PromptSharp › Prompt Library › C-suite › Org design review: structure follows strategy, with a migration plan
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.
The prompt — copy and run it
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 this prompt 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.
Want the daily version?
The PromptSharp C-suite Brief delivers prompts like this every day. Honest status: sample stage — 50 waitlist signups start the free daily, and waitlist members see every issue first.
Frequently asked
When should I use this prompt?
The org chart grew by accretion and the strategy changed. Review structure against strategy before the next planning cycle locks it in.
Why does this prompt work?
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.
What mistake does this prompt help you avoid?
{'code': 'PF05', 'note': "Reorg debates as untestable opinions — the 'only worth it if' condition makes the case falsifiable, and roles-not-people lowers legal/trust risk."}
Related C-suite prompts
Role scorecard: define the job before you write the job post
You're about to hire and the role is fuzzy. Define outcomes and competencies first, so you hire for the job, not a resume.…
Operating cadence audit: fewer meetings, real decision velocity
The calendar is full and decisions still take three weeks. Audit the operating rhythm — meetings, metrics, decision rights — end t…
All C-suite free prompts
The PromptSharp C-suite Brief page — five full free prompts plus the ladder status.
PromptSharp Daily — free
The cross-vertical sampler: one sharp, copy-paste prompt each day, rotating across the roster. See what each vertical is like before you commit to one.
Double-opt-in. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam, ever.
Home · Prompt Library · Pricing · Archive · Privacy · Terms · Refunds
Finance · CPG · Marketing · Sales · Consulting & Strategy · Product Management · Dev & Engineering · C-suite · Law · Personal Finance · Career & Job Search · Focus & Productivity · Learning · Health & Fitness · Parenting