Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Do you need a reorganization or a better leadership team?

You need a reorganization when the structure repeatedly prevents capable people from making and carrying out necessary decisions. You need a leadership intervention when people already have workable authority but avoid decisions, ignore evidence, or fail to manage performance. Trace a real execution failure before deciding which explanation fits.

An execution failure trace is a working diagnostic that follows a missed commitment through its decisions, handoffs, and authority boundaries. It draws on Daft and Lengel’s (1986) distinction between missing information and unclear interpretation in organizational information processing. It is an applied management method, not a validated assessment instrument.

A new organization chart can clarify authority. It cannot establish that the person holding that authority will use it well. Conversely, replacing a leader will not repair contradictory mandates that would obstruct the replacement too. Your diagnosis needs evidence about the work and the behavior.

Bring industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, into the diagnosis of the missed commitment. Compare the authority available with the behavior observed before deciding that the reporting structure needs replacement.

Define the competing explanations

A structural constraint exists when the formal arrangement makes a necessary action difficult even when people perform their roles competently. Two units may control different resources required for one outcome, with no accepted mechanism for resolving the conflict. The problem repeats because the arrangement recreates it.

A leadership behavior problem exists when a person fails to do something the role can reasonably require. A leader might repeatedly postpone a documented decision or override an agreed boundary without explaining why. Describe the behavior rather than assigning a personality label.

Many situations contain both. A confusing structure can shelter weak behavior. A strong leader can temporarily compensate for a poor structure. The question is which change addresses the actual constraint without creating unnecessary disruption elsewhere.

Use How to assess the executive team you have inherited to assess inherited executives against role expectations. Do not infer capability from whether someone agrees with your preferred organization chart. Disagreement may contain operating knowledge you need to hear before choosing the design.

The execution failure trace method

1. Select a concrete missed commitment

Choose an event with a visible outcome: a late release, lost renewal, unresolved customer exception, or decision that stalled between functions. State what should have happened and what happened instead. Avoid starting with a broad judgment that the organization lacks accountability.

Collect the underlying timeline. Identify the request, the evidence available, the decision date, the handoff, and the point of delay. Use maintained records where possible. Distinguish contemporaneous evidence from recollection after the outcome became known.

Ask each participant to describe their own part before discussing blame. “What decision were you waiting for?” usually yields more useful evidence than “Who caused this?” Keep contradictory accounts visible until you can reconcile them.

One event can generate a hypothesis. It should not automatically justify a company-wide redesign. Compare the trace with other relevant events before deciding that a local failure represents the operating model.

2. Identify the decision the work required

Describe the choice in plain terms. For example, the company needed to decide whether to accept a margin exception to protect a customer renewal. The sales team and finance team both participating does not explain who could make that decision.

Find the stated authority at the time. Check role documents, approval policies, and prior decisions. If the documents conflict, record the conflict. Do not judge the participants against a boundary that leadership clarified only afterward.

Then ask whether the necessary information was available. Missing cost data requires a different intervention from two leaders interpreting the same risk differently. A redesign may be premature when the real issue is a missing operating measure.

Keep the consequence visible. An ambiguous decision matters because it interrupts work, adds risk, or displaces capacity. The trace should connect the authority problem to a business outcome rather than catalog every imperfection in the chart.

3. Test authority against observed behavior

If authority was clear, examine what the owner did with it. Did the owner decide within the expected period? Ask for required evidence? Explain a deferral? Escalate a conflict through the agreed route? These are behaviors you can discuss directly.

If authority was unclear, ask whether a reasonable person could have resolved the conflict through the existing process. A documented escalation route that nobody used presents a different problem from an escalation route that ends in another unresolved committee.

Ask the counterfactual carefully: “Would another qualified person, under the same rules and with the same information, likely face this obstacle?” Treat the answer as a hypothesis to test. It is not a license to assume your preferred replacement would succeed.

Consult Morrison’s 2014 review on employee voice when deciding how people at the failed handoff can challenge the structural explanation preferred by senior leaders. Include people close to the failure. Senior agreement is insufficient when frontline evidence contradicts it.

4. Run the smallest credible intervention

For a suspected structural constraint, clarify a decision owner and an escalation threshold for one workstream. Keep the scope bounded. Observe whether the same capable people can now make the work move without repeated executive rescue.

For a suspected leadership problem, set explicit behavioral expectations within the existing role. State the decision cadence, evidence standard, and follow-through required. Provide the support and feedback needed to make the expectation fair and usable.

Do not confuse a trial with an undisclosed personnel process. Employment counsel and the appropriate people function should advise where role changes, performance management, or employment decisions are involved. This is general management guidance, not legal advice.

Use Should you reduce an executive’s role instead of firing them? when a role needs redesign. A demotion, narrower mandate, or revised authority requires a clear rationale and proper process. Moving a difficult leader to another box without changing expectations merely relocates the problem.

5. Review the result before scaling

Compare the next relevant events with the original trace. Look for fewer unresolved decisions, clearer ownership, and less intervention from you. Check whether improvement in one function created an unowned problem in another.

If the structural trial works while leadership behavior remains stable, you have evidence supporting a broader design change. If the clarified role still produces avoidable delay, examine capability, willingness, and management follow-through more directly.

If both interventions are required, sequence them explicitly. Do not sell the entire outcome as the benefit of the chart. Explain which constraint the structure addresses and which expectations leadership must still meet.

Set a point at which temporary arrangements become permanent or end. An indefinite experiment can produce the same confusion as an incomplete reorganization. The final decision should record the evidence, remaining uncertainty, and owner of the next review.

A hypothetical failure with two explanations

A product launch misses its date. The commercial leader says engineering refuses to prioritize customer needs. Engineering says sales keeps promising changes. The CEO proposes merging both teams under one executive.

The trace reveals that nobody had authority to freeze scope after a customer demonstration. It also reveals that one executive repeatedly accepted new commitments without informing the project owner. The structure and the behavior both matter.

The bounded intervention assigns one launch owner authority over scope changes, subject to a defined escalation. Separately, the executive must record and route commitments before offering dates. The next launch provides evidence about whether those changes work.

A merger may still be justified later. The trace prevents it from becoming the first explanation merely because it is visible and decisive. You now know what any proposed structure must accomplish and what behavior remains unacceptable inside it.

The private-life composite

A founder spends a weekend drawing reporting lines at the kitchen table. Their partner asks whether the new boxes solve the missed promises that kept interrupting the previous holiday. The founder realizes the same unresolved approval appears in every version.

This composite illustrates a recognizable form of executive pressure. Redesigning the chart offers a concrete activity while the harder conversation remains pending. The useful response is to identify the disputed decision and test its ownership.

If pressure around the recurring failure is accompanied by persistent symptoms or disruption of daily life, seek a licensed clinician while the operating diagnosis proceeds through work evidence. The business diagnosis should stay focused on observable work, role expectations, and evidence. You do not need to label yourself or your executives to address a repeated failure.

Make the eventual change explainable

If you reorganize, prepare What employees need answered in a reorganization message around the problem the design is meant to solve. Employees should be able to identify the new decision owner and the practical difference in their work. A statement about agility does not establish either.

Read Kramer’s 1999 review on organizational trust before framing the redesign as a solution; the proposed operating test should state what the changed reporting line is expected to resolve. In this decision, avoid implying that reporting lines alone guarantee better leadership. State the operating test and return with the evidence.

Keep How to lead executive exits and restructuring with care as the broader reference for executive exits and restructuring. A trace can support several outcomes: a targeted authority change, a management intervention, a role redesign, or a larger reorganization. Its purpose is to make the choice proportionate to the cause.

Before signing the chart, complete this sentence: “This arrangement changes who can decide this recurring issue, and we will know it helped when this observable bottleneck improves.” If you cannot complete it, continue the diagnosis before moving people.

Preserve the diagnostic record

Keep the original timeline after the intervention. Otherwise, the explanation can drift toward whichever change leadership later prefers. Record which evidence supported a structural constraint and which evidence concerned a leader’s behavior. The distinction will matter when you evaluate the result.

Ask a colleague who did not sponsor the proposed redesign to examine the trace. Give that person permission to identify evidence against your hypothesis. A useful challenge might show that the alleged structural conflict occurred only after an executive ignored an existing decision rule.

Also record what the trace cannot establish. A narrow trial may reveal one workable decision boundary without proving that the whole company should adopt the same arrangement. Scale the conclusion to the evidence you have.

Sources

Steady at the Top