The Org Chart Isn’t the Solution We Think It Is

A case for shifting from structural fixes to system-level design in marketing and communications.

In higher education, we love an organizational chart. It helps us visualize structure, authority and responsibility. When coordination begins to fray or other challenges surface, it’s often the first place we look—even when the issues run deeper than reporting lines. If something isn’t working, the instinct is familiar: Maybe the structure needs to change.

If only it were that simple.

It’s understandable why organizational charts hold such appeal. They offer a tidy visual that promises order and logic. This security-blanket dynamic also shows up in strategic planning, where we tend to favor planning over true strategy, in part because it offers a similar sense of control and predictability.

But as a tool for understanding—or improving—how a marketing and communications unit works, the org chart is profoundly limited. And our sector’s reliance on it may be distracting institutions from the deeper design questions that truly determine performance.

Think About a Dinner Party

The org chart is the seating chart. Anyone who’s hosted a gathering knows that a carefully arranged seating chart doesn’t guarantee a great evening.

You can seat the right people next to one another, but you can’t diagram trust, clarity or shared purpose. Those emerge from the conditions people experience once they’re at the table. (If you’re ever inclined to up your game as a dinner-party host, Priya Parker’s work on the art of gathering beautifully articulates that logistics are not the same as the experience.)

This distinction has practical implications for marketing and communications leaders. Rather than defaulting to structure, leaders and their teams should start by examining how the system actually works:

• Where does coordination break down today—and why?

• Which decisions create the most friction or delay?

• What expectations are unclear across teams and units?

These questions point to design choices that exist well beyond the org chart: how priorities are set, where decision authority lives, how work is coordinated across boundaries and what expectations guide collaboration.

When leaders work on systems rather than structure, progress can be harder to recognize—especially compared to an org chart you can easily revise, see and share. Moving lines and boxes creates the feeling that something concrete has changed, even when the underlying dynamics remain the same.

One important sign of progress is how teams handle ambiguity. When new opportunities or unexpected demands arise, teams are better able to navigate uncertainty not because the environment is more predictable, but because they share a clear understanding of how they work and what matters most. Trade-offs become easier to surface and explain. Over time, structure becomes less central to the conversation.

There’s one more reason to look beyond the org chart: Organizational charts don’t just show reporting relationships; they also quietly reinforce hierarchy—who leads, who follows and where authority is assumed to reside. In highly collaborative work like marketing and communications, those signals can limit flexibility and shared ownership, even when no one intends them to.

Org charts still matter. Seating charts matter, too. But neither determines whether you ultimately deliver on your purpose.