The First 50 Org Charts: One Pattern Emerges

Image: GuerrillaBuzz via Unsplash

A few weeks ago, I began a new Navigate Gray research project: a sector-wide look at how higher ed marketing and communications organizations are structured today. I've already received more than 50 organizational charts. Thanks to those who’ve already shared theirs. If you’re willing to contribute, please share your org chart.

The irony of studying org charts

I recognize the irony in focusing on org charts. A fundamental principle of my organization design work is that structure should follow strategy, and better yet, it should amplify strategy. Long before we get to lines and boxes, we should start with clarity about what the marketing and communications unit is for and what value it should create for the institution.

Yet I understand why leaders gravitate toward structure; it’s visible, it’s tangible, and it creates the appearance of order. But an org chart can’t tell me how effective your marcomm unit is or how people actually work together. 

So why study org charts at all? Because they remain one of the few comparable artifacts across institutions. They reveal how leaders conceptualize the work, how capabilities and specializations are organized, and how decisions are imagined to flow.

Structure may not be the solution, but it is a signal. And if structure is meant to amplify strategy, then the org chart should offer at least a glimpse of strategic priorities.

One pattern across institutions

Across the first 50 org charts, the diversity in institutional context is already significant, from reporting lines to sub-units. The familiar adage that there’s no “one model” certainly holds true.

But despite that variation, one striking similarity appears again and again: the vast majority of organizations structure around marcomm functions — creative, content, media relations, digital, and so on. In other words, function-centric structures remain the prevailing organizing approach in higher ed marketing and communications.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with function-centric structures. They provide clarity, allow for specialization, and are well understood within higher ed, often making them practical and efficient. 

But they also suggest that the work is still defined largely by what we produce rather than the strategic outcomes institutions increasingly expect marketing and communications to drive.

What comes next

The goal of this research isn’t to identify a “best” structure — there isn’t one. It’s to understand how structure reflects strategy (or, in some cases, doesn’t). It’s to examine how current designs enable or potentially constrain the work we’re being asked to do. And it’s to explore what alternative models might emerge as institutional expectations evolve.

The persistence of function-centric design is simply the first finding. I’ll continue sharing reflections as the study grows and new patterns surface. Thanks again to those who have already contributed.

---

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