Interview with Hanna Masala

Juha Kivistö

Could you tell us a little about your background and how you ended up studying finance?

Absolutely! During my years at upper secondary school in Tampere, my career aspirations range from becoming a piano teacher to a doctor. By the end of school, I was considering law, but in the autumn of my final year, we had guest speakers who shared their experiences studying at the School of Economics. That visit made me rethink my options. Economics seemed appealing because it offered a broad range of subjects and allowed me to choose my major after the first year.

I was accepted to the Helsinki School of Economics, moved to Helsinki, and initially chose to major in accounting. However, I found myself taking several finance courses, which overlapped with my major, and I became captivated by the field. Quite soon, I switched my major to finance during my bachelor’s program. It wasn’t an immediate choice, but as I took more finance courses, I realized how genuinely interesting and challenging the field was. I wasn’t the type of student who followed Kauppalehti or invested in stocks in elementary school, but finance steadily drew me in.

After your studies, you joined Nordea’s corporate finance team in 2000. How did that happen?

During my studies, I didn’t have extensive work experience in my field. However, toward the end, I worked as a broker in derivatives at the Helsinki Stock Exchange, which was enjoyable. I had a front-row seat for the mergers and changes among exchange operators happening around the turn on the millennium. Nordea was already familiar to me with events during my studies, so I had an idea of the team’s work and culture. I saw a job opening in the newspaper and applied, even though I still had my thesis left to complete. The job market was strong at the time, and I wanted to get my foot in the door. I finished my master’s thesis while working, which was a challenge, but I managed it.

You joined just for the dot-com bubble burst and stayed through the lead-up to the financial crisis. How did these events impact your work and how was your time at the bank?

The dot-com bubble left its mark as banks became more cautious about IT firms and related transactions. Nordea was on the cautious side all along and looking back, that conservatism was wise. My work focused primarily on equity market-related transactions, such as the Neste spin-off from Fortum, Sonera’s share issuance in 2001, and the Outotec spin-off from Outokumpu. I also worked on initial public offerings (IPOs) and a few mergers and acquisitions (M&A), Over time, I took on more responsibility, eventually leading projects.

I spent nearly seven years at Nordea, from 2000 to 2006. The variety of transactions and firms I got to work with kept the job interesting and challenging. The chance to take on new responsibilities and promote also made it a place where I could grow. After seven years, however, I started to feel the need for a change. I wanted to step out of my comfort zone, which had by then become equity market transactions. This desire to keep learning and challenging myself has guided many of my career changes.

One of my key takeaways from Nordea was learning how to perform well under pressure and stay calm, even with tight deadlines and many balls in the air at the same time. This has been invaluable in other roles and helps me support younger colleagues facing similar challenges. Another lesson was about maintaining high standards in the work we produced. Lastly, I gained experience interacting with CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives, which isn’t easy right after you graduate. Investment banking (IB) is, at its core, about people and understanding each other. And given the demands of investment banking, having a supportive team makes all the difference.

What motivated the transition from Nordea to Outokumpu?

I’d developed a feeling that it was time to try something beyond investment banking. I got to participate in transactions and gain some exposure to M&A, which was a field I found really interesting. I wasn’t actively looking for a new opportunity, but after working on the project to spin off Outotec from Outokumpu, I got a call from them. The position seemed compelling, and I ultimately joined their M&A and Business Development team.

Outokumpu presented an interesting and challenging starting point. The company was at a bit of a turning point and was revisiting its strategy. My responsibilities included selling non-core assets, such as remaining mines and copper businesses still held in the portfolio. We also executed a few acquisitions and joint ventures, ranging from tens to hundreds of millions, as part of our growth strategy.

At that time, the whole industry was looking into consolidation, and there were four major players in Europe. Outokumpu was in active discussions with others, partly due to the market conditions being challenging. The changes were demanding, but it was clear that M&A could offer the best solutions to address the operational challenges and overcapacity in the European market. My role was to contribute to strategic considerations, identify synergies, and be heavily involved in the M&A process. Though I was technically part of the M&A team, we worked hand in hand with other colleagues. I got also significant exposure to strategy work, which enhanced my understanding of the business beyond just the technical side.

Did something come as a surprise when transferring to Outokumpu from IB?

Nothing too surprising, but there are certain things you notice. We were a team of only two people but working closely with a M&A lawyer and our deputy CEO who concentrated also to M&A. This meant we operated pretty independently and closely monitored our projects. Coming from IB, where you understand the complexities of transaction processes, you’re aware that they’re not always straightforward. This isn’t the case for everyone else in the company and sometimes they expect transactions to be quick and seamless.

Transactions often involved various groups, depending on the characteristics of the deal, and my IB background was valuable for bridging communication between colleagues and advisors. Being able to “translate” between different parts of the organization helped the process run more smoothly. You also have to stay interested in what the division or group management teams have to say. It won’t work if you come in from IB acting like you “own the world.”

Transitioning from an investment bank or consulting firm to an industrial company means you’re coming from a place where everyone speaks the same professional language. While you don’t need to change who you are, you do need to put in extra effort to connect with people and enhance your communication skills. I appreciated this because I got to work with people from different backgrounds, which brought new perspectives and, ultimately, a more in-depth understanding of essential topics.

During your time at Outokumpu, you worked on various transactions, both domestic and cross-border. As you mentioned, transactions can be complex, so what do you think are the keys to success?

It’s a tough question, but there are some common factors for success. We completed a few cross-border transactions in places like Saudi Arabia and Italy, and also worked quite a lot in a couple of Asian countries. In these situations, it’s critical to understand the local culture and business environment, which a good advisor can help with significantly. Again, it comes down to effective communication and mutual understanding. You need to grasp your counterpart’s interests and address them.

One major difference between IB and working in the industry is that transactions don’t just end with a handshake. The success of a deal depends on what happens after that. Specifically, it will come down to the integration process and your ability to achieve the synergies you identified. This is why you have to understand your counterpart’s plans and motives before finalizing a transaction. On top of this, you have to do the technical aspects, including agreements and valuation, carefully to avoid overpaying and destroying value. 

Synergies are often a core part of M&A, so a well-planned integration process is essential, as is ensuring the target company is open to it. One reason industry M&A can be slow is that you want to understand the management and people you’re acquiring or selling to, as post-transaction, you’ll be “married” to them. This is also why companies sometimes acquire firms they’ve already worked with, because they know how these companies operate and that they’re compatible.

After Outokumpu, you moved to Solidium, then Ekokem, and eventually Fortum. How were those years (2013-2016)?

After the European stainless steel market went through consolidation, I began to look for my next steps. After about seven years at Outokumpu, I felt ready for a change and was open to new opportunities. I received a couple of offers but ultimately joined Solidium, where I stayed for two and a half years. Solidium gave me a great view of the Finnish corporate landscape, and many of my colleagues had backgrounds in IB, consulting, or private equity. In this environment, my experience from Outokumpu added valuable perspectives.

The role offered exciting challenges, including work with Talvivaara at its crisis phase, which taught me about communication and gave me insight into how the governmental organisations work. Later, I received a call from Ekokem, which was owned by e.g. public pension funds and the state and was planning an IPO. After some thought, I decided to take on the challenge. However, soon after we publicly announced our IPO intentions, the owners opted to sell to Fortum, which was a surprise. It required adjustment since we had a clear path. Additionally, it was new for me to experience being the target rather than the buyer.

This experience showed me how crucial it is for the acquiror to communicate and consider the target company’s interests, especially in terms of integration planning. As the smaller company, you live with uncertainty and hope the acquiror is transparent and communicates effectively about the future. Through the acquisition I started in Fortum with a plan to probably leave relatively soon but ended up staying there for little under six years. 

Your journey at Fortum seems to have been a transformation from an M&A specialist to the group financial management. You started as the Head of Integration and Growth and became the Group Finance Director in the end. Was this transition part of a plan, or did it evolve naturally? How did the Group Finance Director role differ from your previous positions?

I hadn’t originally envisioned this path, although there were discussions at Outokumpu about taking on divisional finance leadership or something similar to a CFO role. However, it wasn’t too serious back then. At Fortum, the idea came up more frequently in conversations with senior colleagues, who challenged me to think about it more deeply. When our division’s CFO was nearing retirement, I started to consider it seriously. At first, I resisted a bit, as I genuinely enjoyed the M&A and strategy side of my role. I didn’t want to shift to what I thought would be a more stable, reporting-focused finance and accounting position. In the end, I agreed to take on the role, but I managed to keep M&A within my responsibilities. Looking back, this turned out to be a great move, allowing me to gain new perspectives and experiences while continuing the work I loved.

There was a lot happening in my final years (2020–2022) at Fortum, with changes in both the CFO and CEO. The new CFO focused on the Uniper integration, so additional support was needed on the finance side, which led me to the Group Finance Director role. This felt like a significant step from division to group-level responsibilities. I enjoyed working in the City Solutions division, where I started, because of its refreshing agility within a large company. Moving to Group Finance meant I had a much broader range of functions and people to manage—around 300, directly and indirectly.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine, which profoundly impacted Fortum. There was a lot of changes as this meant energy crisis and we had operations in Russia that we wanted to exit after the attack. This responsibility fell to me, and I was a part of a small team in navigating an increasingly complex exit process as the situation worsened in Ukraine. Soon after, the Uniper and the whole European energy crises emerged, involving more stakeholders, including the Finnish and German governments. I had experienced a lot throughout my career, but this was something entirely different. The summer of 2022 was incredibly intense and probably something I won’t end up experiencing a second time. 

How did M&A at Fortum differ from your experience at Outokumpu?

M&A at Fortum was a bit different from Outokumpu. With Fortum’s broad business portfolio, there was some reorganization to do, such as selling district heating assets. Fortum’s M&A team is also quite large, which some might even call an in-house investment bank that also uses external advisory services. In this setup, I wasn’t as hands-on with the technical side, which allowed me to take on more responsibility for the division’s finances. 

The primary focus at Fortum was to drive growth in the current business, evolve strategy, and actively identify potential acquisition targets. At Fortum, as at Outokumpu, M&A and strategy were closely linked, though some companies separate these functions more distinctly. Transactions at Fortum were approached individually, with unique teams formed for each deal, along with tailored responsibilities and integration plans for each transaction.

Does state ownership in Fortum impact the job?

The first years as I was in the City Solutions divisions much less. Compared to Outokumpu, maybe a little more as the ownership in Outokumpu is smaller and it is less interesting to the common citizen. Fortum is seen as a public asset, which makes it more closely followed and more frequently in the news. This means communication, both internal and external, must be handled more judiciously, along with maintaining political relationships. It feels that you have more stakeholders that are interested in what the company is doing, which must affect operational and strategic actions. 

On the business side, utilities and energy may appear easy to understand, making them accessible topics for the media. However, energy is a very complex sector with different inter-dependencies and quite strict regulations. It also holds shared public interest, which ties it to politics. During my time, this was especially true due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the resulting energy crisis, and the Uniper crisis, which highlighted the scope of responsibilities a single company might manage. Initially, Fortum seemed conservative and somewhat rigid. However, other industry experts pointed out that Fortum is actually quite agile compared to other European energy companies. It’s all relative to the industry, and I found Fortum’s people to be truly exceptional professionals, which made my job all the more enjoyable.

Lastly, you found your way to Sitowise as a CFO. Was it a natural transition or did you search actively for a position. What kind of motivation did you have behind it?

The idea of a CFO role began to form gradually as I progressed in group finance. Like my previous roles, it wasn’t a position I actively sought out, but it felt like a natural next step. I received a few calls from different organizations, which made me reflect on my career direction. After we navigated the crises at Fortum, I felt it was the right time for a change, especially as Fortum was also entering a new chapter. I’d been with Fortum for about six years and felt ready for something new, which led me to Sitowise. Having worked at large asset-heavy companies like Outokumpu and Fortum, I was eager to experience a smaller, more agile environment.

As a CFO, I sought greater ownership over my functions and the chance to leave my personal mark, which felt more achievable at Sitowise than in larger organizations. Sitowise also offered a more people-centered culture, which I find motivating. 

What skills do you think you need to develop to become a CFO, and did any surprises arise along the way? Do you think it shows that Sitowise is still a relatively young publicly listed company?

One aspect that wasn’t entirely new but still required some adjustment was managing a range of stakeholders, such as shareholders, auditors, and financiers, who are now directly involved in my role. Additionally, coming from a specialist and project manager background, I started as a manager for larger teams a bit later in my career, initially at Ekokem and Fortum. I enjoy this part of my work and it’s something that feels quite natural.  I’ve also had excellent supervisors who provided valuable guidance and showed good practices along the way.

At Sitowise, being at a smaller company means we don’t always have in-house experts for every topic, which has its pros and cons. It requires adaptability, teamwork, and the ability to learn on the go to find the best solutions, which keeps the role engaging. Working with people from various backgrounds has definitely helped. However, I believe the most important thing is to stay humble and genuinely interested in every conversation. With the right mindset, things tend to go well. You also need to rely on your experience and skills, but it’s essential to recognize gaps where others can support you.

From a technical standpoint, listed companies are quite similar, but as a smaller and newer company, there are areas we’re still establishing. But this situation also presents an opportunity to build new practices and standards. Being a smaller company means we’re still defining certain aspects which are exciting. However, Sitowise was PE-backed when it went public, so the company were well prepared for the listing. 

How does your M&A background and career path influence your role as CFO? 

I’ve always enjoyed the M&A and strategic side of the job, and I intend to keep those elements in my role. Some CFOs might prefer to focus solely on reporting and the financial side, but I’ve always wanted to stay close to the equity market and outside world. We actively communicate with our shareholders, and my past experiences with the markets have helped with this aspect. Of course, there’s also the reporting and technical finance work, but I like to bring a creative perspective to the role. As CFO, you’re involved in many functions, interacting with a variety of stakeholders, which is rewarding yet challenging. It sometimes feels like a blessing and a curse that very few things don’t end up on my desk. 

How have you managed to maintain work-life balance over the years?

Work-life balance is an ongoing challenge, and it often depends on the workload at any given time. In a way, working hard early in my career created a rhythm that’s stayed with me, which has its advantages, but you have to learn recognize places to take it more easy. Finding your own approach to balance is important, and it’s very personal, since everyone’s ideal balance is different. When you find a way of working that suits you and a job that excites you, long hours can feel more manageable.

Nowadays, I have a son in upper school and a husband I love spending time with, so I prioritize time with them. We enjoy traveling, and personally, I’ve started playing tennis and play music, which are great ways to recharge and spend some time on myself.

Then last but not least. What advice would you give to your 25-year-old self?

Looking back, one piece of advice I’d give is to start your career with an open mind and a willingness to explore. It’s beneficial to get involved not only during the application stage but also within the job itself. If you’re proactive and curious, you can shape your role. This mindset helps you grow and avoid getting locked in a predetermined path. So, be proactive, take ownership of your career, and stay open to new experiences. 

Juha Kivistö is the previous Editor-in-Chief of AFA Quarterly.