Leadership In Motion. Insight In Real Time. 

Having sat across from some of the top corporate development professionals in the industry, in your opinion, what are the key traits or qualities that truly set the best apart from the rest?
 

Having spent time across the table from many corporate development professionals, I don’t think there’s a single “ideal” profile. Broadly, they tend to come from three backgrounds — former bankers, former consultants, and former operators — and each brings something different to the table.

 

The ex-bankers are the process drivers. They know how to run a deal, manage advisors, and get things across the finish line. They’re organized, disciplined, and execution-oriented, though sometimes more focused on transactions than on long-term strategic fit.

 

The consultants tend to be the strategic thinkers. They’re good at seeing how an acquisition fits into the company’s broader plan and at building alignment internally. Their challenge is usually less around strategy and more around the mechanics of actually executing a deal.

 

And then you have the operators who’ve moved into M&A. They understand where the real value lies — what synergies are achievable, what integration will look like — because they’ve lived it. They’re pragmatic and commercially grounded, though often lighter on formal process.

 

There’s no one-size-fits-all formula. The right profile depends on the company’s culture, leadership team, and existing talent pool. If the CFO is a former banker, for example, you might want a corporate development leader who complements that — maybe a consultant with strategic depth or an operator with industry expertise. On the other hand, if you already have a strong strategy function and just need someone to find and close deals, a banker-type profile makes perfect sense.

 

As for traits, aside from the usual table stakes — being analytical, thoughtful, and reliable — the real differentiators are adaptability and self-awareness. The best corporate development leaders understand their own wiring and how it fits within the broader leadership team. They know when to lead, when to defer, and how to drive alignment across very different personalities. That’s ultimately what separates the good from the great.

​

​

What are some of the biggest changes or challenges in the M&A landscape today, and how would you recommend CFOs adjust their hiring criteria to find the best corporate development leaders?
 

First and foremost, I wouldn’t recommend adjusting your hiring approach for corporate development based on where we are in the M&A cycle. Corporate development is a long-term function — it’s about shaping and executing the company’s strategic path, not reacting to short-term market trends.

 

That said, market conditions do influence how different profiles perform and how engaged they stay. Bankers thrive in active deal environments — when there’s heavy execution, multiple processes running, and a need for speed and precision. They’re ideal when you expect to be doing several transactions a year or acting as a “SWAT team” for deal execution. But in quieter markets — when valuations are disconnected, financing is tight, or sellers are hesitant — banker-type profiles can get frustrated. They’re less naturally suited to the strategic, exploratory, or internal projects that corporate development teams tend to focus on when deals slow down.

 

Consultant profiles are generally more adaptable in those slower cycles. They can pivot toward internal work — fine-tuning strategy, reassessing the portfolio, building scenarios, and supporting leadership on broader planning topics — while keeping an eye on future opportunities.

 

Veteran operators, meanwhile, bring value in any market. They tend to maintain long-term, peer-level relationships in the industry and can continue cultivating opportunities even when the formal M&A market is quiet. They’re often the ones who quietly build the pipeline for when the cycle turns.

 

So, I wouldn’t recommend changing who you hire based on short-term deal flow. But I would be mindful of how each profile behaves and adds value across cycles. The M&A environment doesn’t change what “good” looks like — it just changes which strengths are most useful, and how fulfilled that person will feel in the role at any given time. 

​