Every organisation has two structures. The first is the one on the chart: boxes, lines, reporting relationships. The second is the one that actually operates: the informal networks, the people whose approval is sought even when it is not required, the decisions that get made in corridors rather than meetings. The gap between these two structures is not a sign of dysfunction. It is normal. But when the gap becomes large enough, it starts producing real problems.

What the org chart is actually showing you

An org chart is a map of formal accountability, not a map of how work gets done. It tells you who is responsible for what in a legal and administrative sense. It does not tell you who people actually consult before making a decision, whose sign-off is sought informally before a proposal goes to the formal decision-maker, or which relationships carry the most influence in practice. Treating the org chart as an accurate picture of decision flow is one of the most common mistakes in organisational diagnosis.

How to map the informal structure

The most reliable method is structured interviews. Ask eight to twelve people across different levels and functions two questions: who do you consult before making a significant decision, and whose opinion changes your mind most often? The answers will not match the org chart. They will show you a different map, one with its own centres of gravity and its own blind spots. This informal map is what you are actually managing, whether you know it or not.

When the gap becomes a problem

A gap between formal and informal structure is not inherently bad. Informal networks carry institutional knowledge and move faster than formal processes. The gap becomes a problem when it creates accountability voids, when decisions are being made by people who do not have the information or the mandate to make them well, or when the informal structure is routing around a formal process that exists for a good reason. The diagnostic question is not whether the gap exists but whether it is producing bad outcomes.

What to do about it

The answer is rarely to redraw the org chart. More often it is to redesign specific decision processes so that the right people are involved at the right point, and to make the informal structure more visible to the people who are operating within it. Sometimes the most useful intervention is a single working session where the leadership team maps their actual decision flow together. The conversation that follows is usually more valuable than any document.

A note on timing

This kind of diagnostic is most useful at a moment of transition: a leadership change, a period of growth, a post-merger integration. It is least useful when the organisation is in the middle of a crisis and needs to act rather than reflect. If you are considering this kind of work, the questions we get asked regularly include how long it takes and what it costs. The short answer is six weeks and from £9,500, but the more important answer is that it depends on what you find.

If this describes something you are working through, the engagement formats we offer include a structured six-week diagnostic designed specifically for this kind of problem. The best first step is a scoping call.