Your Org Chart Isn’t Your Target Operating Model

Charlotte Whitehouse

Most restructures begin with a diagram. Someone redraws the boxes, moves a dotted line, renames a function, and the organisation is declared redesigned. Six months later the same decisions are stuck in the same places, the same teams are waiting on each other, and the next restructure is already being scoped.

The problem is not the quality of the diagram, it’s that the diagram was never the thing that needed changing.

**What An Operating Model Actually Is**

An org chart shows who reports to whom.

A target operating model describes how the organisation delivers value: what work gets done and where, who holds the right to decide, what processes and technology carry that work, and which capabilities and behaviours the whole thing depends on.

The chart is one input to that, so treating it as the whole answer is how organisations end up with a new structure running an old way of working.

The Evidence Is Uncomfortable

McKinsey’s research on organisational redesign found that fewer than a quarter of efforts succeed. Around 44% lose momentum soon after launch, and a further third fail to meet their objectives or improve performance once implemented. It also found no evidence that copying the structural choices of other companies helps too.

Bain’s 2026 study of people who had been through a reorganisation shows where the gap opens. Reportedly, 88% of leaders believed the new structure would achieve its goals, against 36% of the employees working inside it, and only 22% of employees said they had received enough training, coaching or tools to adapt.

The same line of McKinsey evidence suggests that when leadership is fully aligned behind a redesign, success rates are around 49%; when leaders are barely aligned, they fall to just 1%.

Read together, these findings say that boxes rarely fail on their own. What fails is the assumption that a structure explains itself.

HR Is Where the Gap Shows First

For roughly thirty years, much of HR has been organised around the same three pillars: centres of expertise, business partners and shared services. Mercer’s 2026 Global Talent Trends research suggests that settlement is under pressure.

About 35% of HR leaders and 30% of executives name reinventing the HR operating model as a 2026 priority, and 81% of investors say embedding HR in strategic decision-making is essential for growth.

The Corporate Research Forum made a sharper point in its August 2026 report: starting an HR operating model conversation with structure (centralised or federated, centres of expertise or business-aligned teams) are increasingly the wrong place to begin.

The harder questions are the tensions a function has to keep rebalancing: specialist depth against integrated delivery, consistency against local responsiveness, efficiency against human contact, governance against distributed innovation.

None of those is settled by a line on a chart. HR is now being asked to design the system of work for everyone else, while its own model is too often still defined by where the boxes sit.

Where The Model Really Lives

If the chart is not the model, it is worth being clear about where the model does live.

In Decision Rights

The fastest way to see an operating model is to pick a decision that matters and trace who actually makes it, who is consulted, and where it waits. If the answer differs from the chart, the chart is decoration.

In Workflow

Value moves across teams, not up and down reporting lines. A restructure that groups people differently but leaves the handoffs, approvals and systems untouched has changed the seating plan.

In Capability

Every operating model assumes skills that someone must hold data, change leadership, commercial judgement, programme delivery. When those assumptions go unchecked, the model quietly depends on a handful of people who were never hired for it.

In Leadership Alignment

The 49% against 1% gap is a statement about the executive team. If senior leaders describe the new model differently, everyone beneath them will follow whichever description suits them.

The Question That Arrives Disguised as a Hiring Brief

From where we sit in Search and Interim Management, the operating model question rarely arrives under that name. It turns up as a brief: we need a Director of Business Change, or an interim programme lead for twelve months, or a new HR leader to “sort out” the function.

Sometimes that is exactly right. Often, it is the visible edge of an unresolved design question, and hiring into it before the model is clear is how capable people get set up to fail.

The role was scoped around a box, the capability the model needs was never named, and the new leader spends the first year doing the design work the organisation skipped.

That is why we start with the work rather than the role. What decisions need to move faster? Which capabilities does the target model assume that you do not yet hold? Is this a permanent hire, or a bridge while the model settles?

Interim leaders can be the right answer to that last question, precisely because they can deliver through a transition without locking in a structure that has not been tested.

Before You Redraw Anything

Before the next restructure is approved, put four things on the table.

Name the decision you most need to speed up, trace how it currently gets made, state which capabilities the new model relies on and who holds them and test whether your own leadership team would describe the target operating model in the same words.

If you cannot answer those, the new chart will not help. If you can, the chart often turns out to be the easy part.

If you are working through an operating model change in HR or elsewhere and want to talk about the leadership and interim capability it needs, we’d be happy to support.

ABOUT PRACTICUS

You can find out more about us on the about us page