When the Company Changes but Its Management Structure Stays the Same
Changes in leadership, markets or organisational design may require the management structure to evolve so the company can operate according to its new reality.
Business transformation does not happen only when a company adopts technology or changes its strategy. It also occurs when leadership changes, when a company professionalises, when a new generation assumes responsibilities, when there is significant expansion or when the way value is created itself undergoes a substantial change.
At these moments, there is a less obvious risk: the organisation may change faster than its management structure. The company begins operating in a different reality but retains responsibilities, processes, decision-making mechanisms and monitoring practices designed for the previous context.
The literature on routines shows that stability and change are not necessarily opposing phenomena. Routines can sustain an organisation’s capability while also being modified as the context changes (BECKER et al., 2005). The challenge is not simply to replace what existed, but to identify what should be preserved, adjusted or rebuilt.
A leadership change can alter who decides and who is accountable for certain activities. Expansion can create new units and relationships between functions. A reorganisation can redistribute activities. In all these cases, old processes may continue to function technically and still cease to be appropriate for the new design.
In research published in 2025, McKinsey examined operating model redesign based on 2,000 executives from 16 industries and six regions. Themes associated with success included alignment among leaders and decision-makers, transformation of essential processes, people and culture (WEDDLE et al., 2025). This reinforces the point that transformation is not merely a change to the organisational chart.
Information and indicators also need to evolve with the change. An indicator that made sense before an expansion may no longer answer the most important questions afterwards. A reporting structure designed for a centralised organisation may provide little visibility when responsibilities are distributed.
Transformation also requires attention to knowledge. Changes in personnel can remove knowledge associated with individual experience from the organisation. Changes in processes can make procedures obsolete and create new learning needs.
Transforming a company, therefore, does not necessarily mean replacing its entire structure. It means understanding the distance between the current state and the reality the organisation needs to sustain. Some parts will need to be maintained; others adjusted; others redesigned.
The central question is not only “what do we want to change?”. It is also: “what will the company need to be able to do after this change that it currently cannot do with sufficient clarity, consistency or autonomy?”. The answer allows change to become organisational capability.
References
BECKER, Markus C.; LAZARIC, Nathalie; NELSON, Richard R.; WINTER, Sidney G. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 14, n. 5, p. 775–791, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth071.
WEDDLE, Brooke et al. The new rules for getting your operating model redesign right. McKinsey & Company, 25 June 2025. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organization/our-insights/the-new-rules-for-getting-your-operating-model-redesign-right. Accessed: 02 Febr. 2026.
PENTLAND, Brian T.; GOH, Kenneth T. Organizational routines and organizational change. In: POOLE, Marshall Scott; VAN DE VEN, Andrew H. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. p. 339–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198845973.013.16.