Spoiler: There’s no right answer. And yes, it depends. 🙂

As Revenue Operations (RevOps) continues to gain traction in the business landscape, one of the most debated topics is its ideal reporting line. This is crucial because the effectiveness of RevOps can be significantly influenced by its hierarchical position within an organization. Based on insights from multiple sources and personal conversations, I’ve tried to find the right answer and well… it’s complicated.

Why is the Reporting Line for RevOps so Critical?

The reporting structure for RevOps is not just a matter of organizational chart aesthetics; it directly impacts the ability of RevOps to function as a neutral, strategic force within the company. Given the cross-departmental nature of RevOps, its position within the corporate structure is pivotal to its success.

Ideal Reporting Structures for RevOps

Reporting to the Chief Revenue Officer (CRO)

Many experts say that the optimal scenario for RevOps is to report directly to the CRO. For this to work though, the CRO must oversees all revenue-related functions—marketing, sales, customer success and increasingly, partnerships —providing a holistic view that aligns perfectly with the objectives of RevOps. This structure facilitates unified goal-setting and strategy implementation across all go-to-market (GTM) teams, enhancing collaboration and driving revenue growth.

Pros

Holistic Oversight: The CRO oversees all revenue-generating departments, allowing RevOps to have a panoramic view of the business operations, aligning strategies across marketing, sales, and customer success.

Strategic Alignment: Direct alignment with the CRO ensures that RevOps strategies are perfectly in sync with the company’s revenue goals, fostering a unified approach to the customer lifecycle and revenue generation.

Streamlined Decision-Making: Being under the CRO can facilitate quicker decision-making processes and implementation of RevOps initiatives across all GTM teams.

Cons

Overdependence: Heavy reliance on the CRO’s strategic priorities might limit the operational independence of RevOps, potentially stifling innovative approaches that could emerge from a more neutral position.

Resource Competition: RevOps may face internal competition for resources with other departments under the CRO, which could impact its ability to implement necessary tools and processes effectively.

A word of caution. As the awareness of RevOps and even the CRO role continues to grow, most organizations are still playing catch-up. The implication is that CROs are often masked Sales leaders, focused only on leveraging sales to generate more revenue rather than taking a holistic, company wide approach. In a company where the CRO is effectively like the VP of sales, RevOps should likely be aligned with other CXO functions like the CEO or even the CFO.

Alternatives When a CRO is Not Present

In organizations where a CRO does not exist, other reporting lines come into play:

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

The CFO’s focus on financial insights and cost management can benefit RevOps, particularly in terms of budget allocation and financial compliance. However, this setup might limit the operational scope of RevOps due to the CFO’s traditional focus on cost-cutting and financial oversight rather than strategic market growth.

Pros

Financial Rigor: The CFO’s strong focus on financial accountability and efficiency can enhance the financial discipline of RevOps, ensuring that all operations are cost-effective and aligned with the company’s financial strategy.

Enhanced Compliance: Reporting to the CFO can ensure that revenue operations adhere to financial compliance and risk management standards, which is crucial for public companies or those seeking to go public.

Cons

Narrow Focus on Cost: The CFO’s primary focus on cost savings and budget management may restrict RevOps’ ability to invest in necessary technologies and innovations that require upfront costs for long-term gains.

Limited Operational Insight: CFOs might lack the in-depth operational understanding of customer journeys and market strategies, potentially leading to decisions that favor financial metrics over customer experience and market expansion.

Chief Operations Officer (COO)

The COO can be a good alternative, especially in companies where the COO has a strong understanding of and involvement in commercial activities. This arrangement can be particularly effective in tech or SaaS companies, where operational intricacies are closely tied to revenue operations. This reporting line can be a wildcard though, unless the COO has a very clearly defined focus within the organization.

Pros

Operational Synergy: The COO typically has a broad operational perspective that can significantly benefit RevOps, especially in terms of integrating various operational functions and streamlining processes.

Commercial Focus: In companies where the COO is actively involved in commercial activities, RevOps can benefit from their commercial acumen, applying it to optimize revenue operations strategically.

Cons

Diverse Priorities: COOs often manage a wide range of operational aspects, from supply chain to human resources, which might divert their focus from the specific needs and challenges of RevOps.

Variable Expertise: The effectiveness of this setup heavily depends on the COO’s understanding of and commitment to revenue operations, which can vary significantly between organizations.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Reporting directly to the CEO is usually more common in smaller or early-stage companies. This setup underscores the strategic importance of RevOps and ensures it receives executive attention and support, which is crucial for establishing a strong RevOps function. Every single soul in the growing RevOps community will strongly advocate that RevOps needs a seat at the table, and for good reason.

Pros

Executive Visibility: Reporting directly to the CEO places RevOps at a strategic level within the company, ensuring it receives the necessary executive attention and resources.

Company-Wide Impact: This position allows RevOps to drive changes that have a broad impact, fostering integration and alignment across all departments.

Cons

Scalability Issues: As companies grow, the CEO’s bandwidth becomes more limited, which might result in less direct oversight and support for RevOps activities.

Potential Overemphasis on Revenue: Direct reporting to the CEO might skew RevOps towards short-term revenue goals at the expense of longer-term strategic initiatives like customer satisfaction and product innovation.

When Reporting to the CRO Isn’t Possible

For many organizations, especially newer or smaller ones, a dedicated CRO might not be part of the executive team. In these cases, reporting to the COO or CFO is a practical alternative. Each has its merits and challenges, but the essential factor is maintaining the neutrality and strategic perspective of RevOps. We must be watchful that it doesn’t become subservient to siloed departmental interests. RevOps by nature is a cross-functional role requiring very skilled stakeholder management, so stray away from putting visors on and narrowing your focus.

Ensuring Effective RevOps Regardless of Reporting Line

1. Cross-functional collaboration: Encourage regular interactions between RevOps and all GTM teams.
2. Executive backing: Secure strong support from top management to enforce the strategic recommendations and changes proposed by RevOps.
3. Continuous education: Keep the wider company informed about the role and benefits of RevOps to foster an environment of cooperation and respect.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of RevOps depends significantly on its placement within an organization’s hierarchy. Ideally, RevOps should report to a CRO to align closely with all revenue-related activities. However, alternatives like reporting to the CEO or COO can also be effective, provided there are clear mandates and strong support from the top management.

All roles, especially the CRO role might not even exist in smaller companies, so the real question isn’t who should RevOps report to. The question to focus on is this: What reporting line will help maximize the strategic impact of RevOps, ensuring it drives alignment and collaboration across all revenue-generating functions. This structural alignment is not just about managing operations efficiently but about strategically driving the company towards sustained growth and profitability.

Overall, this is a highly contentious topic and there are several schools of thought. My absolute favorite way to follow the logic and rationale on topics like this is to follow and engage in thought-provoking posts like this one by Mallory Lee at Union Square (see below). You’ll see even in this post and the comments, there isn’t one right answer.

I also really like GoNimbly’s breakdown of the RevOps org charts depending on the organization size. If you’re still curious, take a peek here. 🙂