Two Approaches to Workforce Planning

Organizations track their workforce in different ways, and two of the most common approaches are headcount tracking and position control. While they may sound similar, they serve different purposes and produce very different results. Understanding the distinction can help your organization choose the right method for managing staffing, budgets, and long-term planning.

What Is Headcount Tracking?

Headcount tracking counts the number of people employed by an organization at a given point in time. It answers a simple question: how many employees do we have?

This approach is straightforward. If someone is hired, the count goes up. If someone leaves, the count goes down. Headcount is commonly used in workforce reports, compliance filings, and high-level planning discussions.

However, headcount alone does not capture several important details:

• Part-time vs. full-time distinctions. Two part-time employees and one full-time employee all count as one in a headcount, even though their hours, costs, and FTE values differ significantly.
• Vacant positions. If a role is open and unfilled, headcount tracking simply does not reflect it. The position exists in a budget or staffing plan, but not in the headcount.
• Position attributes. Headcount tells you nothing about the job code, pay grade, department assignment, or approval history behind a role.

What Is Position Control?

Position control takes a fundamentally different approach. Instead of counting people, it tracks positions. Each position is a defined slot in the organization with its own unique number, job code, FTE value, wage rate, and other attributes. Employees are then assigned to positions.

This distinction matters because positions persist even when they are vacant. When an employee resigns, the position remains on record with its budget, department, and job classification intact. Decision-makers can see the vacancy, evaluate whether to refill it, modify it, or eliminate it.

Position control also supports:

• Budget alignment. Each position carries a cost, making it straightforward to compare planned staffing costs against actual expenditures.
• Approval workflows. Creating, modifying, or filling a position can require formal approval, adding accountability to every staffing change.
• Audit trails. Every action taken on a position is logged, providing a clear history for compliance and reporting.

A Practical Comparison

Consider a department with a budget for 10.0 FTE. Eight of those positions are filled, one is vacant, and one was recently reduced from 1.0 FTE to 0.5 FTE.

With headcount tracking, you would see 8 employees. The vacant position and the FTE reduction are invisible unless someone manually maintains a separate record.

With position control, you would see all 10 positions: 8 filled, 1 vacant at 1.0 FTE, and 1 filled at 0.5 FTE. The total funded FTE (9.5) and the total filled FTE (8.5) are both visible, giving leadership an accurate picture of capacity and cost.

Where FTE Tree Fits

FTE Tree is built around position control. Every position in FTE Tree has a unique identifier, FTE value, job code, and wage rate. Positions are organized by department, and every change goes through a documented approval workflow with a full audit trail.

This means your HR, Finance, and operations teams are always working from the same data. Vacancies are visible. Budget impacts are clear. And when someone asks how many positions you have and what they cost, the answer is already in front of you.

If your organization has outgrown headcount tracking and needs the precision that position control provides, sign up for FTE Tree to see how it works in practice.