Combining CFO and COO responsibilities: decide who will challenge the operating plan

A finance leader may already coordinate purchasing, systems and operational planning. Giving that person the COO title can make an existing responsibility explicit. It can also add a second executive workload without removing any of the first. Before discussing compensation or a replacement hire, determine which of those situations the company actually faces.

Write down the decisions moving into the combined role. Responsibility for improving a fulfillment process is different from responsibility for every day's delivery schedule. Sponsoring a technology investment is different from managing the support team. The job description should identify the operating functions, their managers and the decisions that remain with the chief executive.

The BLS description of financial managers includes reporting, analysis and support for management decisions. It does not establish that a person with finance experience is ready to lead every operating function. Evaluate the proposed operating remit on its own requirements, including customer commitments, technical knowledge and the supervision the teams need.

Ask what happens during a difficult operating week that also contains a close, lender deadline or board meeting. Routine schedules can make a combined role appear comfortable because urgent decisions are assumed to occur at different times. The more useful test is a credible collision: a supplier fails while the financial forecast and financing decision need senior attention.

Build a calendar from work that the executive must personally perform, work that can be delegated and work that needs only periodic review. Include preparation and follow-up. A management meeting that lasts an hour may create several hours of investigation, decisions and communication. Do not count a team manager as a delegate unless that person has the capacity and authority to act.

Suppose the proposed finance remit requires 40 hours in a particular week and operations requires another 32. Combining the titles does not turn 72 hours into an ordinary workload. If 20 hours can genuinely move to capable managers, the remaining demand is still 52 hours before unexpected work. These are illustrative planning figures, not a recommended working schedule. They reveal which responsibilities must change before the structure is credible.

A combined executive may propose a warehouse expansion as operations leader and evaluate its financial case as CFO. That does not make the proposal wrong. It does mean the company should decide who tests the assumptions without relying solely on the same person's review of their own plan.

Name a reviewer with enough competence, information and authority to question the case. Depending on the organization, that might involve the chief executive, a board member, another finance leader or a specifically engaged adviser. Attendance at a presentation is insufficient if the reviewer cannot inspect demand evidence, capacity constraints and the alternatives considered.

Keep the source assumptions and unresolved objections visible. If the operating proposal assumes a new facility will improve service, show how that assumption connects to staffing, delivery timing and customer demand. Record who owns the operational evidence and who reviewed the financial consequences. The purpose is to improve the decision, not to create a ceremonial second signature.

Independent challenge of a large investment is different from the control over a supplier change or a payment. A combined executive can still lead both departments while incompatible transaction duties are separated within the organization. Conversely, separating the executive titles does not create effective controls if one administrator can change supplier bank details and release the resulting payment without review.

The GAO's 2025 internal control standards explain the separation of incompatible duties and alternative control activities when separation is impractical. The document is written for federal government entities. Its control-design principle provides a reference for discussing your own structure; the company still needs controls appropriate to its systems, obligations and risks.

Trace a few actual transactions through the proposed organization. For a capital purchase, identify who requests it, confirms receipt, records it and authorizes payment. For a new customer promise, identify who approves price, capacity and credit exposure. A reporting line should not silently remove an established approval simply because both teams now answer to one person.

A strong controller can protect close quality while the combined executive handles wider decisions, but only if the controller can raise accounting issues and obtain a response. Define how disputed judgments, missing evidence or pressure to accelerate a result will be escalated. The path should work when the issue involves an initiative sponsored by the combined executive.

Operating managers need similarly clear authority. Specify the decisions they may make within approved limits and the circumstances requiring escalation. If every staffing adjustment and customer exception still waits for the executive, a larger title has merely created a larger queue. If managers can make commitments without informing finance, the arrangement creates a different problem.

Discuss performance objectives across both functions. A cost target can conflict with a service target, while a rapid-growth target can increase working capital needs. Establish how the tradeoff will be considered and who resolves disagreement. Otherwise the combined leader may report success in one function while the consequences remain hidden in the other.

One alternative is a CFO who sponsors selected operational improvements while a separate manager owns daily operations. Another is an operations leader with a controller and access to senior finance support for specified decisions. A third is a temporary combined appointment with a funded plan to separate responsibilities after a transition. Compare the actual work and reporting relationships in each arrangement.

Do not assume the combined role costs less simply because there is one executive salary. Include the deputies, advisers and management capacity required to make it work. Equally, do not assume two executives will automatically improve coordination. A divided structure needs an explicit way to resolve disagreements about service, spending and priorities.

When recruiting, present candidates with the real scope and the support available. Ask for evidence of leading the relevant operating work as well as finance. AFP's finance job descriptions can help clarify finance responsibilities, but a published role description cannot establish the fit of a particular person for your additional operating remit.

Agree in advance which changes would trigger another organization review. Examples include repeated missed financial decisions, a major acquisition, a new operating site or a sustained need for the executive to intervene in daily delivery. These should be observable conditions, not a promise to revisit the structure whenever someone eventually has time.

After appointment, examine the decisions that were delayed, the issues escalated and the work delegated. Ask whether the independent reviewer received enough information to challenge significant proposals. A combined CFO and COO role can be a deliberate choice, but it needs a working calendar and credible review around it. The organization should be able to explain who leads the operation, who tests the financial case and who acts when those responsibilities collide.