Is Your Org Chart Killing Your Strategy? The Case for the “Operating Model”

A clear North Star gives people direction. Requirements and decision authority help them act. But there is another question to answer: Are we organized to deliver the outcome we want?

In business analysis, that means looking at the people involved, the work they do, and how their contributions connect. Who needs to do what, and what support do they need to do it well?

Imagine a soccer team where everyone wants to score but nobody agrees who will defend the goal. Players choose positions based on their own strengths, compete for the same opportunities, and leave important work uncovered. Shared enthusiasm does not replace coordination. The same can happen when an organization launches a strategy without considering how the work fits together.

An org chart shows reporting lines, not the whole picture

In my thirty-five years in financial services and technology delivery, I’ve seen familiar structures—branch managers, advisors, marketing, IT, and HR—remain in place while goals, technology, and client expectations change. Planning through each department’s lens can make it difficult to question whether the structure still supports the work.

In 2018, I sat down with three team members to whiteboard a “Digital First” strategy. We came up with good ideas, but kept encountering the same obstacles: similar capabilities split across portfolios, major processes divided among different leaders, and minor changes requiring agreement from several departments. Over time, that friction can discourage people from proposing improvements at all.

An organizational structure describes reporting relationships. An operating model describes how the organization delivers value: how work flows, how decisions are made, and how people, processes, and tools work together. Rearranging the reporting lines alone will not resolve those questions.

We realized we could not simply digitize the existing departmental boundaries. We needed to rethink the flow of work—and some of our assumptions about management.

Question the assumptions behind the boxes

The first assumption is that a manager must be the technical expert in everyone’s work. Progression is often imagined as becoming the boss of people doing your former job. But leading people and providing specialist guidance are different responsibilities. A strong reporting manager can support performance and development without being the deepest expert in every task.

The second is that the reporting manager must approve every decision. Their role includes workload, well-being, administration, and helping remove obstacles. That does not mean every choice should pass through them. Clear decision rights let people act within agreed authority and know when they need advice, coordination, or approval.

The third is that all guidance must come from one “boss.” Someone whose role covers several capabilities may need different sources of expertise: a lending coach for a complex loan, a technology coach for digital tools, or another specialist for a different part of the work. They can still have one reporting manager responsible for their overall support and development.

Multiple coaches should not mean competing instructions. Their responsibilities and decision rights need to be clear, with a way to resolve conflicting priorities and a shared understanding of the person’s workload. Specialist guidance works best when it supports the reporting relationship rather than leaving the employee to reconcile different demands alone.

The fourth assumption is that a generalist is always the most efficient choice. When a client’s needs require specialist knowledge, routing them through a generalist can create extra steps rather than save time. The client may have to repeat their story, provide information in several rounds, or wait while questions move between teams. A specialist can ask more informed questions at the outset, recognize relevant options, and guide the work with fewer handoffs. Generalists can handle straightforward requests and connect clients with the right expertise, but they should not become a mandatory stop that delays access to the person best equipped to help.

Start with the work, then design the support

These assumptions can keep organizations building departments around who knows what, rather than how clients experience the service. Challenging them is not a judgment on the people in those roles. It is a way to ask whether the model gives them what they need to succeed.

This is where business analysis can help. Bring together the people who understand the work, trace a client need through the process, and examine where responsibilities overlap, decisions stall, or expertise is missing. Distinguish a gap in the operating model from a performance issue before deciding what to change.

Then explore how capabilities, decision authority, reporting relationships, and specialist support could work together more effectively. Like positioning players on the field, the aim is to cover the whole outcome—not simply move the same boxes around.

In the next article, we’ll look at the capabilities that set direction, create client value, and support delivery, and how to use them as the starting point for designing an operating model.