scope and headcount have moved together, and hiring decisions are made deliberately rather than reactively. |
| How reporting is used | The pack is produced, circulated and never referenced in a decision. | Forecasts are believable, cash conversations are accurate, and hiring plans get tested before they become commitments. |
| Month-end | A predictable week of long nights, every month, unchanged. | Shortening over time because process and systems investment is actually happening. |
| Relationship with the business | Finance is where requests go to be slowed down. | Finance speaks operations, technology and strategy, and gets involved before decisions rather than after. |
| Turnover | A pattern of twelve-month tenures nobody will explain. | People stay and move up internally, and the business can tell you exactly why the last person left. |
Corporate finance culture versus startup finance culture
These are genuinely different jobs and neither is better. In a large Australian corporate or a bank, the function is specialised, the processes exist, and the culture question is mostly about workload intensity and how political the environment is.
In the startups and scale-ups I recruit into, finance teams often double as operations, strategy and systems, with investor expectations driving faster cycles and tighter budgets while the structure is still forming.[7] Early on the team does not need to be big, it needs agility, usually a Finance Manager or hands-on Financial Controller supported by a bookkeeper or an outsourced accounting firm.[8]
The honest warning for candidates crossing over: do not take a startup role expecting a corporate environment enhanced with equity. Startup land means embracing chaos and ambiguity and being prepared to roll with whatever the day throws at you.[9] People who want that thrive. People who wanted a better-paid version of their corporate job leave inside a year.
If you want to see how the shape of a finance team changes by company stage, I map it out here.
How to actually assess it in a process
Reviews and ratings sites give you sentiment, not specifics. These questions get closer to the truth, and the way they are answered tells you as much as the answer.
- How many people are in the function today, and how many were there eighteen months ago? Compare that with revenue growth over the same period.
- What happened to the last person in this seat, and how long were they here?
- Walk me through the last board pack. Who reads it, and what decision changed because of it?
- What does month-end actually look like? Ask for hours, not adjectives.
- Has the leadership above finance changed in the last two years, and what changed as a result?
Then take chemistry seriously. If something about the CEO's or the CFO's communication, decision-making or energy sits badly with you during the process, do not talk yourself out of it. Chemistry is not a nice-to-have at this level, and whatever you notice in an interview usually intensifies once you are in the role.[10]
If you are the one who will be setting the culture rather than joining it, I go through what changes when you step into finance leadership here.
Common questions
What is finance culture?
In practice it is three things: how well the function is resourced against its workload, the quality and stability of the leader above it, and whether the work the team produces actually gets used in decisions. Values statements and perks sit well below those in predicting what the job feels like. A team carrying more scope than headcount has a workload culture no matter what the employer brand says.
How do I assess a finance team's culture in an interview?
Ask for numbers rather than adjectives. How many people are in the function now versus eighteen months ago, against revenue growth over the same period. What happened to the last person in the seat and how long they stayed. Who actually reads the board pack and what decision changed because of it. What month-end looks like in hours. And whether leadership above finance has changed recently, because when it does, reporting structure, risk appetite and performance expectations all shift with it.
Is finance culture different in a startup compared with a corporate?
Substantially. In a corporate the function is specialised and the processes exist, so the culture question is mostly about workload intensity and internal politics. In a startup or scale-up, finance often doubles as operations, strategy and systems, with investor expectations driving faster cycles and tighter budgets while the structure is still forming. Neither is better, but do not take a startup role expecting a corporate environment enhanced with equity.
What are the red flags in a finance function's culture?
Reporting requirements that have grown while headcount has not. A board pack nobody references in a decision. A month-end that has taken the same number of long nights for three years, meaning no process investment is happening. A pattern of short tenures in the seat you are interviewing for that nobody will explain. And your own discomfort with the hiring leader's communication or decision-making, which almost always intensifies once you are in the role.
References
- Tom Hunter on the Australian finance market: teams are experiencing leaner structures and higher workloads as a downstream effect of 2025's headcount cuts, requiring more deliberate hiring decisions.
- Tom Hunter's observation that finance teams often face increasing reporting requirements without a corresponding increase in headcount.
- Tom Hunter on leadership change: when leadership changes the philosophy of the business shifts, with real consequences for centralised versus decentralised reporting, risk appetite, capital expenditure approvals, performance expectations, headcount decisions and the CFO's engagement with the executive team.
- Tom Hunter on trust in finance leadership: numbers matter, but trust matters more, because without it even the best reporting will not get used.
- Tom Hunter on building finance teams: the best leaders build teams that are commercially minded enough to pivot quickly and resilient enough to handle volatility without burning out.
- Tom Hunter on strong finance ownership in a startup: reporting gets clearer, forecasts become more believable, board prep gets less chaotic, cash conversations get more accurate, and hiring plans get properly tested before they become commitments.
- Tom Hunter on fast-growing environments: finance teams often double as operations, strategy and systems, with PE and VC expectations driving faster cycles and tighter budgets while the structure is still forming.
- Tom Hunter on finance team structure for startups up to around 20 staff: the team does not need to be big, it needs agility, often led by a Finance Manager or hands-on Financial Controller supported by a bookkeeper or outsourced accounting firm.
- Tom Hunter's advice to finance professionals considering a startup: do not take the role expecting a corporate environment enhanced with equity. Startup land means embracing chaos and ambiguity and rolling with whatever the day throws at you.
- Tom Hunter's advice to candidates for senior finance roles: do not ignore discomfort with a leader's communication, decision-making or energy during interviews. Chemistry is not a nice-to-have at this level, and the discomfort usually intensifies in the role.