Chapter 6 - Broadcast the Figures
The moment when numbers leave finance
There is a very specific moment that I know well.
The numbers are ready.
The reporting is finalized.
The main controls have been done.
We then talk about dissemination.
It is often presented as a simple step:
making the numbers available, sharing them, presenting them.
In reality, it is one of the most sensitive moments of the financial cycle.
Because it is at this point that the numbers really leave the finance sphere.
And they start to be viewed differently.
Why finance cannot see everything
When we prepare the numbers, we know very well what we are doing — and what we are not doing.
We work under time constraints.
We make choices.
We prioritize.
We secure what is critical at the enterprise level:
the large aggregates,
the trends,
the significant discrepancies,
the overall coherence.
We do 80/20, consciously.
Not out of ease, but because the scope is immense.
The entire company.
We the departments.
All suppliers.
We know that we cannot go into the level of detail that a Sales, HR, IT, or Marketing manager knows about their own scope for each line.
We are fully aware of this limit.
When a globally accurate number becomes locally disputable
This is where the first tensions appear.
A poorly classified supplier.
An ambiguous invoice.
A description that refers to training, thus HR, when it was about the sales team.
At the enterprise level:
the total is correct,
the EBITDA is accurate,
the overall performance is not affected.
At the departmental level:
the budget is degraded,
the performance is penalized,
the managerial reading loses its relevance.
The number holds up generally.
But it no longer tells the right story locally.
The moment of the monthly meeting
These issues do not always come up immediately.
Often, they emerge in the monthly meeting.
Business review.
CODIR.
ExCom.
A manager discovers their numbers at that moment.
Not before.
Not in advance.
The question arises, sometimes simply formulated:
"Why is this supplier appearing with me?"
This is not an attack.
It is a legitimate question.
But posed in this context, it has a particular effect.
It undermines the finance voice.
Not because the number is wrong in absolute terms,
but because it does not withstand the business gaze, in public.
Everything that happens before the meeting
Over time, a mechanism sets in.
Before the business review, we exchange in advance.
We call.
We write.
We defuse.
We identify sensitive points.
We prepare answers.
We avoid certain topics surfacing in the session.
These exchanges are rational.
They protect the meeting.
They secure the message.
They avoid difficult debates to hold in a collective format.
But they shift the discussion.
The meeting is no longer a moment of shared understanding.
It becomes a moment of delivery.
We deliver the numbers.
We no longer truly explore them together.
When methods are not aligned
Another discrepancy then appears.
Let’s take an annual subscription invoice.
On the operational side:
it appears all at once,
it immediately weighs on tracking,
it gives the impression of a significant discrepancy.
On the finance side:
it is spread out,
allocated over twelve months,
treated the same way as in the budget.
Both readings are coherent.
But they rest on different logics.
It is not a question of competence.
It is a question of financial referencing.
And above all, alignment between operational tracking, budget, and reporting.
What dissemination requires to contain
As numbers are disseminated more widely:
the readings multiply,
the questions diversify,
the requests for clarification increase.
Each question is relevant.
But their accumulation changes the balance.
Finance must then frame:
what is shown,
what is discussed,
what is handled outside of formal instances.
Not to arbitrarily restrict.
But to preserve a common and sustainable reading over time.
The silent consequences
Gradually:
the operations staff see their numbers little,
they discover them late,
they struggle to appropriate them,
they sometimes maintain parallel tracking.
Management is done differently.
By intuition.
By experience.
By approximation.
The data exists.
But it does not fully play its role.
What is really shifting
Sharing the numbers is not the problem.
What is at play is the gradual shift of understanding.
By seeking to secure a global reading,
finance reduces the capacity for local appropriation.
By stabilizing the numbers for dissemination,
it limits their collective exploration.
The numbers circulate.
But the ability to question them remains concentrated.
The question is no longer just
who receives the numbers,
but when and how they become understandable for those who manage.