Why operating model work fails when it starts with the org chart

An org chart can be a useful output of operating model work. It is rarely the right place to start. The harder questions sit in flow, decisions, role clarity, capability, governance and the way work really gets done.

A lot of operating model work goes off course early. Usually the issue is not capability in the room, and it is not a lack of willingness to change. The problem is that the discussion moves too quickly to structure.

Before long, the room is working through familiar questions. Who should report to whom? How many layers should there be? What should this team be called? Does this role belong here or somewhere else? Those questions are legitimate. They are also downstream.

If you start with the boxes, there is a good chance you end up tidying the picture before you have properly understood the work that picture needs to hold. That is how redesign efforts can look clean on paper and leave daily life largely untouched.

A better starting point is operating reality. How does work actually flow across the organisation? Where do decisions sit today, and where do they drift when pressure hits? Which accountabilities are clear in theory but blurred in practice? What capability is genuinely needed, rather than simply inherited? What governance helps the work move, and what governance mostly adds ceremony?

Those questions are harder. They rarely produce a neat answer in the first conversation. That is part of the point.

An org chart is one expression of an operating model. It is not the operating model itself. The real substance sits in how work happens: the services being delivered, the roles required, the decisions that need to be made, the handoffs between teams, the systems that support the work, the capabilities in the model, and the rhythm through which performance is managed.

That distinction is nuanced but important to understand because structure is often used as a proxy for control. When work feels messy, slow or opaque, leaders naturally reach for something visible. A structural change is visible. It signals movement. But if the underlying issues sit in flow, sequencing, ownership, weak management information or poor decision discipline, redrawing the structure can end up treating the symptom more than the cause.

There is a similar trap in assuming that hierarchy must do all the heavy lifting. In practice, some problems are better solved through clearer role design, stronger process ownership, explicit decision thresholds, sharper service boundaries, or specialist capability that does not need to sit in a traditional managerial chain. Sometimes the real issue is simply that a role has been carrying too much ambiguity for too long.

None of that means structure is secondary or unimportant. It matters a great deal. It shapes accountability, leverage, coordination and leadership burden. But when the structure conversation gets ahead of the diagnosis, the work hardens too early around an answer that may not fit the problem.

Good operating model work usually has a different feel to it. It stays close to what the organisation is trying to achieve. It gets specific about what must happen well and repeatedly. It distinguishes between strategic work, operational delivery, enabling support, specialist expertise and assurance. It looks hard at bottlenecks, escalation patterns, service expectations and the lived burden sitting on key roles.

Only after that does the structure conversation become genuinely useful. By then, the discussion has some weight behind it. The organisation is not debating lines and boxes in the abstract; it is asking what sort of structure best supports the work that needs to happen.

That order is also really important for a more human reason. Once an organisation starts talking about the org chart, emotion arrives quickly. People see signals about status, opportunity, loss and future direction. That is normal. It is also why the earlier diagnostic work needs to be strong. Without it, the conversation becomes political before it becomes clear.

There is a practical dimension as well. Starting with the org chart often narrows the work too quickly to leadership design. Many operating model issues sit below that line: in role design, workflow design, queue ownership, capability gaps, control points, service boundaries and the quality of decision-making close to the work. If none of that is surfaced, the structure can change and the daily experience can remain stubbornly familiar.

In that sense, the org chart is a lagging artefact. It should reflect good operating model work. It should not be mistaken for the work itself.

The more useful operating model conversations tend to share a few traits. They are honest about the current state. They resist the urge to solve everything through hierarchy. And they stay connected to the question that really matters: what needs to be true for this organisation to perform well, sustainably, and with less friction than it does today?

Once that question is clear, structure becomes much easier to discuss. Agreement may still take time. Trade-offs will still exist. But the conversation has a spine. It is anchored in purpose, flow and delivery reality rather than preference.

That is usually the difference between operating model work that lands and operating model work that becomes another diagram.

The org chart is not the enemy. It is simply not the beginning.

Sound familiar...?

If this reflects issues your organisation is wrestling with, it is probably because these themes show up repeatedly in complex, high-accountability environments. They are issues worth talking about.