Quite a few of the leaders I’m working with are in the midst of implementing new structures in their teams or organisations. A common theme that’s emerging is the immense pressure to get the structure just right. There’s often a sense that you only have one shot, and that the structure must land perfectly from the get-go.
But here’s an idea I explored with one of the leaders: What if we approached structure differently? Instead of striving to create the perfect structure, what if we embraced a temporary structure—one that fits the current moment and can evolve as needed?
By thinking of structure as fluid rather than fixed, we might avoid overcomplicating things and instead create something more adaptable, more responsive to the actual needs of the business as they unfold.
I get that this is potentially disastrous in some people’s minds – makes me nervous in writing about it given the potential pushback from some leaders. So what are the pros and cons of such an approach? On one hand, it offers flexibility and the ability to pivot as the organization grows and changes. On the other, it might lead to a lack of stability or clarity for teams navigating these shifts oh and a whole lot of paperwork if you’re systemically not geared for flexibility.
My sense is that what makes this approach possible is the culture you focus on creating before you begin thinking about restructuring. Every team and business is different so agility and flexibility and the ability to experiment, shape and reshape will land differently. Keeping focussed on the vision and ensuring everyone is clear on what they’re aiming for and what’s required of them is critical to this conversation too.
Food for thought and I’d love to hear what you see as the potential benefits or drawbacks of adopting a more flexible, evolving approach to organisational structure.