Technology industry treasurers face different challenges than their peers in other sectors. For example, only 50% report having strong influence in decision-making, far below other sectors like consumer goods. Their limited involvement affects key financial outcomes, such as cash flow predictability and revenue optimism.
Tech treasurers are 73% more likely than other department heads to say more collaboration is needed. For example, 4 in 5 believe finance departments would benefit from closer collaboration. In contrast, 62% of other department heads think current collaboration levels are sufficient, further isolating them. Greater treasurer involvement could close the influence gap, reducing debt and speeding up cash conversion cycles.
These are some of the findings explored “The Impact of Misunderstood Treasurers in Technology,” a PYMNTS Intelligence and Citi collaboration. This examines the challenges technology industry treasurers face, including poor interdepartmental collaboration and the lowest cash flow predictability across sectors. It draws on insights from a survey of 500 treasurers and other department heads (representing business strategy, marketing, payments and product development) across various industries, conducted from April 9 to May 28, providing a comprehensive look at the barriers limiting treasurer influence and that limited influence’s impact on financial outcomes.
The report explores how tech treasurers’ involvement — or lack thereof — affects specific metrics as well as overall financial performance. This report features 10 charts detailing their influence across departments. It examines the disconnect between treasurers and other teams, and the financial benefits of closing that gap. It provides crucial insights on how technology companies can enhance financial stability by increasing collaboration. Download the report to learn more.
Job cuts in government, technology and retail led the way as U.S. employers announced the largest number of cuts in one month since May 2020.
Among the 275,240 job cuts announced in March, 216,215 were in government, 15,055 were in technology and 11,709 were in retail, Challenger, Gray & Christmas said in a report released Thursday (April 3).
“Job cut announcements were dominated last month by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) plans to eliminate positions in the federal government,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president and workplace expert for Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in the report. “It would have otherwise been a fairly quiet month for layoffs.”
The total number of job cuts made in March was more than three times the 90,309 cuts announced in March 2024, according to the report.
By sector, compared to March 2024, government job cuts were almost six times higher, technology cuts were about 6% higher and retail cuts were nearly twice as high, per the report.
All the government job cuts made in March occurred in the federal government, the report said.
The top reason employers gave for cutting jobs in March was “DOGE impact,” which was cited for 216,670 of the month’s cuts, according to the report.
Other common reasons included store, unit or department closing, to which 17,666 job cuts were attributed, and market/economic conditions, which accounted for 11,594 cuts, per the report.
Challenger, Gray & Christmas also said in the report that employers are planning to hire fewer workers than they were a year ago. Companies’ hiring plans dropped by about 37%, from 21,102 in March 2024 to 13,198 in March 2025, according to the report.
The specter of uncertain job security may accelerate a spending pullback that is already in motion, PYMNTS reported Wednesday (April 2). Consumer confidence that was already shaken may have been further impacted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest snapshot of the labor market released Tuesday (April 1), which found that the labor market slowed in February, with a decline in job openings over the past year.
The Conference Board reported March 25 that consumer confidence slipped for the fourth straight month in March, due in part to a plunge in consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business and labor market conditions.
