However, as the organization’s size and scope of responsibilities grow, the structure changes to meet the requirements. 

The Army and Department of Defense blend hierarchical structure with functional, divisional, and regional structures to meet operational requirements.  Regardless of structural type, being sensitive and aware of how information is received and processed and how decisions are made is critical.

The acronym B2C2WG, which stands for Boards, Bureaus, Centers, Cells, and Working Groups, is often used in the Army to discuss supplemental organizational elements that facilitate the organizational decision-making process.  Frequently, B2C2WGs comprise a cross-section of an entire organization or its external partners.  A War Room is a relatively well-known term for an operations cell.   Every use of a war room is different, but in simple terms, a war room is a select group of people who take in and process information to make a quick, well-informed decision. 

Before we get too far into this discussion, I think setting the background and context for this series is essential.  Throughout my career, one of my hobbies was studying organizational design.  What makes good organizations run smoothly and accomplish their tasks and missions effectively and efficiently?  I have had several opportunities to assess and create organizations from scratch.  I thought exploring the tools and processes I used to create or assess organizations might be fun.  This series focuses on organizational design and function and may interest two groups of readers.  First is the young professional interested in growing as a leader and manager.  Second, the executive who might be looking for a quick mental refresh on a subject.  Reflecting on my career, I tried to think of things I wish I had known and appreciated more deeply as a young leader and manager.  I think it would have benefited me to understand better the interconnected nature and impact of essential foundational organizational elements.  In a manner of speaking, this series could be thought of as a letter to my younger self.  I would also like to acknowledge a couple of key points.  First, although there are commonalities across all industries, there are also differences.  Second, in my opinion, the size, e.g., the number of people in the organization, and working conditions, e.g., in-person, remote, etc., make some of the points raised in this series more or less applicable, e.g., an organization with 20 employees may not find a vision statement as impactful as a 2000-employee organization.  All of that is to say that some topics discussed in this series may not be as relevant in some industries or organizations.  Although the points discussed in this series have helped me throughout my career, they may not be as relevant in all situations.  Hopefully, some of the points raised will help you too.

We’ve all heard the expression, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” In this case, “What comes first, the structure, roles and responsibilities, or systems and processes?” Regardless, each of these elements is inexplicitly linked, and although we discuss them independently, none can be changed without directly impacting the other.    

My experience has been that organizational structure assessments usually don’t happen without a reason.  I want to offer a thought experiment: How efficient would organizations be if the structure or substructures were routinely assessed?  Too often, over time, months, or years, technology, workloads, systems, and processes change without a comprehensive review of the structure.  Consequently, teams, sections, divisions, etc., become over/underworked, inefficient, ineffective, etc., increasing organizational risks.    

Whether building an organization from scratch or assessing a fully operational organization, the mission statement is a good place to begin.  Is the organization, division, section, team, etc., aligned with the mission statement?  Occasionally, subordinate elements within the organization will prioritize their internal mission over the larger organizational mission, which can contribute to organizational challenges (see article #2 in this series, Mission Statement).  Does it do it efficiently and effectively?  Technology and process changes can significantly change the volume of work a team must process, contributing to a misalignment in workload balances and inefficiencies.  Are there unnecessary risks associated with quality assurance and control?  Technology implementation changes can significantly change risks related to quality assurance and controls.  We frequently believe technology implantation reduces risks, but this isn’t always true.  However, organizations can unknowingly be exposed to significant risk without a formal assessment of quality assurance and control measures.

Assessing organizational structure can be time-consuming, resource-intensive, and, in many instances, controversial.  There are often two opposing views on the structure, one in favor of growing and the other in favor of shrinking the organization, and each of these two perspectives will have compelling reasons for their opinions.  For these and many other reasons, organizations tend to default to very general instructions, such as making a 10% cut across the board.  Admittedly, a 10% cut across the board is a quick and effective way of downsizing but may not always produce the outcome an organization is trying to achieve. 

In my opinion, balancing individual roles and responsibilities with measurable goals and objectives is a more effective and efficient way of conducting organizational assessments.  Although measuring individual outputs, systems, and processes is more time-consuming, it tends to lead to clearly definable workloads and process improvements.  It also allows for informed decision-making when deciding to grow, shrink, or reorganize an organization.     

“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life.  I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.” – Theodore Roosevelt