By Rick Rittmaster | Principal, Leadership Solutions at Strategic Talent Partners
Most leadership teams have a clear picture of where they want the business to go. What is often less clear is what the organization will need to look like if those plans succeed.
Who will lead the work? Which roles will need to change? Where will another layer of management be required? And what responsibilities should no longer depend on the Owner, CEO, or other high-level leaders? Can we do it?
An Org Chart of the Future helps leadership teams work through those questions before the current structure begins to strain.
The goal is not to predict every title or reporting relationship three to five years from now. It is to understand how growth may change the organization and whether the people, roles, and leadership capacity needed to support that growth will be in place.
As leadership teams begin designing that future structure, three challenges tend to surface most often.
Challenge #1: The Growth Dilemma
Growing companies need to move quickly.
People pitch in, take on responsibilities outside their roles, and help wherever the business needs them. That flexibility can be one of the company’s greatest strengths, especially in its earlier stages.
But over time, the lines between roles can become less clear.
The Owner or CEO (or other high-level leaders depending on the size of the organization) may still be shaping sales strategy, stepping into operations, or driving marketing initiatives while other leaders manage the day-to-day work in those functions.
This is not always a sign that the leadership team is underperforming. Often, the company has simply grown faster than its roles and responsibilities have evolved. The Owner remains involved in too many areas, while other leaders are accountable for results without having full ownership of the work that produces them.
We refer to this as the Growth Dilemma. And while it is easy to see at the top of the organization, the same pattern can happen at every level. Managers may also hold on to decisions or responsibilities their teams will eventually need to own.
How to Avoid It
Succession planning is one of the best ways to address the Growth Dilemma, but it should be viewed as more than deciding who might replace someone someday.
It is also about building enough leadership depth that responsibilities can move through the organization as roles expand.
Which decisions should remain with the Owner or CEO? What can begin moving to another leader? What will each role need to own three to five years from now?
Those questions help identify where an internal leader may need development, where the scope of a role needs to be clarified, and where outside experience may eventually be necessary.
The earlier those needs become clear, the more intentionally the company can prepare.
Challenge #2: Incremental Additions
Most companies do not set out to build a structure that is difficult to manage. They arrive there through a series of practical decisions.
A team becomes busy, so another employee is added. A manager takes on a few more direct reports. A strong employee is promoted to help supervise the workload.
Each decision may solve an immediate problem. But eventually, adding one or two more people to the same structure stops working.
A manager who once led five people may now lead 10 or 12. A department may have added locations, services, or customers without adding the capacity needed to support them. Communication becomes more difficult, decisions slow down, and leaders become consumed by daily issues.
At that point, the issue is no longer headcount. It’s that the structure itself may no longer fit the business.
This leads to one of the most useful questions a leadership team can ask: At what point will our current organizational structure break?
There may not be one exact answer. But growing spans of control, unclear responsibilities, and increasing strain on leaders are all signs that the organization may be reaching its limit.
How to Avoid It
Avoiding incremental additions requires leaders to look beyond how many employees the company expects to add and consider how the business itself will change.
Will the company operate in multiple regions? Add a service line? Acquire another business? Introduce more specialized departments, shifts, facilities, or customer groups?
Those changes may require new reporting relationships, another layer of management, or a different type of leader altogether.
The timing of leadership hires also matters.
Companies sometimes build out a team and wait to add the leader until the function becomes large enough. In some situations, that makes sense. In others, bringing the leader in earlier allows that person to shape the function, define roles, establish processes, and build the team they will eventually lead.
The right timing will vary. But it should be based on the future structure – not only where the workload is highest today.
Challenge #3: Flat Leadership
Even a well-designed structure will struggle if the leaders within it are not prepared to operate differently as the organization grows.
Growing companies often promote strong technical experts into management. That is usually a reasonable decision. These individuals know the work, have earned credibility, and can quickly identify what is going well and what needs attention.
As the role expands, however, the leader may need to move from managing employees to managing other managers, influencing across functions, developing successors, and guiding work outside their own expertise.
Some leaders make that transition successfully. Others continue leading primarily by being the expert. We refer to this as Flat Leadership.
To be clear, flat leadership is not bad leadership. Flat leaders are often experienced, committed, and highly valuable to the company. But they may rely heavily on what has worked before, avoid uncertainty, or stay involved in too many decisions.
Over time, they can become a bottleneck for the people around them and limit the company’s ability to build leadership capacity.
How to Avoid It
The first step is to treat leadership as its own skill set.
What do you expect from someone who leads individual employees? How should those expectations change when the person begins leading other managers, a function, or the enterprise?
Defining those expectations gives leaders a clearer picture of what the next level will require and allows the company to identify where development is needed.
Consistent management processes help reinforce those skills. Goal setting, coaching, feedback, and performance evaluation create regular opportunities for leaders to set expectations, develop people, and hold teams accountable.
These processes can sometimes feel like bureaucracy, especially in a company that has historically operated more informally. But as the organization grows, they become the habits that help leaders lead consistently and effectively.
Plan for the Organization You Will Need
An Org Chart of the Future will not predict every change the company will experience. Markets shift, opportunities emerge, and timelines change.
Its value comes from helping the leadership team see where responsibilities may need to move, where the structure is likely to strain, and which roles will require new capabilities.
Answering those questions early gives the company more options. Leaders can be developed before their roles expand, key hires can be made before the need becomes urgent, and the structure can evolve before it becomes a barrier to growth.
Your business strategy explains where the company is going. Your Org Chart of the Future helps determine whether the organization will be ready when it gets there.
Explore These Ideas Further
STP Co-Founder Mary Nutting and I explored these challenges in greater depth during our webinar, “The Importance of a Strategic Talent Structure.”
Access the full recording and download the Creating a Strategic Talent Structure Worksheet below to help your leadership team identify the roles, capabilities, and structure your future business may require.
