Linkedin
Facebook
Email
more
Installing a General Manager in your manufacturing business is a logical next step, but execution is key
Many successful manufacturing businesses reach a point where the owner can no longer be involved in every decision.
As the business grows, production volumes increase, customer relationships become more complex, staffing requirements expand, and operational demands consume more time than a single owner can effectively manage.
It is often at this stage that business owners decide to appoint a General Manager or Operations Manager to oversee day-to-day activities.
This is a perfectly reasonable goal. You want to transition from working in the business to working on the business.
Appointing a General Manager lets you focus on strategy, growth opportunities, succession planning and governance rather than managing production schedules, procurement issues and staffing matters.
The tricky part comes down to execution. When executed well, this transition can be transformational. When executed poorly, it can expose the business to significant risk.
Why accountability is critical in manufacturing governance
As with any type of business, there are common mistakes manufacturing owners tend to make when the transition from owner to operator. One we see too often is confusion around accountability.
Some owners assume that appointing a General Manager means operational responsibility shifts entirely to that individual. However, delegation is not the same as abdication. Always remember that you are delegating authority to a General Manager, not accountability.
Authority can be delegated. Accountability cannot.
Owners and directors ultimately remain responsible for the financial health and strategic direction of the organisation. Even where a capable manager has been appointed, the board must continue to exercise oversight and ensure management delivers against agreed expectations.
Many manufacturing organisations operate with informal governance structures that worked perfectly well while the owner was directly managing operations. However, once a General Manager is inserted between the owners and the business, these informal arrangements often become inadequate.
Without structured reporting and accountability mechanisms, issues can remain hidden for months before they surface in financial results.
What are the warning signs boards miss without regular reporting in manufacturing operations?
Australian manufacturers operate in an environment where small operational problems can quickly become significant financial issues.
Margins are often determined by pricing accuracy, labour productivity, material costs and project execution. As a result, even minor deviations in any of these areas can have substantial consequences.
Without regular reporting to the board, management may not identify these trends early enough to respond effectively.
Common warning signs include:
- Jobs being quoted below cost.
- Production inefficiencies reducing margins.
- Cost overruns on major projects.
- Deteriorating cash flow.
- Growing debtor balances.
- Increasing employee turnover.
- Supplier relationship issues.
- Customer complaints or declining service standards.
If management is not regularly reporting on these areas, directors may only become aware of the problem after the financial damage has already occurred. By then, corrective action is often significantly more difficult and expensive.
Why forecasting is non-negotiable in manufacturing
Forecasting is perhaps the most critical discipline missing from many growing manufacturing businesses.
A manufacturing businesses must consume cash before it generates it. You need to purchase materials and pay employees while incurring overheads, well before collecting invoices.
Without forward-looking cash flow forecasts, a profitable business can still experience severe liquidity pressure.
Similarly, without sales and profitability forecasting, boards can’t identify emerging issues until after they appear in historical financial statements.
Monthly reporting should therefore extend beyond historical results and include:
- cash flow forecasts
- sales pipeline reporting
- work-in-progress analysis
- production capacity utilisation
- project profitability reporting
- labour recovery metrics
- forward-order book analysis.
Remember that you don’t generate reports just to document what has happened.
They also provide visibility into what is likely to happen next.
Accountability requires consequences
Owners who are stepping back from operation roles often struggle with accountability.
This is natural; you recruited a General Manager specifically to solve problems and reduce your workload. Thus, after appointing a trusted manager, you may feel a natural reluctance to challenge poor performance or enforce consequences when expectations are not met.
Unfortunately, this often results in issues becoming normalised, such as:
- delayed board meetings
- incomplete reporting
- forecasts not prepared
- action items that remain unresolved
- operational issues continue without escalation.
Over time, standards drift and governance becomes reactive rather than proactive.
True accountability requires more than setting expectations. It requires monitoring performance and taking action when commitments are not delivered.
That doesn’t mean creating an adversarial relationship between the board and management. Think of it as establishing a culture where agreed responsibilities are taken seriously and where performance is measured objectively.
If monthly reporting is required, it must occur.
If forecasts are required, they must be prepared.
If agreed actions are not completed, there must be follow-up and consequences.
For governance to be effective, you need accountability.
How does governance support good managers?
An accountability framework does not indicate a lack of trust in management.
In fact, high-performing General Managers generally welcome clear expectations, measurable objectives and regular reporting structures.
Keep in mind that strong governance protects both the business and the manager.
It ensures success is measured consistently, provides an avenue for issues to be escalated early, and creates transparency around operational performance. In many cases, governance structures enable capable managers to be even more effective because they provide the information and support necessary to make informed decisions.
A practical governance framework for manufacturing businesses: the four-tier accountability model
We know from experience advising manufacturing organisations through leadership transitions that informal governance frameworks that rely on trust alone are not enough. Once you have a General Manager in place, you will need structured reporting cadences to sustain growth.
For manufacturing businesses transitioning to professional management, directors should consider implementing a four-tier accountability model built around the following components:
Tier one:
Monthly board reporting
These should cover:
- financial performance
- cash flow position and forecast
- sales pipeline
- major contracts and projects
- operational performance metrics
- HR and safety reporting.
Tier two:
Budget versus actual analysis
Incorporate:
- variance reporting
- margin analysis
- labour recovery reporting
- action plans for underperformance.
Tier three:
Clear accountability measures
Examples include:
- key performance indicators
- annual performance reviews
- defined reporting deadlines
- escalation procedures.
Tier four:
Strategic oversight
Consider:
- quarterly strategy reviews
- customer concentration analysis
- capital expenditure planning
- succession planning.
Is your manufacturing business ready for its next stage of growth?
Stepping back from daily operations doesn't mean losing control.
RSM can help you establish the right governance and reporting frameworks to support your leadership transition.
Frequently asked questions
Most manufacturing boards benefit from monthly reporting cycles, supplemented by quarterly strategic reviews. Monthly cadences catch operational issues like margin erosion or cash flow pressure early, while quarterly reviews focus on strategy, client concentration, and succession planning.
Consequences should be proportionate and consistent, ranging from structured follow-up on missed deadlines to formal performance improvement plans when key performance indicators are repeatedly missed. The goal is consistent enforcement, not punitive escalation.
Owners make this transition most successfully by pairing delegation with structured oversight: appointing a capable General Manager, implementing monthly board reporting, and committing to regular strategic reviews, rather than stepping back from governance altogether.
The bottom line
The key takeaway here is that professional management and strong governance must go hand in hand. Delegating operational responsibility does not remove the need for oversight, reporting and accountability.
When boards receive timely information, maintain clear expectations and act when standards are not met, they position both management and the business for success.
The result is a stronger, more resilient manufacturing business capable of delivering sustainable long-term growth.
Have a question?
Get in touch
Ready to step back from day-to-day operations?
Transitioning from operator to owner requires the right leadership, reporting and governance structures.
Our Business Advisory team can help you strengthen accountability, improve performance and plan for sustainable growth. Complete the form below to speak with an RSM adviser.
Ready to step back from day-to-day operations?
Transitioning from operator to owner requires the right leadership, reporting and governance structures.
Our Business Advisory team can help you strengthen accountability, improve performance and plan for sustainable growth. Complete the form below to speak with an RSM adviser.
Ideas and insights
