Imagine being responsible for a $200 million revenue target but needing permission from three other executives to change a sales territory. The board expects the CRO to deliver the number. But marketing controls customer segmentation, finance controls headcount, and customer success has its own ideas about who owns expansion accounts.
Meanwhile, the new fiscal year is underway, and sales reps are still working last year’s territories. Everyone has a title. Everyone has an opinion. Nobody can make the decision. That’s the situation some chief revenue officers find themselves in.
The problem isn’t necessarily your org chart. It’s the fact that accountability and authority don’t always belong to the same person. And when that happens, sales operations pays the price.
The Real Problem: Too Many People Have to Say Yes
Sales operations depends on decisions that rarely stay within the sales department.
Territory changes affect marketing campaigns and customer coverage. Quotas depend on hiring plans and financial targets. Compensation plans require agreement from sales, finance, and sometimes legal. Forecasting requires everyone to use the same definitions.
None of that is unusual.
The trouble begins when every decision requires another meeting, another approval, or another executive willing to compromise.
A territory change that should take days stretches into weeks. Quotas aren’t finalized before the quarter begins. Sales reps spend valuable time wondering which accounts they’re supposed to pursue.
As Fullcast’s research on RevOps reporting structures explains, the important question isn’t simply where RevOps sits on the org chart.
It’s who has the authority to make decisions when departments disagree.
Three common reporting structures illustrate how easily that authority can get lost.
1. The CRO Who Only Controls Sales
Some companies have a chief revenue officer who is essentially a VP of Sales with a bigger title.
Marketing reports to the CEO. Customer success reports to a separate executive. Finance controls budgets and headcount.
The CRO owns the revenue target but can’t independently change many of the things that influence it.
Consider territory planning.
Marketing wants to pursue enterprise accounts in healthcare. Sales is building capacity around financial services. Customer success wants to retain ownership of expansion opportunities.
Who decides?
Without a clear process for resolving the disagreement, sales operations becomes the messenger between departments.
The team builds another spreadsheet, schedules another meeting, and waits.
The same problem can affect quotas and compensation. Sales may reward new bookings while customer success focuses on retention, even though both contribute to the company’s growth.
McKinsey’s research on the evolving CRO role makes the case for revenue leaders taking a broader view of growth across the business.
That doesn’t mean every department must report to the CRO.
It means someone needs the authority to coordinate decisions across them.
Otherwise, a company can claim to have a unified revenue strategy while operating three different ones.
For a closer look at the distinction, see Sales Operations vs. RevOps: Pick the Right Model.
2. The CRO Who Needs Permission From the COO
In another common arrangement, the CRO reports to a chief operating officer or president rather than directly to the CEO.
This structure can work well when responsibilities are clear.
But it can create problems when nearly every revenue decision needs another layer of approval.
The CRO wants to expand into a new market. The COO wants to see the cost analysis.
Sales wants to introduce a temporary commission incentive. Operations wants to know whether the additional expense is justified.
Both perspectives are reasonable.
The problem is what happens when nobody has established how those decisions will be made or how quickly they need to happen.
Sales operations can end up spending more time defending plans than executing them.
Forecasting presents another challenge.
The CRO may be focused on ambitious growth targets, while the COO wants a conservative projection for financial planning.
Without a shared forecasting process, sales operations may find itself maintaining different versions of the revenue outlook for different audiences.
And once executives start debating which forecast is correct, confidence in the numbers begins to suffer.
A reporting structure should help executives make decisions, not give them more opportunities to delay them.
3. The Sales Ops Team Buried Under a VP of Sales
Sometimes the CRO has the right authority, but sales operations sits too far down the organization to use it effectively. For example, sales ops might report to a VP of Sales responsible for the company’s largest business segment. That arrangement can make sense for day-to-day sales support.
But what happens when the company needs to make decisions that affect every segment?
Pave’s research on RevOps team structures examines how reporting arrangements change as organizations grow. And Jen Bergren’s research on where RevOps should report explores how practitioners view these organizational choices.
The broader lesson is straightforward. If sales operations is expected to coordinate decisions across the company, it needs access to the people who can make those decisions. Otherwise, the team risks becoming a reporting department rather than a strategic planning function.
Before You Change the Org Chart, Ask Five Questions
It’s tempting to solve these problems by moving boxes around an organizational chart. For instance, you can experiment by placing RevOps under the CRO or move sales ops out from under the VP of Sales. Give someone a new title.
Problem solved? Not necessarily.
Before making structural changes, executives should be able to answer five questions:
- Who owns the revenue number? Is that person responsible for new bookings alone or for growth across the entire customer lifecycle?
- Who controls the budget? Can the revenue leader approve the technology and resources needed to execute the plan?
- Who can change the sales process? Does every adjustment require negotiations across multiple departments?
- Who decides what the numbers mean? Are pipeline stages, forecast categories, and qualification rules consistent?
- Who settles disagreements? When sales, marketing, and customer success want different things, who makes the final call?
If the answers point to several executives, the company needs a clearer decision-making process.
A CRO who can’t resolve a territory dispute may be no more effective than a RevOps leader reporting to a COO who can. That’s why the argument for RevOps reporting to the CRO ultimately depends on the authority that comes with the role.
The Fix Might Be a Better Decision-Making Process
Not every company needs to reorganize its leadership team. Some simply need to agree on who makes which decisions.
One option is a small go-to-market governance group with representatives from sales, marketing, customer success, finance, and RevOps. The idea isn’t to create another committee that meets every month to discuss why nothing has happened. It’s to establish a process for making decisions.
For example:
- Territory changes: Sales and marketing provide input, finance confirms capacity, and a designated executive approves the plan by a deadline.
- Quota planning: RevOps develops the model, finance validates the assumptions, and the revenue leader signs off.
- Compensation: Sales proposes incentives, finance evaluates costs, and the appropriate leaders approve the final structure.
- Forecasting: Everyone agrees on the definitions, data, and process used to produce the revenue forecast.
Research and commentary on RevOps reporting choices also highlight the importance of matching organizational structure to business needs rather than assuming one reporting arrangement works everywhere.
The exact arrangement will depend on the company. What matters is that every important decision has an owner, a deadline, and a way to resolve disagreements.
Good Decisions Still Need to Reach the Sales Team
There’s another problem worth addressing. Even when executives finally agree on a territory plan, someone has to put it into practice. Accounts need to be reassigned. Quotas need updating. Capacity plans need adjusting. Salespeople need to know what changed. If that work depends on rebuilding spreadsheets and manually updating Salesforce, the company can lose more time after the decision is made.
This is where connected revenue planning technology can help.
Fullcast’s territory, quota, and capacity planning capabilities help revenue teams manage changes and carry approved plans into execution. But technology can’t decide who has the authority to approve a territory change. That responsibility still belongs to leadership.
Is Your Reporting Structure Slowing Down Sales Ops?
Here’s a quick test.
- Can your CRO approve a territory change without weeks of negotiation?
- Does sales operations have access to the executive responsible for revenue?
- Does everyone use the same pipeline and forecasting definitions?
- Are quotas finalized before the period they cover begins?
- Can someone resolve account ownership disputes without involving the CEO?
If several answers are no, your problem may be bigger than the reporting line.
It could also explain why planning cycles run late, why forecasts become contentious, and why reps begin a new quarter without clear assignments.
And if quotas are being set without reliable hiring and capacity information, the problem can begin before the approval process even starts. Here’s what happens when companies set quotas without capacity data.
Your Org Chart Isn’t the Problem. Your Decision-Making Might Be.
A CRO shouldn’t need three weeks and four executive signatures to resolve a territory dispute. Sales operations shouldn’t spend the first month of a new fiscal year waiting for permission to implement a plan. And revenue leaders shouldn’t be accountable for results they lack the authority to influence.
Truthfully, there isn’t one perfect reporting structure for every company. For instance, a CRO reporting to the CEO may have limited authority. A CRO reporting to a COO may have exactly what they need. What matters is whether the structure allows the organization to make good decisions and act on them. So before you reorganize the revenue team, ask a simpler question: When something needs to change, who can actually say yes?
If nobody knows, that’s where the work begins.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should RevOps report directly to the CRO?
Often, but not automatically. Reporting to the CRO makes sense when that executive has authority across the revenue functions RevOps supports. Clear decision-making responsibilities matter more than the title alone.
Why does the CRO reporting structure affect sales operations?
Sales operations relies on decisions involving sales, marketing, finance, and customer success. When authority is unclear, territory changes, quotas, compensation plans, and forecasting processes can be delayed.
What is a GTM governance group?
It’s a cross-functional group responsible for coordinating important go-to-market decisions. To be effective, it needs clearly assigned decision-makers, deadlines, and a process for resolving disagreements.
How can companies tell whether their reporting structure is working?
Look at how quickly important decisions are made, whether planning deadlines are met, whether departments use consistent information, and whether sales teams receive timely direction.
Can technology fix organizational problems in sales operations?
Technology can make planning and execution faster, but it can’t replace executive accountability. Companies need clear ownership of decisions before automation can deliver its full value.