GoKawiilOpinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
Key Takeaways Collaborative budgeting increases ownership, aligning department leaders with financial goals and trade-offs.
Rigid annual budgets fail in fast growth; continuous forecasting enables timely strategic adjustments.
Transparency and monthly reviews empower leaders to manage spending proactively and support growth.
Most companies have a rigid budgeting process. Fewer have one that allows for flexibility and actively supports growth. In many organizations, budgets are set top-down annually by finance, distributed to departments, and then monitored for deviations. That process works well enough for cost control, but it tends to create a passive relationship between department leaders and the financial plan. Leaders receive their numbers without understanding and aligning with their logic, operate within them and wait for the next cycle.
A Gartner survey of over 200 CFOs from 2025 found that 56% rank enterprise-wide cost optimization as a top-five priority heading into 2026. The challenge most CFOs face is achieving that optimization in a way that supports growth and takes into account the strategic goals of every department rather than constraining them. In my experience, the most sustainable way to manage costs is through collaboration rather than top-down control.
Why I build budgets with department leaders, not for them
When I joined Dreamix as а CFO, one of the first things I introduced was a structured annual budget for every department, built together in several sessions with each department’s leader. The process starts with a detailed review of the historical spending over the prior two to three years, structured by initiative and presented clearly by the finance department. Then, with each leader, I discuss their strategic goals for the coming year, what initiatives they want to fund, and what resources they’ll need.
Each leader gets full visibility into the company’s overall financial standing and the trade-offs required to meet our goals. Once we agree on a department’s budget, taking into account both the broader company picture and that of the department’s priorities, the leader receives monthly updates on how their actual spending tracks against plan. They have autonomy in how they deploy their resources and accountability for the outcomes. When people help build the budget, they tend to take more ownership of it. They understand the trade-offs behind every line because they were part of the conversation that shaped them.
The alternative, where finance sets spending limits and only monitors actuals against budget, creates a different dynamic. Leaders treat those numbers as constraints imposed on them rather than plans they shaped. Some overspend because they feel no ownership over the target. Others hold back resources they should be deploying because they’re unsure what requires approval. Neither outcome serves the business well.
... continue reading