Org design isn’t an HR project. It’s a leadership responsibility, and most companies get it wrong.
The CEO called after a four-hour leadership meeting that went nowhere.
“We’ve tripled revenue in four years,” he said. “I’ve got great people, but decisions are slow, projects keep slipping, and everyone’s frustrated. Is this a people problem or an organizational issue?”
“Tell us how you’re defining roles in your company,” we said.
They gave us their documented job descriptions, but none defined the outcomes each role was responsible for. Every role was framed around activities, not results. And that’s where the breakdown started.
Most roles had been shaped by titles and task lists, not by the result areas they were meant to deliver. And when we looked at their org chart, it mirrored the same problem. Structure built around titles and responsibilities, not outcomes.
The people weren’t the problem. The design was.
They had scaled from $20 million to $60 million on the same structure, just with more volume, more pressure, and more friction. If your org chart needs a legend and someone to explain it, it’s not a design. It’s a maze.
Why Most Role Definitions Set You Up to Stall
Too many leadership teams treat organization design like a seating chart: move a person here, stretch someone’s span, change a few titles. That’s not design. That’s rearrangement.
Real design is about role clarity, ownership of outcomes, and speed of decision-making. When you keep adding headcount to yesterday’s structure, you don’t scale. You stall.
Here’s what it looks like when structure lags growth:
- Blurry roles: Job descriptions list tasks, not outcomes. Execution depends on guesswork and goodwill.
- Slow decisions: No one knows who owns the call. Everything gets stuck.
- Project drift: Too many people are involved but no one is truly accountable for delivery.
- Burnout at the top: Your best people spend more time compensating for unclear structure rather than leading real progress.
The common mistake is handing it off to HR and saying, “Fix this.” HR can support but defining roles and structure around outcomes is a leadership decision.
How to Redesign Roles Around Real Results
Instead of redrawing the org chart, we mapped roles to define four to six key result areas each person was accountable for. The org chart didn’t drive the changes. It reflected them.
We broke apart one overloaded VP of Operations role into distinct outcomes, each with clear accountability and decision rights.
Here are three of the result areas we defined for that role.
- Customer Fulfillment: owns the ship date, not just the schedule
- Inventory Health: owns the reorder point and product availability
- Supplier Performance: owns keep, coach, or replace decisions on vendors
No more “Let me check with three people.” Authority matched the outcome.
By week five, the old reflex crept in: “We should add a layer to keep an eye on this.” That’s how bloat begins. We held the line. Fewer layers. More clarity. Sharper ownership. It felt uncomfortable at first. It worked immediately.
Six months later, cycle times dropped. Projects moved. Customer issues got resolved. The executive team got their headspace back.
Less triage. More leadership.
Why Credentials Don’t Equal Capability
Even the right structure fails if the wrong people are in the seats.
You don’t need a title. You need the ability to deliver on outcomes. That means building roles around the results required today, not the activities inherited from yesterday.
Most teams overvalue credentials and underestimate capability. We flip that.
What matters is whether someone can own a result and move it forward.
Five Gut-Checks to Use Right Now
- Pick one role. Can you name four to six result areas it owns and the decisions tied to each? If not, the role isn’t designed for outcomes.
- Look at one project that’s stuck. Who owns the result? If you hear three names, you’ve got drift, not accountability.
- Open a job description. Is it a list of activities, or a clear contract for outcomes? Rewrite it until it becomes the latter. We believe there is a real difference between a traditional job description and a role definition.
- Choose one recurring decision. Who makes the call? Who needs to weigh in? If it takes more than two steps, it’s overengineered.
- Think about your best people. Are they leading or constantly stepping in to clean up unclear roles? If they’re doing both, structure is failing them.
What to Do Before You Touch the Org Chart
If you want to fix the structure, don’t start with the org chart. Start with the work itself.
Look at what each role is doing. Are those activities producing real, accountable outcomes or just motion?
You’ll spot the issues fast.
Work happening without a clear owner for the result
Decisions with plenty of input but no one accountable
Teams overloaded with tasks that don’t ladder up to outcomes
Then change the questions you’re asking.
From “Who reports to whom?” to “Who owns the result and what decisions do they control?”
From “What title do we need?” to “What capabilities does this seat need to deliver from day one?”
From “Should we add oversight?” to “How do we shorten the path to a clear yes or no?”
Structure isn’t there to describe activity. It’s there to produce results and make accountability unmissable.
The Payoff of Getting This Right
Structure either helps you move faster or slows you down. There’s no neutral.
If you don’t design for scale, your team will carry the burden and eventually, they’ll burn out or bail.
Start by evaluating the work as it’s happening. Redefine roles around outcomes, not task lists. Match authority to accountability. And when someone says, “Let’s add a layer to keep an eye on things,” stop and ask: What’s really missing, visibility or clarity?
Designing your organization isn’t paperwork. It’s leadership.
Do it right, and you won’t just reduce noise. You’ll make better decisions, move faster, and lead a team that knows their outcomes, owns their decisions, and drives results.
Sustained growth at any level demands more than hustle. It requires leaders to think differently, plan intentionally, and execute with clarity. And it always starts by redefining roles around outcomes and decision rights.
This story originally appeared in the Q1 2026 issue of Exhibit City News, p. 20. For original layout, visit WEB.
