--- title: "Build #118 – Your org chart is a hope (not a map)" url: https://www.simonwakeman.com/blog/2026/11/11/build-118-your-org-chart-is-a-hope-not-a-map/ description: "Your org chart shows where you'd like authority to sit, not how decisions really flow. How founders can map the gap before they restructure anything." published: 2026-11-11T07:00:00+00:00 modified: 2026-11-11T07:00:00+00:00 author: Simon Wakeman --- # Build #118 – Your org chart is a hope (not a map) ![A telegraph pole with a tangle of black cables running off in every direction](https://www.simonwakeman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/rWgPHUJ4L0E.jpg) ## Build #118 – Your org chart is a hope (not a map) We spend a lot of time looking at org charts in leadership teams. This is usually when something isn’t working and someone suggests moving the boxes around. It seems to be a deeply satisfying way for many founders to avoid engaging in deeper reflections about what’s working and what’s not. It’s an interesting tell when I first meet a founder and ask an open question like “tell me about your business”. If the first thing they do is talk about who reports to who, rather than their proposition or customers, I learn a lot from that. Most founders I work with can draw their org chart from memory. It’s usually quite tidy with nice clear lines up to the leadership team and a sensible number of people under each manager. Sometimes it might have a dotted line or two where there’s been a bit of a political trade-off or a fudge around a difficult conversation. Once I’ve seen an org chart I usually then ask who people actually go to when they need a decision made. And the answer often looks nothing like the chart that’s just been talked through. **The org chart shows what you’d like to be true** Rishad Tobaccowala wrote a piece recently called [Rethinking Organizational Design](https://rishad.substack.com/p/rethinking-organizational-design) that put this better than I have. His point is that an org chart shows how leaders want the company to run which isn’t always how it runs in practice. That reflects my experience closely. He also makes a distinction I’ve found really useful since: that org charts record “zones of control rather than zones of influence”. They show who manages who and who owns what budget. They don’t show who people trust, who knows how things really work or whose opinion settles an argument. In a small business those two things are really close together. Everyone sits near the founder and the founder knows where everything is. As the business grows though these things start to drift apart. And the gap between them is where a lot of the problems I’m asked to look at come from. **Where the real decisions go** The pattern I see most often is one person who sits outside the lines on the chart but inside most of the decisions. It’s often someone who has been there a long time. They know the history, the clients and all the workarounds. New managers learn quickly that the safest thing to do is to check with them first. I bet you’re thinking of a person in your business that fits the bill for this right now. None of this is a criticism of that person. Usually they’re a big part of what keeps things running and they didn’t ask to be “that person”. But it does mean the chart is giving the founder a false picture. For example the newly hired head of operations has the title and the team but the meaningful decisions still go somewhere else. **Why redrawing the boxes doesn’t fix it** When things start to feel slow or muddled, the obvious move is a restructure. New boxes, new reporting lines and a big unveil at an all-hands meeting to explain it all. The trouble is that a restructure only changes the zones of control. If the real problem is that nobody knows who decides what or that the real influence has quietly gathered around one or two people, new boxes leave that exactly where it was. To be honest I’ve been part of restructures like this in previous permanent roles. Senior people spent weeks on the new chart and very little time on how decisions would actually get made under it. A few months later the same people were being asked the same questions. So before you redraw anything it’s worth finding out where the gap between the chart and reality actually is. **What I’d suggest founders try** A few things I’ve learnt through my consultancy work that are effective: - **Ask where decisions really go.** Pick five or six recent decisions that mattered and trace who was involved, who was consulted and who actually made the call. Do it with the people involved rather than from memory because as a founder your view from the top is usually the tidiest one. - **Ask people who they go to.** A short question in 1:1s works well: when you’re stuck, who do you ask? Write the names down. The same few will come up again and again and they won’t all be on your leadership team. - **Map influence next to the chart, not instead of it.** Draw the lines people described over the top of your current chart. The places where they cross the reporting lines are the ones worth talking about. If it’s a full-on spaghetti mess of lines, that’s a sign to pay attention to. - **Talk to the people at the centre.** If one person turns up in most of the lines, have an open conversation with them about it. They may be glad to give some of it away or they may need the role recognised properly. - **Only then decide what to change on the org chart.** Sometimes the answer is a new structure. More often I find it’s being clear about who decides what and writing it down (see last week’s issue). **This week’s reflection points** As usual here are three things I think it’s worth taking a few minutes to ponder this week: - If you drew the lines of influence in your business today, where would they cross your org chart? - Who do people check with before they check with you? - Is the restructure you’ve been thinking about fixing the boxes or the decisions? The chart is worth having. Just remember it isn’t the whole picture. Have a good week.