Related practice: Hospitality FP&A Consulting
Subscribe to The City Shift Finance Podcast
The financial plan is built. The budget is approved, department heads have their targets, and within two months the numbers are not behaving the way the plan suggested they would.
The response is familiar. The finance team pulls the actuals, the operations team explains what changed, the variance gets documented, and the conversation moves to what will be done differently next period. The plan gets revised. The same cycle begins again.
I am Josh, and welcome back to the City Shift Finance podcast.
Today we are covering why financial planning in hospitality operations keeps failing to influence financial outcomes, even when the decisions being made inside that planning process appear sound.
The starting point is a distinction that most hospitality financial reviews do not make explicitly. A financial plan can fail for two entirely different reasons, and the variance report it produces looks identical in both cases. In the first, the plan was correctly built but the operation deviated from it. Occupancy came in below forecast, an outlet underperformed, a cost line moved unexpectedly. These are execution gaps, and the response to them is operational. In the second, the plan was never capable of producing the outcome it was built around, not because of anything that happened in execution, but because it was constructed from assumptions that did not reflect how the operation actually behaves. The labor budget was built on headcount rather than occupancy tiers. The revenue forecast used ADR assumptions from a prior period that no longer applied. The F&B targets were set against cover volumes the outlet had not produced in over a year. Same variance report. Completely different problem. And the response that works for the first makes the second condition worse.
When an operation is in the second condition and the response is to push harder on execution, nothing improves. Targets that were never grounded in operational reality produce variances that are structurally guaranteed before the period begins. The finance team reviews the numbers and asks what went wrong, and the honest answer is that nothing went wrong in execution. The plan was wrong before anyone started executing against it.
“The variance is not where the problem starts, it is where a flawed plan reveals itself.”
This is the cycle that produces persistent financial planning failure. The variance is high, the plan gets revised downward, the variance returns, the plan gets revised again. Over multiple periods the financial plan stops functioning as a management tool and becomes a documentation exercise. Leadership stops believing the numbers have predictive value, because the numbers have demonstrated they do not. Departments stop connecting their operational decisions to the financial plan for the same reason, and the conditions driving the variance continue unaddressed because the planning process was never designed to surface them.
We see this most clearly in operations that have been running consistent budget variances for two or more periods. The plan has been reviewed repeatedly, assumptions revised, targets adjusted, each change made with a financial rationale at the time. In aggregate they have produced a planning process that is more accurate on paper and less useful in practice, because every revision addressed the outputs of the process without examining the inputs generating the inaccuracy in the first place.
The condition that produces this outcome sits in how the plan is constructed before the period begins. Most hospitality financial plans are built top-down. A revenue target is set, a labor percentage is applied, department budgets are derived from those two numbers. The plan is financially coherent but operationally disconnected, because the labor percentage applied does not reflect the actual relationship between occupancy patterns, demand mix, and departmental staffing requirements at each volume tier. The revenue target does not reflect the pricing conditions, channel mix, and guest capture rates that will determine what the property actually produces. It looks like a plan. It does not function like one.
“Accuracy on paper is not the same as a plan that can operate in reality.”
What changes the outcome is a different question asked before the plan is approved. Not what revenue target needs to be hit, but what revenue is this operation structurally capable of generating given current demand conditions and pricing position. Not what labor percentage needs to be achieved, but what does the labor model actually cost at each occupancy tier, and what is the financial consequence of each tier relative to the fixed cost structure the operation is carrying. When those questions are answered before the plan is finalized, the variances that appear in execution are deviations from a grounded baseline, not confirmation that the baseline was never right.
The operations that resolve persistent planning failure are those that separated these two conditions before revising the plan again. They asked whether the variance was an execution problem or a planning problem, and directed their attention to the part of the process actually generating the gap. In some cases that was operational discipline. In others it was the construction of the plan itself, and the distinction determined whether the next period produced a different outcome or another version of the same variance.
When financial planning keeps failing to influence performance, the question worth asking is not what assumptions need to be revised in the next version of the plan. It is whether the plan is being built from the operational reality of the business or from the financial outcome the business needs to achieve. The answer to that question changes what the planning process needs to do and where the work needs to begin. Without it, the revisions will keep addressing the output of a problem that is being generated in the construction of the plan itself.
Thanks for tuning in.
About the host
Josh is the Director of Strategy at City Shift Finance, overseeing firmwide strategic initiatives, proprietary frameworks, and long-term value creation.
