The former CFO of Huntsville (Texas) Memorial Hospital is suing the hospital for breach of contract and defamation, according to the SE Texas Record.
In his complaint, filed Aug. 28, Guy Gros claims he was hired as Huntsville Memorial’s CFO in February 2013. He was initially given a two-year contract and then a three-year contract with automatic renewals, according to the lawsuit.
Under the contract, the hospital could terminate Mr. Gros’s employment for cause. On Dec. 2, 2016 he was terminated for alleged cause. However, Mr. Gros asserts that he was fired for raising concerns about the hospital’s finances.
Mr. Gros further alleges his reputation was damaged by false statements made by the hospital’s then CEO, who allegedly told a board member that Mr. Gros “did something illegal, something he should not have.”
Mr. Gros is seeking past and future wages, lost employment benefits and compensatory damages.
Rich Goode, vice president and CFO of Dallas-based Children’s Health, resigned Sept. 24, about a month after another finance leader left the organization, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Hospital officials did not give a reason for his departure. The organization has not responded to Becker’s request for comment.
Mr. Goode’s resignation comes after the August departure of Ryan Bailey, head of investments at Children’s Health, who left to form an investment firm.
Mr. Goode served as CFO for three years, joining Children’s Health in 2016. He was previously vice president of finance and CFO at Cook Children’s Health Care System in Fort Worth, Texas.
Mr. Goode is credited with doubling the system’s net operating income and implementing analysis tools to offer better insights into its financial health during his tenure.
The challenges many community hospitals face have become so unrelenting as to threaten long-term financial viability. It’s important that this threat be met with prompt action and operational changes that can improve the immediate situation as well as sustainability. A formal turnaround plan includes analyses and actions, and becomes a roadmap to redirect hospitals and help them stay on track to serve as community resources for years to come.
JK: Leaders from ailing community hospitals sometimes don’t recognize the severity of their problems or that certain indicators call for quick, corrective action. Some common alarm signals that leaders may tune out at first include a downward trend of days cash on hand, shifts in patient volume across the delivery spectrum, medical staff dissatisfaction or defection, and even bond covenant concerns. Recognizing that problems need to be addressed and changes must be made is the first step toward improvement.
JK: Typically, the process starts with an operational assessment to evaluate strategy, operations, supply chain, revenue cycle and leadership with the aim of reducing costs and increasing revenue—the tried-and-true formula for financial solvency. The analysis includes a review of data and documents, as well as interviews with board, executive and physician leaders. The process reveals any organizational problems or vulnerabilities that aren’t immediately apparent, and it forms the basis for a turnaround plan, including a detailed action plan. An open mind and fresh perspective are important to be able to see options to go beyond operations as they have always been.
JK: Almost every hospital has room to improve staff productivity. Labor is a hospital’s greatest expense, so optimizing productivity by having the right number and mix of staff can make a big impact. Community hospitals that do not have a productivity tool to achieve and maintain the right staffing levels can typically find savings of 15 to 20 percent in salaries and benefits by implementing a tool. In those hospitals where there’s already some productivity monitoring, implementing a more effective tool or improving processes can result in 5 to 10 percent savings. After labor, supply costs are the second highest expense for a hospital, so that’s another key focus area for cost reduction and savings. Industry benchmarks show that many community hospitals have an opportunity to reduce supply costs by as much as 20 percent.
Assessing revenue cycle is also imperative to help identify, monitor and collect every dollar a hospital is due. Gains can be made in this area by renegotiating health plan contracts, streamlining billing for faster payment, auditing medical record coding and reviewing the chargemaster.
JK: Hospitals can potentially identify significant cost-saving opportunities by comparing themselves to hospitals of similar size and volume. Comparing clinical, operational and financial data also identifies areas for improvement and where to allocate time and money for improvement initiatives. For example, a CHC-managed hospital that recently underwent a successful turnaround had discovered through benchmarking that its staff ratios were higher and its benefits were more expensive compared to similar hospitals. This information prompted leaders to take a closer look at the hospital’s situation, and they found it made sense from a sustainability perspective to downsize staff and bring benefit packages to competitive levels. These actions slashed the hospital’s annual expenses by $5.3 million.
JK: It’s a collaborative process requiring the participation of the board of trustees, executive leaders, physician leaders, and in many cases an outside management firm to evaluate the situation and develop a specific plan of action. As we discussed, leaders of struggling hospitals usually see the need for improvement but don’t recognize the severity of their situation. Because of that blind spot, it’s often external stakeholders or bondholders who set corrective action in motion by seeking outside assistance.
Market watchers say the surging stock-market could be prompting finance chiefs to hang up the abacus before a downturn hits.
Bill Rogers had climbed the corporate mountain, ascending to the finance chief role at CenterPoint Energy Inc. He had just guided the Houston-based utility through the $6 billion purchase of natural gas and electricity supplier Vectren Corp. And he was approaching an important milestone: his 60th birthday.
So, in March, Mr. Rogers retired. “The timing was right,” he said.
It is an increasingly familiar refrain. CFOs are retiring at the fastest pace in at least a decade—a generational changing of the guard that experts put down to factors including the increasing complexity of the role and the booming stock market.
One in six executives who left the CFO position at a U.S. public company in 2018 did so to retire, the highest share since at least 2007, according to an analysis of 12 years of regulatory filings by Audit Analytics for The Wall Street Journal.
Many CFOs leaving the role are simply reaching retirement age. Others point to new pressure from expanding job descriptions, which now often encompass oversight of human resources and information technology. Meanwhile, a rich array of advisory opportunities for seasoned executives may be tempting some into early retirement.
The market also plays a role: CFOs’ compensation often includes restricted equity grants, which in some cases can only be cashed out in full after retirement. A hot stock market has made that option more enticing. The S&P 500 stock index, which recouped losses suffered during the 2008 global financial crisis by 2013, has reached record highs this year.
Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, said the uptick in retirements could show that the executives overseeing American companies’ finances increasingly believe the long bull market will soon come to an end.
“It’s an intriguing market timing signal by people that are well able to assess the pulse and direction of the U.S. economy,” he said. “These executives are sitting on a pile of stock and it’s difficult to sell that stock as an insider, so when do you want to retire? Do you want to retire when the stock market is near an all-time high, or do you want to retire in the depths of the inevitable correction that might be a recession?”
A surge in deal activity has also been a factor. Last year was one of the busiest on record for mergers and acquisitions. Deals can trigger contract clauses that accelerate vesting requirements of restricted shares, giving CFOs an incentive to walk away, said Rhoda Longhenry, co-head of the financial officers practice at executive recruiter True Search.
The robust economy allowed Kenneth Pollak to retire from the CFO position at women’s apparel company Eileen Fisher Inc. in 2017 at the age of 66. “If the stock market didn’t come back, then I would say there was a good chance I would have worked a few more years,” he said.
CFOs are also tapping out because of escalating demands, recruiters said. CFOs once focused on regulatory compliance, accounting and reporting of financial results. Today, they are increasingly involved in setting strategy, finding and executing deals, and overseeing operations, technology, cybersecurity, talent management, human resources and risk.
Comparing the turnover rate for CFOs and CEOs provides some support for the idea that financial executives in particular are facing increased pressure at work. In 2009, the departure rates for CEOs and CFOs—for all reasons, not just retirement—were roughly the same, at 13.5% and 13.4% respectively, according to Audit Analytics. By 2018, the exit rate for CFOs had risen to 17.5%, compared with 15.2% for CEOs.
“The role has become increasingly more sophisticated,” said Peter Crist, chairman of executive recruiting firm Crist|Kolder Associates. “The pressure on a public company CFO is very high.”
Neil Edwards said his once-high blood pressure has eased to a normal range since 2014, when he retired at 59 from his role as CFO of internet-access company United Online Inc. “In the early days I really looked forward to getting into the office,” he said. “The last 18 months were very hard work. I was tired at the end of it.”
Retiring executives are also presented with more options, as consulting and outsourcing has permeated into more fields, recruiters said.
“We don’t believe anybody at this level ever retires, they are looking for flexibility,” said Gail Meneley, co-founder of Shields Meneley Partners, a Chicago firm that helps executives find their next job.
Mr. Edwards saw retirement as a second act, not the final scene. He does some consulting. He also puts his skills to use as a volunteer, helping impoverished schools in Cambodia with their finances.
Once Mr. Pollak was satisfied with his nest egg, his next priority was keeping busy. In his first year of retirement from Eileen Fisher, he traveled to Europe with his wife and secured a seat on a company board.
Downshifting from his hard-charging schedule was still a challenge. “When I was doing the board work and consulting, I was busy,” he said. “But there were times when I woke up on a Monday morning and wondered what I was going to do with the week.”
For Mr. Rogers, the aim of retiring from CenterPoint before age 60 was to leave time for his postwork goals. Since retiring, he has walked the Camino de Santiago in Spain with a group from the University of St. Thomas in Houston, one of several organizations that Mr. Rogers advises.
“You really can’t be sure what your health is after age 70,” Mr. Rogers said. “I have other interests, I want to make sure I have some span of time to see what I might do with them.”
Sean Brown: If you wanted evidence that the only constant in life is change, then look no further than the evolution of the CFO role. In addition to traditional CFO responsibilities, results from a recent McKinsey survey suggest that the number of functions reporting to CFOs is on the rise. Also increasing is the share of CFOs saying they oversee their companies’ digital activities and resolve issues outside the finance function. How can CFOs harness their increasing responsibilities and traditional finance expertise to drive the C-suite agenda and lead substantive change for their companies?
Joining us today to answer that question are Ankur Agrawal and Priyanka Prakash. Ankur is a partner in our New York office and one of the leaders of the Healthcare Systems & Services Practice. Priyanka is a consultant also based in New York. She is a chartered accountant by training and drives our research on the evolving role of finance and the CFO. Ankur, Priyanka, thank you so much for joining us today.
Let’s start with you, Ankur. Tell us about your article, which is based on a recent survey. What did you learn?
Ankur Agrawal: We look at the CFO role every two years as part of our ongoing research because the CFO is such a pivotal role in driving change at companies. We surveyed 400 respondents in April 2018, and we subsequently selected a few respondents for interviews to get some qualitative input as well. Within the 400 respondents, 212 of those were CFOs, and then the remainder were C-level executives and finance executives who were not CFOs. We had a healthy mix of CFOs and finance executives versus nonfinance executives. The reason was we wanted to compare and contrast what CFOs are saying versus what the business leaders are saying to get a full 360-degree view of CFOs.
The insights out of this survey were many. First and foremost, the pace of change in the CFO role itself is shockingly fast. If we compare the results from two years ago, the gamut of roles that reported into the CFO role has dramatically increased. On average, approximately six discrete roles are reporting to the CFO today. Those roles range from procurement to investor relations, which, in some companies, tend to be very finance specific. Two years ago, that average was around four. You can see the pace of change.
The second interesting insight out of this survey when compared to the last survey is the cross-functional nature of the role, which is driving transformations and playing a more proactive role in influencing change in the company. The soft side of the CFO leadership comes out really strongly, and CFOs are becoming more like generalist C-suite leaders. They should be. They, obviously, are playing that role, but it is becoming very clear that that’s what the business leaders expect them to do.
And then two more insights that are not counterintuitive, per se, but the pace of change is remarkable. One is this need to lead on driving long-term performance versus short-term performance. The last couple of years have been very active times for activist investors. There are lots of very public activist campaigns. We clearly see in the data that CFOs are expected to drive long-term performance and be the stewards of the resources of the company. That data is very clear.
And then, lastly, the pace of change of technology and how it’s influencing the CFO role: more than half of the CFO functions or finance functions are at the forefront of digitization, whether it is automation, analytics, robotic processes, or data visualization. More than half have touched these technologies, which is remarkable. And then many more are considering the technological evolution of the function.
Sean Brown: In your survey, did you touch on planning for the long term versus the short term?
Ankur Agrawal: Our survey suggests, and lot of the business leaders suggest, that there is an imperative for the CFO to be the steward of the long term. And there is this crying need for the finance function to lead the charge to take the long-term view in the enterprise. What does that mean? I think it’s hard to do—very, very hard to do—because the board, the investors, everybody’s looking for the short-term performance. But it puts even more responsibility on the finance function in defining and telling the story of how value is being created in the enterprise over the long term. And those CFOs and finance executives who are able to tell that story and have proof points along the way, I think those are the more successful finance functions. And that was clearly what our survey highlighted.
What it also means is the finance functions have to focus and put in place KPIs [key performance indicators] and metrics that talk about the long-term value creation. And it is a theme that has been picked up, in the recent past, by the activists who have really taken some companies to task on not only falling short on short-term expectations but also not having a clear view and road map for long-term value creation. It is one of the imperatives for the CFO of the future: to be the value architect for the long term. It’s one of the very important aspects of how CFOs will be measured in the future.
Sean Brown: I noticed in your survey that you did ask CFOs and their nonfinance peers where they thought CFOs created the most value. What did you learn from that?
Priyanka Prakash: This has an interesting link with the entire topic of transformation. We saw that four in ten CFOs say that they created the most value through strategic leadership, as well as leading the charge on talent, including setting incentives that are linked with the company’s strategy. However, we see that nonfinance respondents still believe that CFOs created the most value by spending time on traditional finance activities. This offers an interesting sort of split. One of the things that this indicates is there’s a huge opportunity for CFOs to lead the charge on transformation to ensure that they’re not just leading traditional finance activities but also being change agents and leading transformations across the organization.
Ankur Agrawal: The CFOs of the future have to flex different muscles. They have been very good in really driving performance. Maybe there’s an opportunity to even step up the way that performance is measured in the context of transformation, which tends to be very messy. But, clearly, CFOs are expected to be the change agents, which means that they have to be motivational. They have to be inspirational. They have to lead by example. They have to be cross-functional. They have to drive the talent agenda. It’s a very different muscle, and the CFOs have had less of an opportunity to really leverage that muscle in the past. I think that charismatic leadership from the CFO will be the requirement of the future.
Sean Brown: You also address the CFO’s role regarding talent. Tell us a bit more about that.
Ankur Agrawal: Another really important message out of the survey is seeing the finance function and the CFO as a talent factory. And what that means is really working hand in hand with the CEO and CHRO [chief HR officer] over this trifecta of roles. Because the CFO knows where to invest the money and where the resources need to be allocated to really drive disproportionate value, hopefully for the long run. The CHRO is the arbiter of talent and the whole performance ethic regarding talent in the company. And the CEO is the navigator and the visionary for the company. The three of them coming together can be a very powerful way to drive talent—both within the function and outside the function.
And the finance-function leaders expect CFOs to play a really important role in talent management in the future and in creating the workforce of the future. And this workforce—in the finance function, mind you—will be very different. There’s already lots of talk about a need for data analytics, which is infused in the finance function and even broader outside the organization of finance function. The CFOs need to foster that talent and leverage the trifecta to attract, retain, and drive talent going forward.
Sean Brown: Do you have any examples of successful talent-development initiatives for the finance function? And can you share any other examples of where CFOs, in particular, have taken a more active role in talent and talent development?
Ankur Agrawal: An excellent question. On talent development within the finance function, a few types of actions—and these are not new actions—done very purposefully can have significant outsize outcome. One is job rotations: How do you make sure that 20 to 30 percent of your finance function is moving out of the traditional finance role, going out in the business, learning new skills? And that becomes a way where you cultivate and nurture new skills within the finance function. You do it very purposefully, without the fear that you will lose that person. If you lose that person, that’s fine as well. That is one tried-and-tested approach. And some companies have made that a part of the talent-management system.
The second is special projects. And again, it sounds simple, but it’s hard to execute. This is making this a part of every finance-function executive’s role, whether it’s a pricing project or a large capex [capital-expenditure] and IT project implementation. Things like that. Getting the finance function outside of their comfort zone: I think that’s certainly a must-have.
And the third would be there is value in exposing finance-function executives to new skills and creating a curriculum, which is very deliberate. I think technology’s changing so rapidly. So exposing the finance function to newer technologies, newer ways of working, and collaboration tools: those are the things I would highlight as ways to nurture finance talent.
Priyanka Prakash: Just to add onto that. A lot of the folks whom I talked to say that, very often, finance folks spend a large chunk of their time trying to work on ad hoc requests that they get from the other parts of the business. A big opportunity here is in how the finance function ensures that the rest of the nonfinance part has some basic understanding of finance to make them more self-sufficient, to ensure that they are not coming to the finance function with every single question. What this does is it ensures that the rest of the organization has the finance skills to ensure that they’re making the right decisions, using financial tools.
And secondly, it also significantly frees up the way that the finance organization itself spends its time. If they spend a few hours less working on these ad hoc requests, they can invest their time in thinking about strategy, in thinking about how the finance function can improve the decision making. I think that’s a huge sort of benefit that organizations have seen just by upscaling their nonfinance workforce to equip them with the financial skills to ensure that the finance team is spending time on its most high-value activity.
Sean Brown: Is this emphasis on talent focused only on the finance function? What I am hearing from your response is that it’s not just building up the talent within the finance function but embedding finance talent and capabilities throughout the organization. Is that right?
Priyanka Prakash: Absolutely. Because if you take an example of someone who’s in a factory who wants to have an investment request for something that they want to do at a plant, they will have to know the basic knowledge of finance to evaluate whether this is an investment that they need or not. Because at the end of the day, any decision would be incomplete without a financial guideline on how to do it. I think that the merging of your other functions with a strong background and rooting in finance can improve the quality of decisions that not just the finance function but other teams and other functions also make in the organization.
Sean Brown: Priyanka, your survey touches a bit on the topic of digital. What did you learn there?
Priyanka Prakash: Sure. This is one of those things that everybody wants to do, but the question that I’ve seen most of my clients struggle with in the initial phases is, “Yes, I have the intent from the top. There is intent from the finance and other teams on how to become more digital, but how do you actually start that process?”
There are four distinct kinds of technologies or tools that finance teams, specifically, could use in enabling their digital journey and transformation. CFOs have way too much on their plates right now. What this essentially means is that they need to invest time and a lot of their thinking into some of these newer, more strategic areas while ensuring that they keep the lights on in the traditional finance activities. The biggest tool that will enable them to keep the lights on as well as add value in this new expanded role is to take advantage of automation, as well as some of the newer digital technologies that we see.
There are basically four types of digital stages that we see as finance functions start to evolve. One is using automation, which is typically the first step. For example, “How do I move from an Excel-based system to an Alteryx one? How do I move from a manual transactional system to something that’s more automated, where my finance teams don’t have to invest time, but it happens in the background with accuracy?” That’s step one.
The second thing that we see as a result of this is you have a lot of data-visualization tools that are being used. This is very helpful, especially when you think about the role of FP&A [financial planning and analysis]. “How does my FP&A team ensure that the company makes better decisions? How do I use a visualization software to get different views of my data to ensure that I’m making the right decisions?”
The third one is, “How do I use analytics within finance? How do I use analytics to draw insights from the data that I might have missed otherwise?” This could be something in forecasting. This could be something in planning. But this could also be something that’s used when you compare your budget or your forecast. Your analytics could really help draw out drivers of why there’s a variance.
And fourthly is, “How do I then integrate this advanced-analytics philosophy across the rest of the company?” What this means is, “How do I integrate my finance and traditional ERP [enterprise-resource-planning] systems with the pricing system, with the operations, and supply-chain-management system? How do I integrate my finance systems with my CRM [customer relationship management]?” Again, the focus is on ensuring that the whole database is not this large, clunky system but an agile system that ensures you draw out some insights.
Sean Brown: Some have suggested the CFO is ideally suited to be the chief digital officer. Have you seen any good examples of this?
Ankur Agrawal: There were examples even before the digital technologies took over. In some companies, the technology functions used to report to CFOs. There are cases where CFOs have formally or even informally taken over the mandate of a chief digital officer. You don’t necessarily need to have a formal reporting role to be a digital leader in the company. CFOs, of course, have an important role in vetting expenses and vetting the investments the companies are making. That said, CFOs have this cross-functional visibility of the entire business, which makes them very well suited to being the digital officers. In some cases, CFOs have stepped up and played that more formal role. I would expect, in the future, they will certainly have an informal role. In select cases, they will continue to have a formal digital-officer role.
Sean Brown: It sounds like, from the results of the survey, the CFO has a much larger role to play. Where does someone begin on this journey?
Priyanka Prakash: Going back to the first point that we discussed on how CFOs should help their companies have a more long-term view, we see that this transformation is specifically here to move to more digital technologies. It’s not going to be easy, and it’s not going to be short. Yes, you will see quick wins. But it is going to be a slightly lengthy—and oftentimes, a little bit of a messy—process, especially in the initial stages. How do we ensure that there is enough leadership energy around this? Because once you have that leadership energy, and once you take the long-term view to a digital transformation, the results that you see will pay for themselves handsomely.
Again, linking this back with the long-term view, this is not going to be a short three-month or six-month process. It’s going to be an ongoing evolution. And the nature of the digital technologies also evolve as the business evolves. But how do you ensure that your finance and FP&A teams have the information and the analytics that they need to evolve and be agile along with the business and to ensure that the business responds to changes ahead of the market? How do we ensure that digital ensures that your company is proactively, and not reactively, reacting to changes in the external market and changes in disruption?
Sean Brown: Priyanka, any final thoughts you’d like to share?
Priyanka Prakash: All that I’ll say is that this is a very, very exciting time for the role of the CFO. A lot of things are changing. But you can’t evolve unless you have your fundamentals right. This is a very exciting time, where CFOs can have the freedom to envision, create, and chart their own legacy and then move to a leadership and influencer role and truly be a change agent in addition to doing their traditional finance functions, such as resource allocation, your planning, and all of the other functions as well. But I definitely do think that these are very exciting times for finance organizations. There are lots of changes, and the evolutionary curve is moving upward very quickly.
Sean Brown: Ankur, Priyanka, thanks for joining us today.
Responses indicate that the opportunity for CFOs to establish the finance function as both a leading change agent and a source of competitive advantage has never been greater. Yet they also show a clear perception gap that must be bridged if CFOs are to break down silos and foster the collaboration necessary to succeed in a broader role. While CFOs believe they are beginning to create financial value through nontraditional tasks, they also say that a plurality of their time is still devoted to traditional tasks versus newer initiatives. Meanwhile, leaders outside the finance function believe their CFOs are still primarily focused on and create the most value through traditional finance tasks.
How can CFOs parlay their increasing responsibility and traditional finance expertise to resolve these differing points of view and lead substantive change for their companies? The survey results point to three ways that CFOs are uniquely positioned to do so: actively heading up transformations, leading the charge toward digitization, and building the talent and capabilities required to sustain complex transformations within and outside the finance function.
The latest survey results confirm that the CFO’s role is broader and more complex than it was even two years ago. The number of functional areas reporting to CFOs has increased from 4.5 in 2016 to an average of 6.2 today. The most notable increases since the previous survey are changes in the CFO’s responsibilities for board engagement and for digitization (that is, the enablement of business-process automation, cloud computing, data visualization, and advanced analytics). The share of CFOs saying they are responsible for board-engagement activities has increased from 24 percent in 2016 to 42 percent today; for digital activities, the share has doubled.
The most commonly cited activity that reports to the CFO this year is risk management, as it was in 2016. In addition, more than half of respondents say their companies’ CFOs oversee internal-audit processes and corporate strategy. Yet CFOs report that they have spent most of their time—about 60 percent of it, in the past year—on traditional and specialty finance roles, which was also true in the 2016 survey.
Also unchanged are the diverging views, between CFOs and their peers, about where finance leaders create the most value for their companies. Four in ten CFOs say that in the past year, they have created the most value through strategic leadership and performance management—for example, setting incentives linked to the company’s strategy. By contrast, all other respondents tend to believe their CFOs have created the most value by spending time on traditional finance activities (for example, accounting and controlling) and on cost and productivity management across the organization.
Finance leaders also disagree with nonfinance respondents about the CFO’s involvement in strategy decisions. CFOs are more likely than their peers to say they have been involved in a range of strategy-related activities—for instance, setting overall corporate strategy, pricing a company’s products and services, or collaborating with others to devise strategies for digitization, analytics, and talent-management initiatives.
Our latest survey, along with previous McKinsey research,2 confirms that large-scale organizational change is ubiquitous: 91 percent of respondents say their organizations have undergone at least one transformation in the past three years.3 The results also suggest that CFOs are already playing an active role in transformations. The CFO is the second-most-common leader, after the CEO, identified as initiating a transformation. Furthermore, 44 percent of CFO respondents say that the leaders of a transformation, whether it takes place within finance or across the organization, report directly to them—and more than half of all respondents say the CFO has been actively involved in developing transformation strategy.
Respondents agree that, during transformations, the CFO’s most common responsibilities are measuring the performance of change initiatives, overseeing margin and cash-flow improvements, and establishing key performance indicators and a performance baseline before the transformation begins. These are the same three activities that respondents identify as being the most valuable actions that CFOs could take in future transformations.
Beyond these three activities, though, respondents are split on the finance chief’s most critical responsibilities in a change effort. CFOs are more likely than peers to say they play a strategic role in transformations: nearly half say they are responsible for setting high-level goals, while only one-third of non-CFOs say their CFOs were involved in objective setting. Additionally, finance leaders are nearly twice as likely as others are to say that CFOs helped design a transformation’s road map.
Other results confirm that finance chiefs have substantial room to grow as change leaders—not only within the finance function but also across their companies. For instance, the responses indicate that half of the transformations initiated by CFOs in recent years were within the finance function, while fewer than one-quarter of respondents say their companies’ CFOs kicked off enterprise-wide transformations.
The results indicate that digitization and strategy making are increasingly important responsibilities for the CFO and that most finance chiefs are involved in informing and guiding the development of corporate strategy. All of this suggests that CFOs are well positioned to lead the way—within their finance functions and even at the organization level—toward greater digitization and automation of processes.
Currently, though, few finance organizations are taking advantage of digitization and automation. Two-thirds of finance respondents say 25 percent or less of their functions’ work has been digitized or automated in the past year, and the adoption of technology tools is low overall.
The survey asked about four digital technologies for the finance function: advanced analytics for finance operations,5 advanced analytics for overall business operations,6 data visualization (used, for instance, to generate user-friendly dynamic dashboards and graphics tailored to internal customer needs), and automation and robotics (for example, to enable planning and budgeting platforms in cloud-based solutions). Yet only one-third of finance respondents say they are using advanced analytics for finance tasks, and just 14 percent report the use of robotics and artificial-intelligence tools, such as robotic process automation (RPA).7 This may be because of what respondents describe as considerable challenges of implementing new technologies. When asked about the biggest obstacles to digitizing or automating finance work, finance respondents most often cite a lack of understanding about where the opportunities are, followed by a lack of financial resources to implement changes and a need for a clear vision for using new technologies; only 3 percent say they face no challenges.
At the finance organizations that have digitized more than one-quarter of their work, respondents report notable gains from the effort. Of these respondents, 70 percent say their organizations have realized modest or substantial returns on investment—much higher than the 38 percent of their peers whose finance functions have digitized less than one-quarter of the work.
The survey results also suggest that CFOs have important roles to play in their companies’ talent strategy and capability building. Since the previous survey, the share of respondents saying CFOs spend most of their time on finance capabilities (that is, building the finance talent pipeline and developing financial literacy throughout the organization) has doubled. Respondents are also much more likely than in 2016 to cite capability building as one of the CFO’s most value-adding activities.
Still, relative to their other responsibilities, talent and capabilities don’t rank especially high—and there are opportunities for CFOs to do much more at the company level. Just 16 percent of all respondents (and only 22 percent of CFOs themselves) describe their finance leaders’ role as developing top talent across the company, as opposed to developing talent within business units or helping with talent-related decision making. And only one-quarter of respondents say CFOs have been responsible for capability building during a recent transformation.
But among the highest-performing finance functions, the CFO has a much greater impact. Respondents who rate their finance organization as somewhat or very effective are nearly twice as likely as all others to say their CFOs develop top talent organization-wide (20 percent, compared with 11 percent). Among those reporting a very effective finance function, 38 percent say so.
It’s clear from the numbers that CFOs face increased workloads and expectations, but they also face increased opportunities. In our experience, a focus on several core principles can help CFOs take advantage of these opportunities and strike the right balance: