Skip to main content

The (non) sense of organization charts

Today while explaining my son how our heating system works, it brought me back to my earlier post about organization charts. Same as in heating system where you have a heating loop and a control loop, 2 loops exist in every organization. The first is formal and visible—it's drawn out in neat boxes and lines as your organizational chart, showing who reports to whom and where decisions get made. The second is informal and largely invisible—it's the actual pathways through which information, ideas, and real work flow to get things done.

The two flows of organizational systems

When we apply systems thinking to organizations, we can identify two critical flows that determine how effectively an organization functions:

Control flow represents the formal authority structure—who has decision-making power, who approves what, and how accountability flows up and down the hierarchy. This is what your org chart captures beautifully with its clean boxes and reporting lines.

Information flow represents how knowledge, data, feedback, and insights actually need to move through the organization to solve problems, serve customers, and create value. This flow rarely follows the neat hierarchical paths shown on org charts.

The fundamental challenge is that most organizations optimize for control flow while inadvertently constraining information flow. They create clear reporting structures but force critical information to take circuitous routes through multiple layers of management, creating bottlenecks, delays, and distortion.

The real-world impact

Consider a typical software company where a customer reports a critical bug. The information flow that would solve this problem fastest might look like:

 

But the control flow shown on the org chart might require:

 

Each additional step in this chain introduces delay, potential for miscommunication, and often dilution of the original problem's urgency and context.

The shadow networks

In healthy organizations, informal networks emerge to route around these structural impediments. The support representative develops a direct relationship with a developer who can quickly assess technical issues. The product manager maintains back-channel communications with key customers. Cross-functional teams form organically to tackle complex problems.

These shadow networks are often what make organizations actually work, despite their formal structures. They represent the organization's natural tendency to optimize for information flow even when the formal structure optimizes for control flow.

When control flow dominates

Organizations that rigidly enforce their hierarchical information paths often exhibit predictable symptoms:

  • Slow response times to customer issues or market changes
  • Repeated escalations of simple problems
  • "Telephone game" distortion where information changes as it passes through layers
  • Frustrated employees who know exactly who can help but can't reach them directly
  • Innovation that gets stuck in approval chains rather than rapid iteration cycles

The irony is that by trying to maintain tight control over information flow, these organizations often lose the very thing they're trying to achieve: effective oversight and accountability.

Designing for both flows

The most effective organizations recognize that you need both clear control structures and efficient information pathways. They maintain accountability and decision-making clarity while enabling information to flow along paths of least resistance and maximum value. If your organizational design forces critical information through unnecessary checkpoints and delays, you're essentially building slower reflexes into your system.

The goal isn't to eliminate hierarchy or control structures—these serve important functions in maintaining alignment, accountability, and strategic direction. The goal is to design organizations that excel at both control and information flow, recognizing that these are complementary rather than competing needs.

Moving forward

The next time you look at your organization chart, ask yourself: If information flowed exactly along these lines, how long would it take to solve your customers' most common problems? How many critical insights would get lost or delayed in translation? How much innovation would get stuck in approval bottlenecks?

Your org chart tells you how authority flows through your organization. But understanding how information actually needs to flow—and designing systems that enable rather than constrain that flow—might be the key to unlocking your organization's true potential.

Popular posts from this blog

Azure DevOps/ GitHub emoji

I’m really bad at remembering emoji’s. So here is cheat sheet with all emoji’s that can be used in tools that support the github emoji markdown markup: All credits go to rcaviers who created this list.

Kubernetes–Limit your environmental impact

Reducing the carbon footprint and CO2 emission of our (cloud) workloads, is a responsibility of all of us. If you are running a Kubernetes cluster, have a look at Kube-Green . kube-green is a simple Kubernetes operator that automatically shuts down (some of) your pods when you don't need them. A single pod produces about 11 Kg CO2eq per year( here the calculation). Reason enough to give it a try! Installing kube-green in your cluster The easiest way to install the operator in your cluster is through kubectl. We first need to install a cert-manager: kubectl apply -f https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/releases/download/v1.14.5/cert-manager.yaml Remark: Wait a minute before you continue as it can take some time before the cert-manager is up & running inside your cluster. Now we can install the kube-green operator: kubectl apply -f https://github.com/kube-green/kube-green/releases/latest/download/kube-green.yaml Now in the namespace where we want t...

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...