Most people don’t know this, but the first org chart was created in 1854 by a railway manager trying to keep track of train operations across England.
It made sense at the time: trains ran on tracks, people followed orders, and hierarchy meant control.
But here’s the real question: Why are so many companies still running like 19th-century railroads?
Because when you strip it back, most org charts today still reflect the same top-down logic: command at the top, execution at the bottom, and very little space for flexibility, collaboration, or adaptive thinking.
We’ve changed how we communicate, how we buy, how we live. But how we organise people at work? Not so much.
The Org Chart Was Built for Control, Not Creativity
The original chart was built by Daniel McCallum, a railway superintendent managing thousands of employees. It mapped control, authority, and lines of reporting. In that world, efficiency meant obedience. Consistency meant compliance.
And for a world of manual labor and predictable problems, that worked.
But today’s work is different:
- Problems are more complex
- Solutions are more collaborative
- Value comes from creativity, not conformity
Yet the structure hasn’t caught up.
As business thinker Gary Hamel put it: “The most enduring institutions on the planet. The Catholic Church, the military, and the modern corporation, all share the same architecture: hierarchy.” (Source: “The Future of Management,” 2007)
Hierarchy Isn’t the Enemy — But It’s Not Enough
This isn’t about burning down the org chart. Clear roles and accountability still matter, especially in complex organisations.
But when hierarchy becomes the only lens through which we see people, talent, and decision-making, we start to lose agility.
We create bottlenecks at the top and disengagement at the bottom.
Studies show that employees at lower levels of an organisation often have a more accurate view of what’s actually happening on the ground but their insights rarely travel upward.
(Source: “The Knowing-Doing Gap” by Pfeffer & Sutton)
In fast-changing environments, rigid hierarchies don’t just slow you down. They become a liability.
So, What’s the Alternative?
Forward-thinking organisations are experimenting with models that rethink how we structure teams and distribute authority.
1. Networked Teams
Think “mini start-ups inside your company”
Let’s start with Spotify. Yes, the music app. But the way they structure their teams? That’s the real innovation.
Instead of big, rigid departments like “Marketing” or “IT,” they use squads, small, cross-functional teams built around a shared mission (like improving the search bar or building a podcast feature). These squads belong to larger “tribes” focused on bigger goals. It’s like giving each team their own mini business inside the company.
Why it works:
- Squads can move fast because they don’t need to “ask the boss” every time.
- People from different functions work together daily. No more ping-ponging between silos.
- It keeps the work focused, user-oriented, and adaptable.
Real-world example:
Imagine if your office had a “client experience squad” with someone from sales, someone from support, someone from tech, and someone from marketing. They all sit together, solve problems together, and actually ship solutions. No more endless email chains. Just results.
2. Self-Management Models. No bosses, just roles.
This one sounds wild at first, but stay with me.
Some companies (like Zappos, the shoe people) have tried Holacracy, a system that replaces job titles and traditional managers with fluid roles. Instead of saying, “I’m the Head of Marketing,” you might have several roles like “Newsletter Editor,” “Campaign Strategist,” and “Brand Voice Steward.” And those roles can shift as priorities change.
You still have structure but it’s flexible and constantly evolving.
Why it works:
- Authority is distributed: people make decisions in their areas of expertise.
- There’s less politics about who “owns” what: the work is the focus, not the org chart.
- People feel more autonomy and engagement because they’re trusted to lead in their space.
Real-world example:
Think of it like a movie crew. No one says “I’m in charge of everything.” The director leads the vision, but the lighting designer makes lighting decisions, the costume lead handles costumes, and so on. Everyone plays their role and the movie gets made.
3. Project-Based Structures — Choose your own (work) adventure
Companies like W. L. Gore (the ones who make Gore-Tex fabric) work more like a university research lab than a corporate hierarchy. People don’t get assigned to projects. They choose the ones they believe in and where they can add value.
It’s less “report to your boss” and more “show up where you’re useful.”
Why it works:
- People work on what they’re passionate about and that energy shows in the results.
- Collaboration happens naturally, based on interest and alignment, not politics.
- It encourages initiative, not permission-seeking.
Real-world example:
Imagine being able to walk into a room and say, “I want to help with this new product launch,” and the team says, “Great, what can you take on?” Instead of waiting to be picked, you just show up and contribute. Like volunteering for a group project, but people actually care.
What These All Have in Common
Each of these models flips the script on traditional org design. Instead of focusing on: “Who’s in charge?“
They focus on: “What are we trying to achieve, and who’s best placed to help us get there?“
They assume that smart, motivated people don’t need to be controlled, they need clarity, trust, and the freedom to move.
And that’s the shift we need more of.
People don’t want to be managed. They want to be empowered.
Bottom Line
Structure should serve people, not the other way around. The org chart isn’t the problem but blind loyalty to it might be.
It’s time to evolve how we think about structure:
- From static to flexible
- From control to collaboration
- From hierarchy to networks
Because the companies that thrive in this next era?They won’t be the ones with the neatest lines and boxes. They’ll be the ones who design for adaptability, not tradition.
The org chart served Victorian factories. Let’s build something better for today’s talent.
