The Series A Finance Ops Authority Problem: Who Owns What

## The Series A Finance Ops Authority Problem: Who Owns What

You just closed Series A. Congratulations. Your bank account is healthy, your runway extends past two years, and you've hired your first finance person (or brought in a fractional CFO). Everything should flow smoothly now, right?

Then reality hits.

Three weeks later, your VP of Sales commits to a customer acquisition campaign without checking with Finance. Your Head of Product proposes a major infrastructure upgrade that would blow past the engineering budget for Q3. A department head disputes their monthly burn number because they "didn't approve that vendor invoice."

These aren't isolated incidents—they're symptoms of an authority vacuum in your **series a financial operations** structure.

In our work with Series A startups at Inflection CFO, we've found that financial chaos after Series A rarely stems from inadequate accounting systems or poor bookkeeping. Instead, it comes from ambiguous decision authority. Nobody clearly owns budgets. Nobody has explicit permission to approve spending. Nobody understands who decides when to reallocate capital mid-quarter.

Without that clarity, your finance function becomes reactive, not strategic. Your CFO spends time policing violations instead of analyzing unit economics. Your founder spends energy resolving disputes instead of building product.

This playbook addresses the actual authority structure you need post-Series A.

## Why Authority Matters More Than Processes

Most founders focus on the wrong problem after Series A.

They ask: "What accounting software should we implement? What's our close process? Who reconciles the credit card?" These are legitimate questions, but they're not the bottleneck.

The real bottleneck is authority. Without clear decision rights, even the best processes collapse under the weight of competing interests.

Consider a real example from our client base: A Series A SaaS company implemented Netsuite, hired a controller, and built a detailed close process. All the operational infrastructure was in place. But six months later, spending was 23% over budget because no one had explicitly stated who could approve vendor changes, who could reallocate budget between departments, and who had veto power over new hires in Finance itself.

The controller would flag an overage. The CEO would say "we need this investment." The VP of that department would argue they'd talked to the CEO informally. Three weeks of email threads followed. The issue got resolved through exhaustion, not clarity.

That's an authority problem wearing a process disguise.

## The Five Authority Domains You Must Clarify

### 1. Budget Approval Authority

Who can approve the initial budget? Who can approve amendments? And crucially—what triggers the need for approval?

In our experience, founders often skip this step because "we talk about everything anyway." But after Series A, you're adding people who weren't in those informal conversations.

**What you need to define:**

- **Board-level approval threshold**: Typically, anything over $X (often $50K-$100K depending on burn rate) needs board visibility or approval
- **CEO approval threshold**: Department budgets above $Y need CEO sign-off
- **Department head authority**: Individual line items up to $Z can be approved by the department head alone
- **Amendment triggers**: What percentage overage triggers a reforecast? (We recommend 10% for spend categories, 5% for headcount)

One client we worked with had a VP of Marketing spend $180K on a tool suite that wasn't budgeted because the thresholds were never codified. Everyone "assumed" a commitment that large would need approval. No one wanted to be the person who said no.

You need to be that person explicitly.

### 2. Cash Allocation Authority

This is distinct from budget approval. After Series A, you'll have moments when your plan doesn't match reality. A customer churn you didn't forecast. A hiring plan that accelerated. A vendor renewal that costs more than expected.

When cash allocation decisions need to happen mid-cycle, who decides?

Is it the CEO alone? The CEO plus CFO? The CEO plus board? A predefined framework?

**What we recommend:**

- **Routine reallocation** (moving 5-10% between approved budgets): CFO or department head authority
- **Significant reallocation** (10-25% shifts, delayed hires): CEO + CFO
- **Material reallocation** (>25%, changes to runway, headcount freezes): Board or board committee approval

The point isn't to remove flexibility—it's to codify when leaders need to be in the room together. [The Cash Flow Allocation Problem: Why Startups Spend Wrong](/blog/the-cash-flow-allocation-problem-why-startups-spend-wrong/) often stems from ambiguity here.

### 3. Forecast Ownership Authority

Who owns the forecast? Not "who builds it"—who owns it? Who's accountable when it's wrong?

This matters because accountability drives behavior. If your CFO owns the forecast but your VP of Sales built the revenue projection, misses create finger-pointing, not learning.

**Clarity here requires:**

- **Revenue forecast ownership**: Usually VP of Sales for bookings, CFO for cash timing
- **Expense forecast ownership**: Usually CFO, with input from department heads
- **Headcount forecast ownership**: Usually CEO or Head of People, with Finance validating cash impact
- **Variance analysis ownership**: Always CFO. They explain why actuals diverged from plan

One client had their VP of Product own the infrastructure cost forecast, but the CFO owned the overall expense forecast. When infrastructure costs exceeded the projection, nobody knew who was accountable. Was the VP wrong about needs, or was the CFO wrong about budgeting? Both pointed fingers.

Now that client has the VP of Product own infrastructure needs, the CFO own infrastructure pricing risk, and the CFO owns the reconciliation between the two. Clear accountability.

### 4. Spending Approval Authority (Day-to-Day)

This is operational but essential. Most founders don't think about this post-Series A, then wonder why Finance becomes a bottleneck.

Who approves individual vendor purchases? Contracts? Expense reimbursements?

**Standard framework post-Series A:**

- **Under $5K**: Department head or manager approval
- **$5K-$25K**: Department head + Finance review (not approval)
- **$25K-$100K**: Department head + CFO approval
- **Over $100K**: CEO + CFO approval (or board for material contracts)
- **All contracts**: Legal review at certain thresholds (usually $50K+)

These numbers shift based on your burn rate and stage, but the structure stays consistent.

Without this, you get either: (a) the CFO approving every $2K tool purchase, or (b) no oversight at all.

### 5. Financial Reporting Authority

Who owns the narrative around your financial performance? Who interprets the numbers for the board? Who decides what metrics matter?

This is where [CEO Financial Metrics: The Benchmarking Trap Killing Growth Decisions](/blog/ceo-financial-metrics-the-benchmarking-trap-killing-growth-decisions/) becomes critical. The wrong authority structure here means your board is getting competing narratives.

**What needs clarity:**

- **Board financial reporting**: CFO owns the deck, CEO owns the narrative
- **Internal financial reporting**: CFO owns the analysis, department heads own the context
- **KPI definitions**: CFO owns calculation methodology, leadership team owns targets
- **Financial commentary**: CFO owns accuracy, CEO owns strategy implications

We've seen situations where the CEO tells the board "we're ahead of plan" while the CFO's numbers show a 15% miss. One person was looking at bookings, one at cash collected. Unclear authority over what metric "counts" created the confusion.

## How to Document Authority Without Creating Bureaucracy

You don't need a 40-page policy manual. You need a one-page authority matrix.

**Here's what it should include:**

1. **Decision category** (Budget approval, Vendor contracts, Hiring, etc.)
2. **Authority threshold** (by dollar amount or impact)
3. **Who approves** (Role, not name)
4. **Approval method** (Slack, email, dashboard, meeting)
5. **Escalation path** (If authority is unclear)

One template we use with clients:

| Decision | Under $X | $X-$Y | Over $Y | Escalation |
|----------|---------|------|---------|-----------|
| Vendor contract | Dept Head | CFO + Dept Head | CEO + CFO | Board if >2 years |
| Hiring | Dept Head + People | CEO if off-plan | CEO + Board | None |
| Tool/software | Dept Head | CFO review | CEO approval | None |

Then share it. Post it on Notion. Reference it in onboarding. Review it quarterly.

The goal is that when someone asks, "Can we sign this vendor contract?" the answer is clear, not a 30-minute conversation.

## The Most Common Authority Gaps We See

### Gap 1: Founder Retention of Too Much Authority

Founders want to stay involved in financial decisions. That's healthy early. But post-Series A, keeping all authority with the founder creates a bottleneck.

Specifically, we see founders:

- Requiring personal approval on every expense over $10K (limits your CFO's ability to act)
- Not delegating budget-setting authority to department heads (ensures budgets are arbitrary, not grounded)
- Making ad-hoc financial decisions without involving Finance (destroys forecast reliability)

The fix: Delegate explicitly. If the CFO can approve a $50K vendor contract, *say that*. Don't have them "check with you first" because they lack authority.

### Gap 2: CFO Authority Without Accountability

Opposite problem: You hire a CFO and give them financial authority, but then override their decisions without explanation.

One client hired a CFO with a mandate to "control burn." The CEO then approved an unbudgeted $200K spend three months in. When the CFO pushed back on a subsequent hiring proposal, the precedent had already been set: CFO authority wasn't real.

The fix: Give your CFO authority in writing. Defend their decisions publicly. Override them rarely, and always explain why.

### Gap 3: Missing Authority Over Infrastructure Investments

This one bites us frequently. Series A companies invest in infrastructure—Netsuite, Salesforce, Slack integrations—with unclear authority.

The VP of Sales wants Salesforce integration. The CFO says it costs $150K. But who has authority to decide if that investment is worth the cost? Just the CEO? The CEO + Board? The CEO + CFO?

Without clarity, these decisions either stall or happen without proper financial diligence.

### Gap 4: Ambiguous Authority During Crises

When something goes wrong—a major customer churns, a key hire quits, economic conditions shift—decisions need to happen fast. If your authority structure is unclear in normal times, it collapses in a crisis.

Define your authority matrix *before* you need it. Then when a crisis hits, you know who decides what, and you don't waste time figuring out governance.

## Implementing Authority Without Breaking Culture

Founders often resist clarity here because they fear it will make the company feel rigid or bureaucratic.

Here's what actually happens: Clarity creates *less* bureaucracy, not more.

When everyone knows who decides what, decisions happen faster. People know who to talk to. There's less email back-and-forth. There's less second-guessing.

**Implementation steps:**

1. **Draft the matrix alone** (CEO + CFO, 30 minutes)
2. **Test it mentally** against recent decisions (Did this matrix clarify who should have decided?)
3. **Socialize with leadership** (Share it, ask for feedback, adjust)
4. **Communicate to the company** (Make it visible and reference it routinely)
5. **Review quarterly** (As you grow, thresholds may shift)

The best time to implement this is right after Series A closes, when things are still relatively simple. If you wait until you're 40 people, the gaps become infected conflicts.

## Tying Authority to [The Series A Financial Ops Accountability Gap](/blog/the-series-a-financial-ops-accountability-gap/)

We've written before about how Series A companies often scale processes before clarifying *who* uses them. Authority structure is the missing piece.

You can have the perfect monthly close process, but if nobody knows who approves the journal entries, the process is theater.

You can build beautiful financial dashboards, but if nobody owns what the numbers mean, the dashboard becomes ignored.

Authority makes systems matter.

## Your Series A Financial Operations Checklist

Before you hire your controller or implement new systems, confirm these fundamentals:

- [ ] Budget approval authority is documented by threshold
- [ ] Cash reallocation authority is clear for routine and exceptional cases
- [ ] Someone owns the revenue forecast; someone else validates it
- [ ] Someone owns the expense forecast; someone else challenges it
- [ ] Spending approval authority is documented and known
- [ ] Financial reporting authority (who owns the story) is clear
- [ ] Escalation paths are defined for boundary cases
- [ ] The authority matrix is shared and referenced regularly
- [ ] Nobody has unilateral authority over material decisions (always requires at least two people)

## Next Steps

Authority structure sounds administrative. But it's the foundation your finance ops function builds on.

Without it, you'll hire talented people and frustrate them with ambiguity. You'll build systems that don't get used because nobody knows who owns them. You'll repeat conflicts because the next crisis will replay the same authority disputes.

If your Series A company is struggling with financial clarity—decisions taking too long, unclear ownership, repeated disputes over spending—the problem might not be your processes or people. It might be your authority structure.

We help Series A and growth-stage companies clarify financial decision authority and build ops structures that actually scale. If you'd like to discuss whether your finance ops authority gaps are limiting your growth, [The Fractional CFO Roadmap: From Hire to Real Financial Control](/blog/the-fractional-cfo-roadmap-from-hire-to-real-financial-control/) can help identify where clarity would create the most impact.

Start with that one-page matrix. It changes everything.