Why RevOps Fails: It’s Usually the Org Chart, Not the Tech

Portfolio companies fail RevOps implementations more often from org-chart mistakes than from tech choices.

I’ve seen several PE-backed companies in the past 18 months hire a “VP of RevOps” (or a similar role) reporting to the CMO. Three of them stalled within six months. The common denominator was that RevOps identifies friction in the sales process, recommends changes to territory design or comp structure, and the CMO has zero authority to execute.

Limited CMO functions are too common in the workplace. I always admire organizations that treat CMOs as a proper C-suite function, because why hire a C-level and treat them with a manager or director-level responsibilities and P&L management expectations?

Which is why the successful model puts RevOps at the C-suite level or reporting directly to the CEO. And not trim the CRO functions the way too many organizations have shunned CMOs in the recent years.

When a $60M portfolio company restructured their RevOps leader to report to the CEO rather than CRO, pipeline hygiene issues that had lingered for 14 months got resolved in one quarter. The difference wasn’t the person or the tools, but simply decision rights.

Mid-market PE portfolios often inherit org structures from founder-led growth phases where marketing owned the tech stack by default. That legacy wiring doesn’t match the cross-functional mandate RevOps actually requires.

If you’re building or fixing a RevOps function post-acquisition, map the reporting line first. A talented RevOps leader without structural authority becomes expensive overhead. The same person with CEO-level access becomes the execution engine for your value-creation plan.

The capability matters less than where it sits in the operating model.