Bridging the CFO — HR Divide

January 10, 2011

by Trent Beekman

Every company has two types of capital: financial and human. You can't have one without the other, and neither will reach its full potential if the other is weak. It's strange, then, that in the vast majority of companies, the directors of these two functions share a common goal -- business success -- but rarely share a common language. In fact, CFOs and HR executives typically never speak to each other, and if they did, chances are they wouldn't understand each other because they speak completely different languages.

This dynamic is slowly changing -- and it's high time. More than one-third of the average company's financial capital flows to human capital, including salaries, benefits, and training. These are costs that CFOs, who are charged with parsing the lines of the spreadsheet, really should have more than a passing familiarity with from the very beginning of any HR decision or strategy. After all, CEOs will ask every time: What's the return on this investment?

Historically, CEOs and presidents have made all decisions on human capital expenditures, and while they often consult HR as part of that process, more often than not, CFOs are kept out of the loop. Giving CFOs a greater presence and voice in the process could help ensure that such important decisions are more fully vetted. It's not about adding complexity to the decision-making; it's about creating efficiency.

The troubled economy has increased awareness of the need to enhance the CFO-HR relationship. Right now, every change in the business must help it to cope more strategically with the current financial climate. Take the issue of employee retention. Current workplace surveys indicate that a high percentage of employees are interested in moving on as soon as they feel the economic environment has stabilized sufficiently. That moment may not be here yet, but many believe it's close, or at least getting closer. Either way, companies need to be aware of how to keep their best performers, within their financial means.

To do this, CFOs and HR execs must start from the beginning, by literally learning each other's languages. CFOs work in hard metrics, and their technical vocabulary reflects this. It's precise, crisp, and very specialized -- think "EBITDA." The language of HR executives tends to emphasize less quantifiable benefits, like the payoff of a "happy" workplace, or the value of "employee engagement." Here are some ways the two worlds can learn from each other to work together in a more meaningful way:

Respect each other's vocabulary. When traveling abroad, making an effort to speak the language of the country you're in is usually appreciated. That's analogous to the sort of effort that can help bridge the CFO-HR divide. Engagement may be harder to measure than EBITDA, but there are quantifiable benefits from motivated employees. An HR executive who communicates the EBITDA impact of a potential project, or a CFO who appreciates the morale-boosting effects of an investment hire, can each gain a new and potent ally.

Be willing to listen. CFOs will need to break old habits to help gain that right to occupy a seat at the table when human capital decisions are being made. Respect and openness to seemingly soft HR strategies like recognition programs may be the basic price of admission. HR, in turn, must take a balanced approach that's cognizant of both qualitative and quantitative ROI.

Collaborate for cost reduction. The largest opportunity today for financial and HR executives to build bridges is perhaps in managing the fountain of expenses. It's a high-wire act, ensuring that a company's benefits offering is sufficiently competitive to retain high-value employees without drowning the quarterly books in red ink. No company can ignore this challenge in the years to come, and it will require an all-hands-on-deck mentality.

Let's face it: Historically, CFOs and HR executives have not been the best of friends, assuming they got to know each other at all. Their skill sets and responsibilities differ significantly; it's hard numbers versus the soft calculus of how to drive motivation and contentment in a workforce. Numbers on a balance sheet may represent people, but people don't like to be treated like a number. If CFOs and HR leaders can bridge the divide, the result will be a more successful company with a happier workforce and a healthier bottom line.

Average: 6.3 (3 votes)

The above comments precisely

The above comments precisely reflect the mindset of individuals on both sides - Finance and HR. Both sides have to be educated a bit about each other's importance and how they can bring significant value working together.

The Divide Between CFO's and HR Leaders

Here is a ficticious story about several real life examples.

At company ABC the CFO believes HR is just a payroll and paperwork function that's a part of accounting and general administration. The company doesn't understand why HR Directors are paid more than the average CFO, so they believe their benchmarking data on the HR Manager is faulty or unreliable. Next, they assign the HR Department under the CFO and pay the HR Manager or Director the same amount they would pay a Generalist or Administrative Assistant. In HR the term Manager is deceptive, because the HR Manager or Director is a Department Head that reports directly to the CEO, attends all executive meetings, and has the authority to hire or fire anyone in the organization except an executive without preapproval from the CEO.

The new employee, demoralized, takes the lower paying job temporarily for his or her family's sake and then leaves at the first higher offer.

In the interview the average applicant tells the interviewer whatever they want to hear to get the job whether they have high or low character. Ultimately, the best salesperson is hired for any position, not the best employee. That's why a 3 day trial is the best way to select the right employee and the interview is the worst way to select new employees according to a recent study on thousands of companies by SHRM.

After the HR Manager leaves yet again, the weight of HR shifts back to management, an accountant and an administrative assistant to balance the load. The CFO is too busy doing Managerial Finance to worry about unimportant stuff like HR. Due to company culture and lack of knowledge, HR gets nothing done strategically to add value to the organization. Did I mention the CFO has no education in Human Resources, no PHR or SPHR certification or relevent experience in a company with a modern human resources department?

Managers are getting a lot less done as far as growth and innovation, because they are weighted down by paperwork or trying to figure out the HRIS. ABC's competitors, assuming they have a modern view of HR, are eating up ABC's market share and outperforming them 2 to 1. It seems like their competitors are always innovating something, adding new technology, hiring instructors or getting more office space.

The CEO of ABC is a board member that approves the accreditation of other schools and gets to see their complete financials as a perk of volunteering. He can't understand why ABC's competitors are doing so well. His assumption is that they must have better salespeople.

As much as I like and respect these people I'm talking about fictiously, the truth is that CFOs are not HR people. They know very little about HR. Most CFO's have a pre-1948 view of Human Resources called Personnel Management. Modern HR is a major strategic component of extremely successful companies. Google is a great example of Modern Human Resources. They innovate and treat their people like gold, because they are their most valuable investment.

HR Manager higher paid than CFO?

Sounds like someone has a CFO envy issue? Never seen a HR Manager/Director paid more than a CFO or for that matter HR managers hiring or firing on there own. I always reserved this function for the area the employee worked with some HR oversight not interference. This must be part of the nanny state syndrome I am missing.

Here's a good one. Let's

Here's a good one. Let's find some employee's we can pay 20k less somewhere in the world. Then consequently watch them destroy brand, customer sat and make costly mistakes. But hey on paper we're more profitable this quarter. The lesson here is do not let cubicle bound accountants make mission critical customer facing decisions. It's not within their domain experience by their very nature.