The org chart is not a map of the work

The org chart identifies every participant. What it does not show is the path connecting their decisions.

As long as everything works, that omission goes unnoticed. Each team handles its part, and someone manages to link the stages. The difficulty emerges when an exception disrupts the expected order or two legitimate criteria lead to different responses. The diagram remains clear, but the operation loses continuity.

What the formal structure does reveal

A hierarchy serves necessary functions. It establishes administrative responsibilities, organizes supervision, and helps determine who is accountable for resources, budgets, and results. It also makes the boundaries of authority visible. Without those reference points, many decisions would be even more exposed to ambiguity.

The problem begins when we ask the org chart to explain something it was not designed for: how an outcome is produced when people reporting to different managers must contribute.

CIPD describes organization design as the relationship among structure, strategy, and working practices. Its approach includes processes, systems, and performance measures in addition to positions and reporting lines. That breadth matters: moving a unit within the diagram does not necessarily change the way areas coordinate. CIPD: Organisation Design (opens in a new tab).

An organization can preserve clear accountabilities and still leave decisions without an owner as they move through the workflow. Each team knows what belongs to it. No one knows who should resolve the point where their responsibilities meet.

Follow the decision to where it stops

Consider a commercial approval that requires technical review. The commercial area seeks to fulfill a promise made to the customer. Technology identifies a viable alternative, although that alternative changes an agreed condition. Both teams understand their obligations. What remains open is who has the authority to decide which criterion takes precedence.

The request moves back and forth between people. More background information is requested, meetings appear, and eventually someone escalates the matter. From each team’s perspective, the delay seems to originate in the other area. Viewed as a path, it begins with a shared decision that no one had defined.

An exception often reveals what routine had kept hidden. An increase in demand, an absence, or a shift in priority can interrupt a sequence that appeared stable. The formal structure remains intact, but the work needs a different form of coordination.

The connections that sustain the path

Many areas resolve these frictions through personal relationships. A specialist knows whom to consult. A leader can align priorities without turning to senior management. Someone interprets the full problem and connects functions that would otherwise wait for separate instructions. That combination does not turn people into fixed categories: breadth, depth, and integration are configurations that a given demand may need to bring together.

Those relationships add judgment and speed. They can also concentrate a dependency that is difficult to recognize. If coordination always rests on the same person, their absence exposes a fragility the org chart never represented.

MIT Sloan describes distributed leadership as collaborative practices driven by a network of formal and informal leaders. The idea helps explain why an organization mobilizes knowledge through connections that do not exactly match its hierarchy. It also shows that granting autonomy requires enough shared agreements to coordinate contributions. MIT Sloan: Distributed Leadership (opens in a new tab).

Observing these connections requires boundaries. The purpose is to understand a specific operational dependency, not to record every interaction or turn personal relationships into a surveillance system. The information should answer a defined question about the work and respect the privacy of those involved.

When changing a box leaves everything the same

A reorganization may resolve a real authority problem. It may also move teams between departments while leaving intact the decision that continues to hold up the service.

The problem becomes visible when the path is reconstructed before changes are proposed. Sometimes information needs to be shared from the outset. In other cases, an authorization must be clarified, escalation conditions defined, or responsibility assigned for integrating incompatible criteria. None of those decisions follows automatically from a job title.

The map of the work does not replace the org chart. It adds a dimension that the formal structure does not represent: how different responsibilities connect to produce an outcome.

Before drawing a new box, trace a real decision from its origin to its outcome. The point where it loses continuity often explains more than any change in position within the diagram.

To extend this reading, see From headcount to capability: what should change in workforce planning, The Skills-Powered Organization and the shift toward capabilities, and Organizational dark matter, which develop complementary dimensions of the problem.