Collaborative budgeting: How and why it breaks down

“Teamwork makes the dream work!”

“Cross-functional alignment!”

“Budgeting is a team sport!”

Another year, another dose of budget-season buzzwords.

On paper, finance leaders think they’re killing it in the diplomacy department—97% of respondents in our recent budgeting survey described their process as collaborative.

But the reality on the ground isn’t quite so rosy.

Nearly every leader that described their process as collaborative also said they face collaboration challenges:

So what gives?

It turns out that while almost everyone calls their process collaborative, only about a third are actually doing the hard, structured work of true cross-functional planning. The rest are mired in busywork dressed as teamwork: prolific Slack threads and ad hoc meetings that don’t amount to much of anything.

Fortunately, making collaboration real doesn’t require more meetings. It requires more intentional structure.

In this post, we’ll unpack how and where collaboration tends to break down in the budgeting process, and how to put this kind of structure in place.

Where collaboration breaks down (and why)

Blaming teams rather than systems

Let’s get this out of the way off the bat: there’s probably one team that comes to mind when you think about budgeting-season bottlenecks. The most commonly cited culprit in our survey was IT/Security (no hard feelings 😅).

But the truth is, no one team is the problem. Marketing, Sales, HR, Product, Ops, and Execs all were cited as sources of friction in our survey. This tells us that breakdowns are systemic rather than team-specific.

The real issue isn’t who’s involved—it’s how collaboration happens. Many budgeting processes are built on a shaky foundation of implicit handoffs and unspoken assumptions. They’re not robust enough to withstand inevitable hiccups and delays.

Differing versions of reality

Some things are better spelled out than assumed, even when it feels tedious. Budget assumptions fall squarely into that category. Misalignments on targets, timing, and terminology can easily slip under the radar, but derail a plan just as easily as a major miss.

Maybe GTM is forecasting against stretch goals while finance is modeling to board-approved numbers. Or HR is treating headcount as active employees while finance thinks in terms of approved reqs. Neither realizes that the other is operating from a different definition, then wonders where things went sideways in the plan.

A clear, shared version of reality is the underpinning of effective collaboration.

Lacking sequential, on-time inputs

Even when teams are aligned on definitions, collaboration can still fall apart if inputs show up late or out of order.

Stop me if you’ve seen any of these before:

🤔 Marketing gets asked to plan campaigns before GTM targets are finalized (...what exactly are they aiming for?)

🤔 Sales starts planning ACV growth with new products before Product has confirmed launch dates (...where exactly are those dates coming from?)

🤔 One exec signs off on the model, another hasn’t even opened it (...so is it approved or not?)

Cross-functional planning only works when information flows in a logical sequence. When it doesn’t, it’s hard to build momentum—and even harder to trust the numbers that come out the other end.

Not having a shared playbook

One of the biggest obstacles to collaboration is that it often lives in the ether. It’s a vibe rather than a concrete set of workflows. It’s “part of our culture.”

That’s how you end up with calendars full of Zoom calls, without much to show for it besides sore retinas. Conversations vanish the moment a meeting ends. Each team walks away with a slightly different version of the plan.

Teams need structure to work smarter. Here’s how to build it without overthrowing your existing process.

Make collaboration concrete: Your lightweight playbook

For collaboration to work, it has to be purposeful. Not just a set of good intentions, but a series of repeatable, shared workflows that teams can actually anchor to.

Here are some ways to make that happen:

1. Align on assumptions upfront

This is the single most important ingredient for making collaboration real. A bottoms-up budget is dead on arrival if teams are working off of different assumptions.

Start by disseminating a high-level macro pack at the start of planning season: a one-page PDF (plus a CSV for modeling) that outlines:

• Topline revenue scenarios
• Funnel conversion rates
• Hiring guardrails
• Merit increases and timing
• FX assumptions
• Major product/campaign launches and sunset dates
• A glossary of key definitions (i.e. headcount = approved reqs)

FP&A should own this pack, but it’s a cross-functional effort—built with input from GTM, Product, HR, and Ops, then signed off by the ELT before budgeting kicks off.

These conversations usually begin in late summer with the executive team. From there, finance can layer in feedback from department leaders to finalize the assumptions.

One last thing worth mentioning:

Alignment starts at the top. Senior leaders need to treat assumption-setting as a business priority, not just a finance task. If execs don’t show up and signal that alignment matters, no one else will.‍

2. Front-load your hardest inputs

Not all inputs carry equal weight. Some are the pillars around which the model is built, others are just details.

Start by locking in the former:

• Revenue targets and mix
• Hiring plans
• Major launch calendars

Once those are set, the rest of the plan can take shape around them.

Use editable templates to collect inputs—no screenshots, no PDFs. These templates should be easy for budget owners to fill out and easy for finance to consolidate.

3. Add finance-moderated synthesis checkpoints

Once inputs are collected, don’t barrel straight into final approvals. Insert a few quick checkpoints to step back and identify any misalignments before they have a chance to snowball.

Here’s how it should work:

Before the meeting 📖

Send a short pre-read 24 hours in advance. Keep it crisp, but cover the essentials:

• A “what moved since last time” waterfall by key drivers (price, mix, productivity, HC timing, inflation)
• Three scenario cards (base, upside, guardrails) with clear sensitivity levers

During the meeting 🧠

Keep the focus on tradeoffs:

• If X goes up, what comes down?
• What’s the version of the plan we’re willing to live with?

Capture key decisions in a shared log so nothing gets lost.

After the meeting 🤝

Reiterate that the finance team is there to support business partners. The last thing you want is to come across as the bad cop. This is your time to build that goodwill.

The more finance is involved in the budget’s reasoning (not just the math), the stronger the collaboration will be.

Real collaboration is more than just vibes

Too many finance teams pay lip service to collaboration without actually building it into their workflows. The ones that get it right treat teamwork like any other critical input: something to design, operationalize, and continuously improve upon.

That doesn’t mean it needs to be a heavy lift. A few interventions throughout the budgeting process—macro pack, sequenced inputs, and synthesis checkpoints—can go a long way in closing the gap between performative collaboration and the kind that actually gets your budget across the finish line.