This is how I've approached this at a few different companies (across all revenue sizes):
1. Everyone in the company goes through a base level of financial literacy training. The level and frequency depend on the person or group.
I was never shy with employees about a) money matters, b) I care about making money, and c) making a profit is non-negotiable.
As the great philosophers Wu-Tang Clan once proclaimed: "C.R.E.A.M."
The balance with having a CREAM mantra of sort is that, as a leader, you have to over-communicate how and why money matters. And you really have to ensure that if you say "it matters that we make money so we can have nice trucks," then you better damn well have nice trucks when the company is successful.
2. We were extremely data driven. We kept score of everything, with financials being one of them - arguably the main one.
3. The C-suite (or equivalent) has full access to all financials: every chart of accounts, every general ledger, etc.
Keeping financials from the C-suite is asinine to me.
4. The rest depends on where their incentives lie.
For example, in a residential home service business, technicians received bonuses above certain gross profit thresholds. They went through constant financial training on sales, COGS, and gross profit. What each means, how each is impacted by their work and other factors, and how they correlate. They were also given broad examples of what happens to gross profit.
In the landscaping rollup I did, crews were incentivized on actual hours on-site vs. budgeted hours, non-billable hours, and quality scores. Those were the numbers they needed to know, along with the background behind them.
Branch managers in the landscaping business had a different set. They had branch-level P&L responsibility and went through appropriate financial training.
Sales guys had to know sales and gross profit, etc.
I cared about XYZ financially, so why would I not want people - relative to their impact and level - to know the finances? I just don't get it.
Someone in Hampton (1000 founders) asked people if they share revenue and P&L with employees.
Here's what they said:
Founder A (bootstrapped, ~20 employees): "I share nothing. Not even with my COO. I've never been happier running a company."
Founder B (also anti-transparency): When an employee pushed back on the secrecy, he told them: "if you want a bonus from the upside, you also take the downside." Said that ended the conversation immediately.
Founder C (sold his company for $360M ): "If a CEO shares nothing with their C-suite, that's a red flag. Full stop."
Founder D (middle ground): "I only share what employees can actually impact. Revenue without context just creates anxiety."
Founder E (went full open-book): "We ran P&L tutorials for the whole team. It completely changed the culture."
Where do you land on this?