Before You Reorganize, Diagnose the Work

Reorganization is one of the most tempting responses to an organizational problem.

Work is moving too slowly. Two departments are stepping on each other. A director is overwhelmed. Employees are unclear about who owns what. Leadership looks at the organization chart and concludes that the boxes must be wrong.

Sometimes they are.

But an organization chart is a structural solution, and many of the problems we try to solve through reorganization are not structural problems at all.

Before moving people, changing reporting relationships, or creating another layer of management, public-sector leaders should diagnose what is actually getting in the way of the work.

Start with the problem, not the chart

The first question should sound obvious: What problem are we trying to solve?

Yet reorganizations often begin with a proposed solution instead.

“We should move this division.”

“These two functions belong together.”

“We need another deputy.”

Those may eventually be reasonable conclusions. But they are not diagnoses.

Instead, describe the problem in operational terms. Decisions take too long. Customers receive inconsistent answers. Two departments perform overlapping work. A manager has more direct reports than can reasonably be supported. Nobody knows who has the authority to make a recurring decision.

The more precisely the problem is defined, the easier it becomes to determine whether the structure is actually causing it.

Look for the other explanations

When work is not moving well, I generally look at several possibilities before assuming the organization chart is the problem.

Process. Is the work itself unnecessarily complicated? A poorly designed approval process will remain poorly designed regardless of which department owns it.

Decision rights. Do people know who can decide, who must be consulted, and when an issue needs to move upward? Organizations sometimes add management layers when the real need is clearer authority.

Accountability. Is someone clearly responsible for the outcome? Shared responsibility can quickly become no responsibility.

Capacity. Is there simply too much work for the people available to do it? Moving an understaffed function to another department does not create capacity.

Capability. Does the organization have the skills required for the work? A reporting-line change will not solve a competency gap.

Leadership. Is a manager avoiding decisions, failing to coordinate, or allowing conflict to continue? Structure should not be used to avoid a difficult management conversation.

Only after working through those questions do I get to structure.

Reorganization has a cost

Changing the organization chart feels tangible. Leaders can point to the new structure and demonstrate that something has changed.

The less visible effects take longer to appear.

Reporting relationships have to be rebuilt. Employees reconsider where they fit. Processes that crossed one boundary now cross another. Titles may change. New management routines develop. Informal relationships that made the old system work have to be recreated.

None of that means leaders should avoid reorganization. It means the expected benefit should justify the disruption.

A useful test is simple: What will become materially easier because of this structural change?

If the answer is difficult to articulate, the case for reorganization probably is not mature enough.

Know when structure really is the problem

There are legitimate reasons to reorganize.

Related functions may be separated in ways that create unnecessary handoffs. A leader may have an unreasonable span of control. Organizational growth may have created a structure designed for a much smaller operation. Responsibilities may have evolved while reporting relationships remained frozen in place.

In those cases, changing the structure can remove genuine barriers.

The difference is that the structural problem can be clearly identified before the boxes start moving.

I explored a related question about organizational operating systems, decision-making, and why structural fixes are often insufficient in a recent conversation with Lucy Ellis on The Leadership Shift: Why Leaders Fail in Crisis (and What to Do Instead)

Diagnose first

Government organizations face constant pressure to improve performance while operating within tight financial, political, and workforce constraints. That makes it especially important to use the right intervention for the right problem.

Sometimes the answer is a different structure.

Sometimes it is a clearer process.

Sometimes it is better delegation, stronger accountability, additional capacity, or a decision that has been avoided for too long.

And sometimes both the structure and the underlying management problem need attention.

That is fine.

Just do not let the organization chart pretend to be the conversation.