A simple count of employees should be a fairly straightforward process. After all, how difficult can it be to get an accurate number of the people your business employs?
Harder than you’d think.
Finance and human resources (HR) routinely produce
headcount numbers that don’t match. And that’s a problem. When you don’t know who works for you (and where in the organization), you lack visibility into the health and performance of your business.
Knowing Who Works for You at a Given Time
For example, consider this scenario: You’re in a meeting with executives to discuss last quarter’s
budget when a few seemingly straightforward questions come up. What’s our current headcount? What did they cost? And how did that compare to what we planned?
Simple, right? Not so fast. HR and finance often have different ways of measuring headcount. Does that include contractors? And what about the 0.3 full-time employees (FTEs) who only work 15 hours a week?
Ultimately though, the real challenge arises when it falls to finance to explain what the company’s headcount costs actually are and why that deviated from the plan. It requires keeping track of who you’ve hired, for what roles, at what compensation levels, in what regions—and being able to tie that all back to the original plan you put together. It’s an exercise that, for most organizations, is challenging if not impossible.
How to Explain Headcount Variance
Even the best-laid plans never unfold exactly as scripted. Maybe you ended up pushing out the hire date to later. Or you couldn’t fill the role at all. Or maybe the compensation package changed because the job requisition was created for a role in Austin but filled in San Francisco. Perhaps attrition grew more than expected, or there were unplanned leaves. In any case, there are plenty of reasons why plans and actuals don’t align. And that’s to be expected.
However, when it comes to explaining this variance, often the best report finance can produce is a simple “budget-versus-actual” analysis of salary expense. If finance is lucky it’s by department, which can shed a little light on where in the organization the variance is. If finance is really lucky, maybe there’s an FTE plan versus actual that can also shed some light on whether the variance is price- or volume-driven. Regardless, none of these offer much insight into
why the variance arose. And that’s because, fundamentally, there’s very little connection among the general ledger, HR, and planning systems that manage this process.