Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

How to clarify roles when a reorganization creates overlap

Clarify overlapping roles by mapping the decisions and handoffs that the new organization must perform. Assign one accountable owner for each decision, name contributors, and specify escalation. Test the map with a real work item before assuming the organization chart has resolved the overlap.

Role ambiguity is uncertainty about what a position is expected to do. The APA’s 2018 role-ambiguity entry describes unclear or disputed behavioral expectations. In a reorganization, the practical question is who receives a request and who can authorize the response. Role conflict is different: the instructions may be clear but incompatible. A revised chart can therefore leave either an unanswered boundary or competing directions.

Map the customer exception that still reaches you

Composite scenario, not a client case: You answer another after-hours call from two leaders who both believe they own the same customer exception. At home, someone asks why the reorganization created more interruptions. The chart shows distinct departments, but nobody mapped the work crossing their boundary.

Take the after-hours dispute back to the customer request. Mark where each leader believed approval became theirs. Identify whether they were deciding the same question or different parts of it. A sales requirement and a delivery commitment may need a handoff rather than a contest for the entire relationship. Resolve that interface explicitly instead of asking the two leaders to cooperate more closely without changing their instructions.

Explain the allocation as well as drawing it

Colquitt’s 2001 study of organizational justice separates fairness of outcomes, procedures, treatment and explanations. When assigning an overlapping decision, explain the basis for the boundary and hear relevant operational evidence. Do not assume that a neat diagram makes an allocation acceptable or usable. The research does not determine which leader should own the decision, and it cannot certify an employment change implicit in a new responsibility.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, directs attention to expectations at the interface between roles. The decision-interface map is a proposed tool for that purpose. It specifies a request, its final decision owner and the contributions needed before a response. It is not a validated measure of organizational effectiveness. Judge it by whether the participants can use it on the work it describes.

Choose one overlap before redrawing the organization

The useful unit is a decision or handoff, not a box on the chart. Begin with the recurring overlap that prevents action and identify which authority can settle it.

Select a recurring boundary with an example both leaders recognize. Describe the request as the customer or internal requester sees it. List the information that must arrive before a commitment is made. Resist beginning with titles or broad functions such as customer success. Those labels can conceal several decisions that need different owners and different evidence at different points in the work.

Separate a recommendation, a required consultation and final approval. Ask each participant which of those they believe they hold. If all three remain described as ownership, rewrite the map. A contributor should know when their input is needed and how an unanswered concern is escalated. The final owner should know what they can decide after hearing the evidence, even if the contributors still disagree.

Use the restructuring decision-interface map

  1. Select the disputed work. Choose an actual request that crossed the reorganized boundary. Describe its starting point, required response and consequence of delay. Ask both leaders to show where they believed their authority began. Distinguish different decisions within the request before choosing an owner. Do not map an entire department in abstract terms when the immediate problem is one recurring customer exception that nobody can complete without another private conversation.

  2. Assign the decision owner. Have the authorized executive confirm one role with final responsibility for the specific decision. Check that the role has the relevant authority and access. State which decisions remain elsewhere. Explain the allocation to affected leaders using the work requirement rather than a declaration about status. If authority is disputed at a higher level, resolve that dispute before directing employees to rely on the map.

  3. Specify contributors and inputs. Name the evidence required from each contributor and the point at which it is needed. Mark consultation distinctly from approval. Ask what happens if information is missing or a material concern remains unanswered. Keep the requirement proportionate to the decision. Copying more people into a request should not quietly add approval rights, and removing a name should not erase an essential source of operating information.

  4. Rehearse a real handoff. Walk the selected request from entry to response with the participants who perform the work. Check how the owner knows the inputs are complete and how the requester receives the decision. Include a plausible exception that crosses the boundary. Record missing information or conflicting instructions. Amend the map before asking teams to treat the diagram as proof that the practical handoff now works.

  5. Set review and escalation. Identify the person who can settle an unresolved boundary and the evidence they need. Agree when actual cases will be reviewed. Replace obsolete instructions once the map is approved. If the arrangement fails on a new class of request, describe that class before changing the whole allocation. Keep a versioned account of the decision boundary so future employees do not reconstruct it from conflicting messages.

For an urgent request arriving before the map is settled, use the organization’s authorized exception route. Record which boundary required intervention. After the case, decide whether to clarify the map or retain that category for escalation. Do not let the fastest private answer become a second approval system. Tell the participants which instruction they should follow for the next comparable request.

Give each participant a different, explicit instruction

Use this proposed statement with the actual decision and contributor inputs named. Follow it with a worked request so the participants can test what the words permit.

For this decision, this role owns the outcome. These colleagues provide the specified inputs. If the boundary fails in a real case, bring the case to this review instead of creating another private approval route.

Ask the request originator where they would send the case, the contributor what they must supply and the owner what they may approve. If any answer conflicts, locate the precise point of disagreement. Do not settle it by adding everyone to every approval. Revise the decision boundary or the input requirement so the handoff has a clear completion condition.

Separate the buyer requirement from the delivery promise

Hypothetical application: A sales leader and service leader each approve implementation promises. The interface map gives the delivery commitment to a named operating owner, with sales supplying buyer requirements before confirmation. The team tests an unusual request before extending the arrangement.

In the sales-and-service hypothetical, inspect a request that stretches normal delivery. Sales records what the buyer needs; the operating owner determines the commitment within their authority. Identify which facts must be confirmed before the customer receives an answer. If the request changes contractual terms, use the approved specialist route. The interface map should point to that boundary rather than imply that naming an operating owner grants unlimited authority.

Publish the working boundary at the right level

Give teams the decision map and the route for an exception. Keep private discussions about a leader’s future or capability outside that document. If the allocation changes actual role or employment terms, obtain the appropriate review before describing it as settled. Check that the announcement and the operating map use the same authority boundary. A public chart should not promise a responsibility the underlying approval has not granted.

Do not use consensus to avoid allocating authority

Do not assign ownership without authority or access. Avoid requiring consensus on every case when the purpose is to resolve overlap. Send actual role or employment changes to the appropriate advisers.

Send consequential employment or governance changes to the qualified advisers responsible for them. This mapping exercise does not establish what can be reassigned legally. Within the approved arrangement, distinguish an obligation to obtain evidence from an obligation to secure unanimous support. If every participant retains an unstated veto, the map has not resolved the original overlap, however clear its labels appear.

Inspect the handoffs the map was built to improve

Review a sample of decisions for delay, conflicting instructions, and unmet dependencies. Ask whether the named owner could act without returning to the CEO for the same boundary dispute.

Review several completed requests at the disputed interface. Find out whether the owner received the required input before deciding, whether duplicate approvals remained and whether a case returned to the CEO. Compare those observations with the mapped route. Where a contributor was late, identify the cause before removing a necessary consultation. Where an owner could not act, resolve the authority gap rather than adding a reminder to the diagram.

Ask people who originate requests which instruction they still find ambiguous. Look for older forms or manager messages directing work elsewhere. Correct those entry points as well as the central map. Also inspect rejected requests: an apparently quiet interface may be one that staff avoid because they cannot work out the route. Keep those cases available to the review instead of measuring success only through approvals that completed.

Vroom and Jago’s 2007 discussion of situational leadership makes situational conditions relevant to leadership. Use that perspective to examine which information a particular decision requires and who can obtain it. Do not infer that one allocation pattern fits every interface. A customer exception and a strategic investment can require different participation even when the same executives are involved.

Connect the boundary to workload and the wider transition

Use decision escalation thresholds for exceptions. If the new allocation overloads the continuing team, follow the workload reset. Align the working instructions with the reorganization announcement. The exit and restructuring playbook addresses the larger change; this map should remain focused on the recurring decisions crossing the new boundaries.

Retain the map while it gives request originators, contributors and the decision owner the same usable account of the handoff. Revise it when a real case exposes an omitted category. The result you need is a decision carried through the approved route, rather than a document showing that the leaders once discussed their overlap.

Sources

Steady at the Top