Too many CFOs treat variance as something to explain rather than something to interrogate. And that instinct obscures where execution actually fails.
Louie Damasceno, CEO of Brooks International, a global professional services firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida, spoke to CFO Leadership about why variance is often misread, why predictability is an outcome of operating model design, and three questions finance leaders should ask their CEOs before the next strategy cycle.
CFOs often first discover execution issues through variances. What do they actually see and where do they tend to make mistakes?
They capture the real signal, but the interpretation often ends too quickly. When gaps appear in the numbers, the immediate response is to focus on pricing, volume, or cost discipline. Although these factors can play a role, they are usually not the cause of the problem.
Often the question is how the organization functions on a day-to-day basis. Decisions are escalated unnecessarily or are made too late. Information that requires action will surface only after the opportunity to respond has passed. Accountability is uneven or unclear.
Once the analysis is finished at the financial layer, it is time to treat the symptoms. As CFOs go further and ask what didn't happen in the business and why, the real constraints begin to emerge. Most companies don't lack a strategy. They don't have an organization built to consistently deliver that. Highly effective sales, inventory, and operational planning capabilities deliver predictable performance.
You mentioned that predictability is primarily a design problem, not a financial one. What causes it and why is it important for CFOs?
Predictability is a byproduct of how an organization is set up and cannot be achieved solely through tighter controls or better forecasting.
Three factors tend to determine whether results are stable or variable. The first is decision-making power, meaning who actually makes what decisions. The second is the rhythm of performance, how quickly deviations appear where action can be taken. The third is whether accountability, particularly ownership of results, is clear, preemptively enforced, and consistently reinforced.
When these factors match, the results are much more reliable. If not, even the most disciplined financial process will have a hard time making up for it. For CFOs, where you place your diagnostics determines where you focus your efforts and influence.
Where is a broken operating model most evident in financial performance?
The rhythm of performance is often the first drawback. Many organizations are founded to report on what has already happened, not to influence what happens next. By the time an issue is published in a quarterly review, the ability to course correct is usually diminished.
CFOs who stay ahead of the curve tend to create shorter feedback loops. The weekly and monthly pace allows new issues to surface and be addressed early enough, rather than being documented after the fact.
The second area is accountability. It is common to look to capital allocation decisions and cost initiatives to account, when the more fundamental problem is that accountability is not designed to predict or built into the structure. Rather, it depends on how much effort individual managers put in, without direct intent or course correction. This distinction is important when trying to understand mistakes that are repeated against plan or, if possible, avoid them altogether.
Recent data on execution is concerning. What are the highlights for you and what should CFOs take away from it?
The 2025 Strategy Execution Report, which surveyed more than 250 senior leaders, highlights persistent gaps. 70% admit to poor execution. Less than a third report strong accountability at leadership level, and fewer link performance management directly to strategic priorities.
For CFOs, the important thing is simple. If financial and operating models are not tightly linked, results will remain unpredictable. Consequences are accounted for after they occur, rather than being formed in advance. Additionally, to maintain continued focus on business objectives, organizational members are held accountable to performance expectations that are developed in a highly quantitative manner and linked directly to the organization's performance management system.
This challenge becomes even more acute as organizations add AI initiatives to already strained operating models. This increases both complexity and risk, and this is definitely an area on the CFO's agenda.
What should CFOs ask their CEOs before the next strategy cycle begins?
Before setting new goals or starting new initiatives, CFOs should focus their conversations on three areas:
- Are decision rights aligned with strategy, or are key decisions still too centralized within the organization or moving too slowly?
- Does your performance management approach provide early visibility of deviations in a timely and correctable manner, or does it primarily explain results after the fact?
- Is accountability built into roles and processes, or is it dependent on individual effort and passion?
If these questions bring discomfort to the surface, you need to work from there. CFOs who help bring that clarity to the surface and drive action on it go far beyond the finance function.
