The Illusion of Structure

Every company has two org charts: the one they publish and the one they use. One has pretty boxes, the other lives in backchannels: DMs, knowing glances, side chats after meetings. It's built from smirks, nudges, whispered warnings, and late-night 'quick calls.'

This ghost org tells you everything the official chart won't: who to trust, who to avoid, who seems helpful at first but quietly blocks progress. Because org charts look clean. Rational. Like they could hold the weight of a real company. But an org chart rarely survives contact with how actual work has to get done.

You don’t see who holds influence or where the friction lives, or where quiet power hides: close to the chest, carefully defended. There’s no chart for who persuades best, who actually motivates teams, or who quietly shapes outcomes from three layers deep.

The real org? It’s invisible. It moves in the gaps.

Reorg Theater

Reorgs try to pull what's happening in those gaps into the light. Most reorgs aren't about solving. They're about soothing chaos that escaped the chart: conflict, confusion, frictions that no longer fit inside the lines. So we have to redraw the lines. The chart shifts, and it feels like action.

Reorgs are set changes, not plot changes. The actors stay the same. So does the conflict.

The mess doesn't disappear; it gets compressed, renamed, boxed for a while. What you get is temporary calm. But it’s theater, dressed as progress. A new chart with the same currents underneath: still pulling, still misaligned, still unsolved.

What Doesn’t Show Up in the Boxes

Org charts tell you who signs the review and who approves the expense and who’s technically accountable. But they don’t tell you who sets the direction or who people really trust, or who gets looped in late but still ends up saving the project.

What’s missing?

• No line for who actually unblocks work
• No asterisk next to the manager who hoards decisions out of insecurity
• No shading for the glue person — the one everyone depends on, but no one formally recognizes
• No marker for the black hole where decisions vanish
• No annotation for roles performed unofficially, unpaid, but essential

The Ghost Org Roles (Never Listed):

• The Real Decider: Not the person whose title says "Head of," but the one everyone checks with first. Often two to three levels down, holds no formal authority, but somehow shapes every major choice.
• The Translator: Speaks both "engineering" and "business," becomes the human API between departments that can't communicate directly.
• The Unblockifier: Has no budget, no team, little to no official power. But when something's stuck, they somehow make it unstuck. Usually through a combination of charm, stubbornness, and knowing where all “the bodies are buried.”
• The Keeper/Memory Bank: Remembers why decisions were made, what was tried before, which landmines to avoid. Institutional memory in human form.
• The Early Warning System: Sniffs out problems weeks before they become crises. Never formally recognized, but their absence is immediately felt.

And when these invisible roles do get acknowledged, it's in the coded language of corporate denial:

What’s Stated vs. What is Actually Meant:

The official language of org charts has its own dialect of denial. Org charts show you the theory, not the practice.

Every Node Is a Tradeoff

You’re not solving problems with structure. You’re deciding which pain you and the organization are willing to live with. Put marketing under product, and you get alignment, but you lose the adversarial tension that keeps product honest about what customers actually want. Keep them separate, and you get healthy tension, but you also get an endless coordination tax and meetings about meetings. Projects die in the handoff. There’s no “right” answer, only deciding which pain you’re willing to live with. The question is: are you choosing that pain consciously?

The Centralization/Decentralization Pendulum:

The Specialization Pendulum:

The Decision Speed vs. Quality Pendulum:

You're not solving these tensions. You're consciously choosing which one you'll live with, and for how long, before the pain becomes unbearable and you swing back into a different trade off discussion.

The pendulum swings predictably because we keep solving symptoms instead of accepting tension.

The Hidden Calculus

Every org chart is a complex equation of competing forces. You can’t optimize for everything, so you make bets. You decide that this team needs to move fast even if it means mistakes. That this function needs tight controls even if it slows things down.

The org chart doesn’t show this organizational calculus. It just shows the end result: these boxes, these lines, these reporting relationships. But underneath each choice is a dozen others you didn’t make.

Living with the Consequences

Changes meant to solve one thing usually just shift the pain.

The team that cleared its engineering bottleneck and gained a planning traffic jam instead. The decision that made things “faster” by removing review layers, until you realized those layers were where judgment used to live. The move to centralize ops across regions, which worked, right up until someone needed help and didn’t know who or where to beg for help.

Nobody sets out to make things worse. But every structural change is a bet, and complexity always comes with side effects.

There’s a beautiful futility to the org chart, in trying to “manage” complex processes through simple connector lines. Because while you’re building the chart, the pain you’re solving with each careful box won’t disappear; it’ll change shape.

Which brings us to the real question: what is structure actually supposed to do?

Structure Isn’t the System

The org chart is scaffolding. Nothing more.

The real system lives in the gaps between boxes and the space around the lines. It's held together by norms, habits, and semi-broken processes that still mostly work. By all the things that don't show up in formal structure but matter more than anything that does.

You don't manage the chart. You manage what lives inside it: the quiet dependencies, the invisible workarounds, the fragile agreements that hold everything together until they don't. The messy, human stuff that makes organizations actually function.

So, why care about the concept of an org chart at all? The paradox: you need the formal chart to see what's in the process of breaking, or already broken. The scaffolding reveals where the building actually bears weight.

Structure can't fix what structure didn't break, but it starts the right questioning:

• Whose calendar fills up first when something goes wrong?
• Who gets the "urgent" Slack DMs at 10 PM?
• Who do people apologize to when they mess up, regardless of reporting lines?
• Which names come up in "we should probably run this by..." conversations?

Reading for Scar Tissue

Org charts are medical records. You can see the swelling from old injuries: too many roles piled onto one problem, or a team that exists mostly to paper over a past mistake. The scar from a failed leader, still visible in the extra layers built to route around broken trust.

Used well, an org chart is a symptom log. A heat map. A signal flare.

Look closely and you’ll start to see more symptoms, vital signs that spike without warning, readings that make no sense until you see what's really happening. Reporting relationships bypass normal flow, like blood taking detours around a blocked artery:

• Three managers where one would do: a sign of scar tissue from a political compromise.
• A team reporting into two unrelated functions because no one wanted to make a real decision about ownership.
• A role meant to “tie it all together” that, in reality, has little leverage and no authority.

The futile, beautiful org chart won’t tell you what’s wrong. But it can tell you where to start looking. The frustration trail is easy to follow — beneath the boxes, between the lines, straight into the Ghost Org: the real system, running in the background.