Most organisations do not drift all at once. Drift arrives in small, reasonable steps. You move a reporting line to ease a conflict. You implement a new system to solve a local pain point. You add a channel strategy for a new segment. Each decision makes sense in isolation. Then, one day, you look up and the business no longer feels aligned. The structure is busy rather than purposeful. The people strategy is a patchwork of good intentions with little force behind it. You have a list of skills you wish you had, and a structure that was never designed to realise the vision you now hold.
It is tempting to respond by redrawing the org chart. Boxes get moved, spans adjusted, titles refreshed. But structure is not an end in itself. Structure is the visible consequence of a series of choices that begin much earlier. The classic management lesson still holds: structure should follow strategy, not the other way round.
Start with the vision
If you’re starting to think about your own organisation, and whether your structure, skills or ways of working are quite right, I’d invite you to consider the question: “what is it you’re actually trying to achieve?”
The starting point for any design should be the vision. What are we here to deliver, and what sort of organisation do we need to become to deliver it?
These questions sound simple…but they’re rarely asked. And, they’re rarely asked because honestly, most of the time we’re just too busy. Too busy responding to whatever lands, too busy evolving over time, unintentionally. Too many designs start with constraints: how many layers, who reports to whom, what fits the budget? These are tidy questions, but they come too soon. Too many learning strategies start with constraints too: how much budget do we have, does our learning platform support this, can our internal L&D team deliver this?
A better starting point is intent. What are the few things that will matter most in the next few years? What do customers, clients, or communities need from us that they cannot get elsewhere? And how do we need to organise and develop in order to make that happen?
Once that’s clear, the rest follows. The design can then flow from the work rather than from habit. The structure becomes a tool for delivery and focus rather than control.
Organisations that skip this step often end up stuck in the past. Their structures reflect what they used to do well, not what they need to do next.
Structure and skills
Structure defines how work happens. Skills define how well it happens. Both need to move together.
.jpg)
Many organisations separate the two. One team looks after structure and workforce planning. Another looks after learning and skills. The result is usually elegant organisation charts filled with people who don’t yet have the capabilities to deliver what the strategy demands.
The data bears this out. The World Economic Forum predicts that nearly half of all workers’ core skills will change by 2027. McKinsey reports that almost nine in ten companies already face skills gaps or expect to soon. LinkedIn’s latest research shows that most executives see those gaps as a top threat to their strategy, yet few can say with confidence which skills will matter most in the next three years.
These are not learning problems. They are strategic ones.
When structure and skills move together, the organisation works with more coherence and intent. The chart might show where work happens, but the skills inside it determine whether that work delivers. The best organisations aren’t defined by how tidy their charts look, but by how quickly they can adapt to what the world needs from them.
So, how do you reset?
When change has crept in over time and the business feels slightly out of shape, the reset begins with a clearer story about what you are trying to achieve. Write it in plain English. What are we here to deliver over the next few years, and what would success look like if we got there?
Then ask a harder question. What must we be brilliant at to make that story real? These are your critical capabilities. They are the things that, if strengthened, would really move the dial. (And perhaps things that, if ignored, will start writing your organisation’s obituary.)
From there, look honestly at the skills inside your organisation. Where are the bright spots? Where are the gaps? And are you designing your structure to give those skills the space and visibility they need to thrive?
This is where intent matters most. A skills plan cannot be generic. It must be targeted. It should focus investment where capability will directly change outcomes. That might mean building leadership and collaboration skills to support a new global model, or technical and analytical skills to enable data-led growth. It might mean hiring new expertise altogether.
A consumer goods client I once worked with had built a complex matrix to serve global customers but hadn’t invested in the skills to make that model work. The strategy was sound, but the people running it were still operating as if they worked in local silos. By simplifying the structure and building the skills that the model required, performance and morale both lifted within months.
Resets like this take humility. They ask leaders to accept that what worked before might not work now, and that a structure on paper can’t deliver impact without the right capabilities powering it.
The leadership mindset driving change
This is not simply a process shift. It is a leadership shift. Leaders who succeed in this terrain are comfortable with two truths at once. They believe in clarity of direction and they accept that the route will change. They value role clarity and they invest in the skills that allow people to shape their roles as the work evolves. They use structure to enable, not to control. They fund skills development as a strategic lever, not a discretionary benefit. And they do not delegate this entirely to HR. They own it. There is urgency here. Jobs and tasks are being re-composed at pace. Many workers will need significant training in the next few years, and too few currently have access. The companies that close the gap faster will compound advantage. Those who treat this as a once-a-year exercise will fall behind, even if their charts look tidy.
Designing for the future is not about building a perfect structure or locking in today’s skills. It is about creating the conditions to keep both aligned as the world moves on. The organisations that make this shift will not just keep up with change. They’ll shape it.
How is your organisation preparing for the skills shift? Get in touch to discuss how you can set your org design up for future success.
.png)
