Then success demands playing to a different genre. Nimble competitors adapt to the new rhythm while the organisation struggles to keep time.

Someone concludes, “Our structure is the problem.”

A restructuring exercise begins. Boxes move. Titles change. Reporting lines are redrawn.

Six months later, competitors continue to gain market share. People still look for approvals for routine decisions. Functions still blame each other when work stalls.

The chart changed. The flow didn’t.

In reality, structure only defines reporting relationships. Every organisation has another, less visible structure—the network through which work, decisions, information and influence actually move.

Customers, products, projects and problems rarely stay within teams. They move across functions, geographies and expertise.

The more interconnected the work becomes, the less the org chart explains how things actually get done.

The real challenges usually appear when

• information doesn’t move
• decisions climb unnecessarily
• teams optimise locally
• dependencies fall between the teams

A flat structure doesn’t automatically create autonomy. A hierarchy doesn’t automatically create bureaucracy

What matters is whether the people closest to the work have enough context, trust and authority to keep it moving.

That is exactly what Alan Mulally recognised when he took charge of Ford Motor Company in 2006. Over time, regions, functions and product platforms had evolved into separate systems, each optimising its own priorities instead of the company’s overall performance.

Through the One Ford initiative, he focused on creating shared visibility, common operating reviews and a single operating rhythm across the organisation. Teams could see how their decisions affected others, making it easier to collaborate across functions rather than operate within silos.

The breakthrough came not from redrawing the organisation chart, but from reconnecting the organisation behind it.

Draw the work flow. Map who works with whom, not who reports to whom

To start with, pick one important customer escalation, project or decision.

Map:

1. Which teams touch it?
2. Where does it slow down?
3. Where does it get escalated?
4. Who influences the outcome without formally owning it?

Then ask:

If there was no org chart, how would teams work to actually get things done and create value?

Identify a bottleneck that creates friction. Then ask what would remove it instead of who owns it.

No sweeping restructuring discussion. Just removing friction, one at a time.

Curious about this nudge and want to know more about how you can implement this?

Write to us, and we will connect

More from our “Nudge” series

From our “Impact Stories” section

Everyone else knows only their piece of the work.

• Sales chases revenue.
• Operations cuts costs.
• Teams ask for budgets.

Managers approve or reject.

Decisions get made with incomplete context. The business becomes a black box.

Employees obey, not own.
Leaders wonder why ownership is missing.
 

When people don’t understand how the business works, they optimise for their own department. Not for the company.
– A discount that helps sales may destroy margin.
– A cost-saving measure may hurt customer retention.
– An approved expense may create more value than the money it costs.

Without visibility, people guess.
Organizations that promote information transparency work differently.

They treat financial information as operational information. Not executive information.

When people understand revenue, margins and costs, decisions improve.

Not because they become accountants.
Because they finally understand the consequences of their choices.

It started off with founder Jack Stack focusing on building ownership.

Not through equity grants but through ownership of decisions.

He started with sharing financial information with employees.

Many thought it was dangerous. Why would you give everyone access to the numbers? What if they misuse it?

Over time, employees learned how the business made money and how their choices affected results. They stopped acting like employees. They started thinking like “entrepreneurs”.

But the breakthrough wasn’t transparency alone. It was teaching people how to understand the numbers.

Because a profit-and-loss statement nobody understands is just another document. A profit-and-loss statement that people can interpret becomes a decision-making tool.

Forty years later, the practice is still central to how the company operates. Now, people weren’t being asked to think like owners. They already are.

Run a Business Literacy Hour once a month.
For 60 minutes, open the books.

Explain:

• Revenue
• Gross Margin
• Profit
• Major cost drivers
• Cash flow basics

Keep it simple.

No finance jargon. No PowerPoint marathons.

Use real company numbers.

Invite questions. Especially the uncomfortable ones.

Curious about this nudge and want to know more about how you can implement this?

Write to us, and we will connect

More from our “Nudge” series

From our “Impact Stories” section

The meeting went well. All onboard. Everyone nodded.

It felt smooth—almost too smooth.

You walk out thinking: We’re aligned. This should move now.

A week later, people have moved ahead
—just in different directions.

So you call another meeting—to realign.

• Based on their context
• Their pressures
• Their incentives

Because people don’t execute a strategy. They execute what works for them

In many teams, conflict doesn’t show up early
—it shows up late, and personal.

The HBR article, “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight” highlights a pattern: [Link to the article in the sidebar ->]

• Teams often agree on the surface
• But don’t surface underlying tensions early
• So disagreements turn into politics later

In one case:

• Leaders debated only a narrow set of options
• Individuals became attached to their positions
• Conflict turned personal
• One executive quit, others disengaged.

Contrast that with teams that:

• Make trade-offs explicit early
• Acknowledge different viewpoints upfront

They argue—but around the work, not with each other.

Do a “What’s In It For Me?” round before closing any key discussion: Each person answers 3 questions:

• What do I gain if this works?
• What do I lose if this works?
• What am I tempted to protect?

Curious about this nudge and want to know more about how you can implement this?

Write to us, and we will connect

More from our “Nudge” series

From our “Impact Stories” section