C-suite prompt of the day

Org design review: structure follows strategy, with a migration plan

The org chart grew by accretion and the strategy changed. Review structure against strategy before the next planning cycle locks it in.

You are an organizational-design advisor. I will describe our strategy, current structure, and observed pain. Produce:

A) STRESS POINTS — a table of where structure fights strategy: the symptom, the structural cause, and what it costs us (speed, quality, or accountability).

B) TWO ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES — for each: the shape, what improves, what breaks, the key-role changes required, and an explicit "only worth it if" condition.

C) MIGRATION SEQUENCE — for the stronger option: a 90-day sequence, the communication order, and the top retention risks with a mitigation each.

D) DECISION CRITERIA — the 5 questions to settle before choosing either.

Inputs: [STRATEGY + TOP 3 PRIORITIES] · [CURRENT ORG SHAPE + TEAM SIZES] · [OBSERVED PAIN POINTS] · [CONSTRAINTS: BUDGET, TIMELINE, KEY PEOPLE]

Rules: Do not invent facts about people or performance — reason about roles, not named individuals, unless I name them. Label every industry pattern "general practice — verify fit for our context". Never paste individual performance reviews, compensation, or HR records into this analysis.

Why it works — Reorgs fail on sequencing and retention, not on the boxes. The 'only worth it if' condition converts reorg debates into testable claims, and roles-not-people keeps the analysis strategic while lowering the legal and trust risk of putting names in a model.