What an org chart hides

We like drawing org charts: neat, with boxes next to and under each other. Executive management at the top. Below that, the departments. Names, job titles, responsibilities. And when it gets a bit more complex, we call it governance. Governance sounds good. It suggests that it is clear who decides, who is involved, who carries responsibility, and where the boundaries lie. And on paper, it usually adds up.

Until the house is on fire. Then it suddenly turns out that the person with the mandate isn't always the one taking the decision. That a team officially has little autonomy, but in practice has been making decisions on its own for years. Or vice versa: that everyone is given responsibility, but nobody really has the space to decide. That is when it becomes visible how the organization truly works.

A reorganisation can change the boxes without changing daily operations. New technology can shift tasks without decision rights following. A new strategy can ask something different from the organization, while people are still working according to the logic of the past.

Did someone mention governance?

There is a moment in meetings where brows furrow. Someone says: “We need to take another look at the governance.” Everyone nods. But what do we actually mean by that? Governance has meanwhile become one of the boxes to be ticked, without any meaning.

Maybe that's because governance is often presented as a diagram. A few boxes, arrows, steering committees, and decision lines. Visually it looks clear. Until someone asks: “But who actually decides here?” Then it sometimes turns out that the boxes are filled in, but the rules of the game are not. Or that different versions exist.

Remarkably, governance is often discussed most when things are already going wrong. When a decision gets stuck. When two directorates step on each other's toes. When a project team doesn't know who is allowed to decide. That is when governance becomes urgent. While that is precisely where the real test should lie: ‘How does this work on an regular Tuesday when a system breaks down and a quick decision is needed.’

A good governance does not need to be a thick document for that. Above all, it must be concrete enough to work with. A few things help with this:

• Make the formal and governance structure visible.
  Connect the boxes of the org chart to the governance bodies that function alongside or above them. Marketing and IT are departments. A steering committee or security council are not extra boxes in the hierarchy, but places where responsibility and decision-making come together.

• Make responsibilities explicit.
  A RACI matrix can help to establish per key activity or decision who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. Not to create a matrix for every detail, but to make the grey zones visible.

• Define consultation and escalation.
  Who discusses what at an operational level? What belongs in strategic consultation? When does a dossier go to a higher level? And what happens when a decision cannot be taken within the agreed level?

• Make mandates concrete.
  An org chart can show that someone is a manager. Governance makes clear what that manager is actually allowed to decide.

The organization that is nowhere on paper

Mind you, the work isn't done then. Because organizations develop an informal layer. Through experience, trust, expertise, reputation, relationships, and sometimes simply habit. Power resides in this informal layer. Not bad power. But power. Sometimes this informal organization is stronger than the formal one. During change, that difference becomes a lot clearer.

A reorganisation, merger, or digital transformation exposes where responsibilities no longer make sense. Where decisions get stuck. Where teams depend on people who officially stand nowhere in between. Where old habits clash with new expectations. Then the reflex is often to redraw the diagram.

But change does not only play out in structures. It plays out in behavior, expectations, interests, and relationships. In what people think is going to happen. In what they fear losing. In whom they trust. And also in the story that people tell each other about why this change is actually needed.

The story between the boxes

That story is often underestimated. Executive management speaks of transformation. Employees speak of a new system. A project team speaks of implementation. Customers perhaps mostly notice that processes are changing.

Everyone looks at the same change, but not necessarily at the same story. There lies an interesting layer of change marketing. Not: how do we get people on board? But rather: what story is the organization telling itself, what story is truly alive, and where is the difference?

So: draw that org chart. Make governance clear and establish responsibilities. Ensure that people know who decides and within what boundaries.

But also look at the lines that are not drawn. At the decisions that run differently than the diagram prescribes. At the people who have influence without a formal mandate. At the habits that turn out to be stronger than new processes. Because perhaps the most interesting question with an org chart is not: “Is this correct?” But rather: “Does it also work this way?” That is usually where the real conversation begins.