LEADERSHIP FORUM
The Use and Abuse of Organization Charts
BY CHARLIE CHADWICK
Imagine walking into a
room full of leadership
gurus. You head to the
podium and proclaim
in a firm voice (all the
while looking wise and
experienced): “The
organization chart does
not tell us who the leader
is in an organization.”
Every head in the room
will go up and down like
a sea of bobble head dolls
and voices will murmur
agreement with a wide
variety of examples (all
from their latest books).
You just can’t go wrong
by trashing the poor old
organization chart.
Except…the reality is that many organizations (who proclaim otherwise) are topdown hierarchies. As far as these organizations are concerned, the organization
chart does define leadership. Don’t believe
me? Check almost any large organization’s
website and there will be a link to the
“Leadership Team” or some similar phrase.
What you see are the photos and bios of the
people at the top of the organization chart.
It seems that the organization chart is the
fundamental building block of organizations.
The top-level chart connects to the organiza-
8
Contract Management | October 2014
tion charts of each functional head on the
chart, which connect to their managers’
organization charts, which connects…well,
you get the idea. It’s organization charts all
the way down.
The reason? Despite the sneer with which
many greet the organization chart, it actually does serve a useful purpose. Where
span of control is an issue, organizations
simply can’t survive without the organization chart. The theory and the reality both
tell us something about leadership.
Let’s start with the theory. Why doesn’t the
organization chart define leadership? There
are two reasons (actually, they are the same
reason from two perspectives):
ƒƒ
Leadership is granted,
not imposed; and
ƒƒ
Leadership is earned, not taken.
control is an issue, it is necessary. Perhaps
you can get by without it if you only have a
handful of employees, but not in an organization of any significant size. The organization chart (the hierarchical approach) is a
tool a leader needs to understand and use.
Being appointed to head a project or a
department does not make you a leader; it
just puts you at the top of the organization
chart. Leadership requires that the team
trust you, see your vision, support your
plans, and willingly contribute to the overall
mission. However, the hierarchical approach
has a drawback. It can impose obstacles to
accountability (“the next level of review will
catch it”) and to initiative (“management
will never buy off on this; why beat our
heads against the wall?”).
Why “command”? While we all love
consensus, consensus formation is a timeconsuming activity. Not every decision
needs or allows for consensus. Remember as
well that you can’t always reach consensus,
so someone has to make the decision. The
organization chart defines who makes it
and at what level the decision gets made.
Your command media (i.e., policies and
procedures) assume the existence of the
organization chart.
While the theory is true, it doesn’t go far
enough. The much-maligned organization
chart does serve a useful purpose. We have
to ask what the organization chart really is.
The answer is that the organization chart
is fundamentally a command and control
device. In any organization where span of
The same is true from a “control” perspective. Information needs to move in an
organization. Organizations run on timely,
accurate information; it’s a fundamental
element of appropriate span of control.
Information needs to be distilled at the
right level in an organization and moved
LEADERSHIP FORUM
to the right level. Here also, policies and
procedures assume an organization chart.
Command and control is part of a leader’s
responsibilities—just not all of it.
That leads us to what an organization chart
is not. It may be a command and control
device, but an organization chart is not
a communication device. If leadership
requires that the team trust, share the
vision, support, and contribute willingly to
the mission, you need to communicate. Also,
the movement of information is not communication. Communication is a transmitter/receiver phenomenon. Not only must
information be transmitted, but the receiver
needs to understand it and its significance.
Communication has a non-optional feedback
loop—the transmitter receives information
back, checks for understanding, changes
conclusions, and learns.
Genuine communication almost always
exists primarily outside of the organization
chart’s “swim lanes.” Communication is
more often horizontal than it is vertical.
It resists “information hoarding.” It was
always a source of amusement to me when
an executive assumed I didn’t know what he
or she knew—when in fact I did (horizontal
communication is highly effective!). He or
she assumed the organization chart controlled communication.
Leadership requires that you understand the
art of genuine communication. If you want
to nurture organizational culture, you need
to communicate outside the organization
chart. Organizational culture starts (and
ends) outside the organization chart. The
concept of organizational culture requires
detailed discussion, but I will limit myself to
one comment: Organizational culture tells
us how things really get done around here.
The members of the organization define its
culture, not an official set of organizational
values or proclamations in the code of
conduct or on the website. I know that runs
contrary to a lot of the current practice in
organizations. Isn’t top management supposed to take responsibility for creating the
culture? It just doesn’t pass the reality test.
You can’t command and control culture, and
you cannot impose culture, but as a genuine
leader you can nurture culture—that’s an
entirely different thing. Nurture requires
communication and a willingness to be
taught as much as to teach; it requires a
healthy dose of humility.
Where does all this lead us? If you want to
be a leader, communicate with transparency and candor. Don’t hoard information.
Listen honestly. Teach. Learn. You need to
respect and use the organization chart, but
be able to function outside of it. It’s a tool,
not a shield. CM
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CHARLIE CHADWICK, FELLOW, retired in
August 2013 after a 40-year career in contracts and organizational ethics. He is a past
national president of NCMA and currently
serves on NCMA’s Professional Standards
and Ethics Committee. He is a member of the
Tysons Corner Chapter.
Contract Management | October 2014
9