TBM 376: Why Are We Organized Like This?

This post is about understanding why your company is organized and designed the way it is.

Which of these nine patterns looks familiar?

Mix and match if you like. I have framed each section as a quote, pulling from my notes from calls with leaders, managers, and ICs. Sometimes I combine two or three quotes into a good representative quote.

1. Game of Thrones

When politics and power plays shape the org

The org looks the way it does because of people, not principles. A couple of execs negotiated their titles during hiring, spheres of ownership shifted after turf wars, and we've been living with those decisions ever since. Honestly, our org design reminds me of Game of Thrones. It feels like a direct result of internal competition and factional conflict.

You can actually see the shifts: for a long time, it was the former CEO's way, with all of their lieutenants, and then there was basically a coup as the founder regained control with their favorite old-timers. People go in and out of favor, and the Eye of Sauron always seems to be looking for the next leader to scapegoat. In the end, the org designs the narrative battle, and whoever is on top at a certain point in time.

Survive: Watch the factions
Thrive: Build alliances carefully
Hack: Control the narrative before it controls you

2. Buzzwords’n’Decks

The next big fad

A couple of years ago, we had McKinsey come in, and that kicked off a big re-org around whatever was the latest hotness. Some good things came from that, but we also moved a lot of deckchairs around. We didn't really touch the heart of the issue, which is that our decision-making is painfully slow. Deep down, the company is unwilling to take significant risks that might move us away from the cash cow, so every major decision gets bogged down in endless debate.

And the truth is, it's always about a buzzword. Whatever buzzword catches on becomes the obsession, and that's all people talk about for a couple of years until the next buzzword takes over and the cycle starts again.

Survive: Speak the language of the fad
Thrive: Package substance inside the buzz
Hack: Ride the wave, then quietly pivot to real work

3. "It Just Happened" (And Happens)

Lots of small, generally coherent decisions

To be honest, it mostly emerged organically as we scaled. We had some key people making architectural decisions that influenced team ownership. Our product offering grew. We never really made any violent shifts, because things mostly worked. I don't think we ever considered anything fancy at all. We're a basic product company with product teams and some platforms. I think most people inside the company would find the question kind of funny, because the org design has always seemed pretty natural.

Survive: Accept the mess
Thrive: Shape your corner with clarity
Hack: Introduce light structure that feels natural

4. Roller Coasters

Big, painful pendulum swings

Over the last decade, we have experienced a couple of significant shifts as we scaled. We're into these violent shifts. At first, we pretty much kept the same structure, just at bigger and bigger scales. Then came the big change to multi-product, the GMs, all that, to drive growth. That played its course for a couple years, and then it was like a hard pendulum swing back in the other direction as our offering became fractured and the customer experience took a hit.

We're not good at gradual change or running parallel operating systems. We go all in on one model, it works, and we drive it way past the point of not working. And then we start over.

Survive: Buckle up for swings
Thrive: Stay flexible and opportunistic
Hack: Position yourself as the bridge during the shift

5. Re-orgs As BAU

Normalizing shifting things around

I remember when I started here. Someone gave me a heads-up to be prepared for lots of shifts and re-orgs, but reassured me that while things changed often, leaders always had our backs. Shifting things around was considered normal, and even a fun and interesting part of working at the company. It seems like we're always tweaking things, and they rarely end up in layoffs.

To be honest, I think it's a reasonable tradeoff. I've had three managers in the last five years, but each experience has been positive.

Survive: Expect constant change
Thrive: Treat re-orgs as learning resets
Hack: Use each shift to expand your network

6. Founder Centric

Their way. Or the eventual highway

You can trace a lot of our org design back to the founders. As we scaled, we brought in new leaders to buffer them, but most didn't last. Leaders who are locally effective do shape their teams, but the real gravity comes from the founders themselves. Their beliefs and preferences set the tone. And the few people who manage to survive close to them become powerful in their own right, with leeway to make big, lasting decisions.

Survive: Don't fight the gravity
Thrive: Earn trust, show loyalty
Hack: Channel founder's bias into your project

7. Founder Philosopher

Deep care (and thoughts) about ways of working

Our org design traces directly back to the founder, but not in the usual way. They've always been a deep thinker about how people work together. In a past company, they struggled with bureaucracy and politics, and they vowed not to repeat it. They had mentors who cared deeply about collaboration and trust, and they took those lessons seriously.

They don't see org design as something to delegate or outsource. They see it as their personal craft. You'll hear them reference books, models, and even philosophy. They're not afraid to admit they think about this stuff all the time, and they imagine their role as designing the system we all work within. Sometimes that slows us down, but it also means we have a founder who really believes the way we work is just as important as what we build.

Survive: Respect their ideas on org design
Thrive: Engage in the conversation, show you can think with them
Hack: Translate their philosophy into practical, everyday habits for teams

8. Disciplined Steady Hand

Drucker personified. Doing things well, by the book

The way we are structured really comes from a long tradition of management training and discipline. People here were taught how to design organizations, and it shows. Roles and structures are thought through carefully. Decisions usually take time, but they are rarely sloppy. The principles behind it are sound, if sometimes a little conservative. It gives us stability and consistency, and leaders here have a strong track record of steady, solid management.

The trouble is that the whole approach struggles when we come up against new challenges or dynamics. AI has been especially tough for us. Product thinking works in small pockets, but we never really adopted modern ways of managing and building digital products. When things call for creativity or a big leap forward, the organization feels heavy and slow to respond.

Survive: Respect the process
Thrive: Master the playbook
Hack: Frame creativity as risk-managed improvement

9. Thoughtful Transformation

The long game

I have to give credit to the leadership team. Things have gotten better over the last couple of years, though, of course, never as fast as you want. We've managed to tackle a lot of what was holding us back from an architecture perspective. While senior leadership isn't in all the details, they have empowered a few key leaders in technology, product, and in our field teams to make the right changes gradually. It is hard even to compare what it feels like to deliver now with what it was like five years ago. The difference is massive. Part of this is that over the last two decades, we've rolled with a couple of key shifts. We're not afraid to adapt, and while we are a big company now, we have learned how to stay the course.

Survive: Be patient with pace
Thrive: Lean into empowered leaders
Hack: Show quick wins that reinforce the long game

---

Anything ring true? Want to add another one?

Comment below