Most organization design efforts begin with a clear goal—one that promises greater agility, efficiency, and engagement. Leaders invest significant time in defining new structures, roles, and workflows. Yet, months later, many find themselves wondering: Why isn’t the new design delivering the expected results? The answer often lies not in the design itself, but in the assumptions behind it.

When Assumptions Shape Structure—For Better or Worse

Take, for example, the case of a global retail company that restructured into smaller, customer-focused teams to increase agility. The assumption? That decentralization would automatically lead to better customer responsiveness. But without the right coordination mechanisms, teams operated in silos, leading to inconsistencies across regions.

Or consider a multinational company that recently centralized decision-making to increase efficiency. Leadership assumed that streamlining reporting lines and consolidating strategic oversight at headquarters would reduce redundancy and speed up execution. Instead, it stifled local teams, delayed critical decisions, and led to increased frustration among regional leaders who suddenly lacked the autonomy to respond to market needs. 

Last, take a fast-growing tech company that structured teams around strict functional roles—believing this would enhance accountability and expertise. But this inadvertently created rigid silos, preventing the fast-paced collaboration needed for innovation. What seemed logical on paper resulted in slow decision-making and duplication of efforts.

 In all three cases, the design choices weren’t inherently flawed—the problem was the unexamined assumptions that drove them.

How Assumptions Influence Organization Design

Every organization design is shaped by underlying beliefs about people, work, and decision-making. Some of these assumptions are made explicit in planning discussions, but many remain unstated—rooted in past experiences, industry norms, or leadership philosophies.

Common but often unexamined assumptions include:

• “If we make the structure clearer, accountability will follow.” (Reality: Accountability often depends more on culture and incentives than reporting lines.)
• “If we flatten the hierarchy, teams will automatically collaborate better.” (Reality: Collaboration depends on how decisions are made, not just structure.)
• “If we give teams more autonomy, they will take full ownership.” (Reality: Without clear guardrails, autonomy can lead to confusion rather than agility.)
• “If we align our design with industry best practices, it will work for us.” (Reality: Each organization has unique dynamics that must be considered.)

In product development, teams follow a structured process to test their assumptions before launching something new. Prototypes, A/B testing, customer validation, or a Pre-Mortem analysis—each step is designed to reduce risk and surface unintended consequences.

However, organizations rarely test their assumptions before committing to a major redesign—leading to unintended consequences that could have been mitigated or avoided.

Where Hidden Assumptions Surface in Organization Design

Assumptions shape nearly every aspect of organization design. Five common areas where they often go unchecked include:

1. Desirability – Are we assuming employees, teams, and leaders want this new structure? Will it improve engagement and effectiveness?
2. Feasibility – Can we realistically implement this change with existing capabilities, leadership, and systems?
3. Scalability – Will this structure still work as the company grows or shifts strategies?
4. Adaptability – Can this design flex as business priorities, workforce needs, or external conditions change?
5. Collaboration & Decision-Making – Are we assuming people will automatically collaborate effectively in this model, or have we tested how decisions will actually flow?

How Organizations Can Challenge Their Assumptions

Organizations can start by systematically identifying and evaluating the assumptions driving their design decisions. Key questions to explore include:

• What are we assuming about how people will engage with this structure?
• What conditions must be true for this design to succeed?
• Where have similar designs failed in the past, and why?
• What unintended consequences might arise from this model?
• How will we recognize if our assumptions are incorrect—and what will we do about it?

This process doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but it should be intentional. Leaders who take the time to challenge their assumptions before finalizing a design often uncover risks they hadn’t considered—allowing them to adjust before costly missteps occur.

Building Adaptability into Organization Design

The best-performing organizations don’t just design for today’s needs—they design for future flexibility. Instead of locking in a rigid structure, they create mechanisms that allow the organization to continuously evolve.

This means:

• Prioritizing flexibility over hierarchy – Moving away from fixed reporting lines toward dynamic team structures that can shift as needed.
• Creating feedback loops – Ensuring teams and employees can provide insights on what’s working and what’s not—so adjustments can be made in real time.
• Testing changes before scaling them – Piloting elements of a new design in select teams before a company-wide rollout reduces risk and increases buy-in.
• Revisiting assumptions regularly – What made sense a year ago may no longer be true. Organizations should continuously revisit their design choices to ensure alignment with strategy and business realities.

Rethinking Organization Design as a Learning Process

Many leaders assume that a re-org alone will give them the desired results—that if the right model is in place, people will naturally align. However, real effectiveness comes from the way organization design, development, culture, decision-making, and collaboration processes work together.

Instead of treating organization design as a fixed end state, the most effective organizations approach it as an ongoing learning process. This means shifting from asking “What’s the perfect structure?” to “How do we ensure our design choices remain relevant over time?”

 So, before finalizing that next big reorganization, ask: “What assumptions are shaping our design choices—and how will we know if they hold true?”

---