Layers of Intention: Hierarchy Depth in MarComm Organizations

Valley of Fire State Park (Nevada)

One of the more telling moments in an organizational capability assessment is when a leader walks me through the history of their org chart — what they inherited, how each unit was added, and why. What starts as context can become archaeology. Layer by layer, the organization’s history comes into view.

I’ve thought of those conversations throughout this study of organizational charts from marketing and communications units across higher education. One variable keeps drawing my attention: hierarchy depth, or the number of layers between the senior leader and the deepest reporting level on the chart.

Across 75 charts reviewed so far, hierarchy depth ranges from two to five layers, with most units clustering at three or four regardless of institutional size or type. Depth does correlate with scale, at least at the extremes. The flattest structures (two layers, minimal specialization) belong almost exclusively to small liberal arts colleges and specialized institutions. The deepest, five-layer structures are concentrated among large research universities with teams of 60 or more. That part is largely predictable.

Less predictable — and more revealing — is the variation in what those layers contain. Two institutions of similar size and similar hierarchy depth can look almost nothing alike in terms of what their structure signals about strategic priorities. Same number of layers. Very different signals.

Depth as sediment

Every layer in a hierarchy was added for a reason, usually a good one at the time. New multimedia capabilities when the scope of visual storytelling expanded. A deeper digital team during the web transformation years. Those decisions made sense. But layers accumulate. And over time, organizational depth begins to reflect accumulated history more than current strategy.

The issue isn’t depth itself. It’s that depth becomes invisible, fading into the background as attention shifts to the work at hand. Meanwhile, the structure continues to route decisions and signal priorities in ways that may or may not align with what the institution now needs.

A test worth applying

When I look across these 75 charts, I find myself asking a simple question about each layer: is it load-bearing? Does it carry identifiable strategic weight — enabling coordination, building capability, connecting execution to outcomes — or is it primarily a product of history?

The institutions where strategic capabilities are most legible (e.g., audience insights, operational effectiveness, organizational development) are not necessarily those with the most layers or the most people. They’re the ones where leaders appear to have made deliberate choices about what their structure should signal and enable, rather than inheriting a shape and filling it in.

If structure is meant to amplify strategy, then hierarchy depth deserves the same intentional scrutiny we’d apply to any other strategic question. How many layers do we actually need to do this work well? Where is depth serving us, and where has it become organizational sediment, accumulating over time without anyone asking whether it still belongs?

These aren’t questions with universal answers. The right depth depends on scope, scale, and the outcomes a unit is expected to drive. But they are questions worth asking, rather than leaving the answer to history.

---

This piece is part of an ongoing Navigate Gray research project examining higher education marketing and communications organizational structures.