After a reorganization: how to check that teams really work the new way.

The new org chart is approved. Teams have seen the presentation and managers know their scope. Yet one case still goes through the old route, another needs two sign-offs, and an urgent case lands on the executive committee because nobody knows who can decide.

After a reorganization, the useful question is simple: does work follow the new responsibilities, or the arrangements that used to keep things running? To answer it, pick an interface affected by the change, compare the teams' collective feedback with how a few recent cases were handled, clarify one decision rule, then check how it is applied on a set date.

What the org chart does not tell you

An org chart describes reporting lines. It does not settle how a case is handed over, how exceptions are handled, or which commitments several departments must keep together.

A team may know its new manager and still ask the former one for approval. A department may own a decision without the information it needs. Two divisions may disagree on the moment a case moves from one to the other.

Not every extra sign-off is an anomaly: some answer a regulatory, contractual or financial control. The point is to separate the steps that protect operations from those that remain without an explicit reason.

INRS, the French occupational health and safety institute, lists contradictory instructions and unrealistic or unclear objectives in its "work intensity and working time" category. It also includes uncontrolled changes to tasks and working conditions among the factors of insecurity in the work situation (INRS, psychosocial risk factors, in French). A reorganization does not automatically create a risk; it does justify looking at its effects on actual work, beyond how it was presented.

Reading how work runs, with the teams

Regular feedback from teams shows where to look: interfaces that stall, conflicting priorities, decisions that drag, workload that shifts. Report it at a collective level that does not allow respondents to be identified, and remove recognizable details. If a group has fewer respondents than the threshold set at the outset, do not report at that level. This reading is part of an organizational steering loop; it is not used to rank managers or to find someone to blame.

Following one case end to end

Pick a process affected by the change: an exceptional order, an intervention spanning two sites, a request involving several functions.

With the teams and managers involved, trace how a recent case was handled. Where did it wait? What information was missing? Who asked for a sign-off, and why? Could the authorized owner actually decide?

A single case helps understanding; it does not measure frequency. Check with the teams whether the difficulty shows up elsewhere or is an exception. A delay may also come from a supplier, an absence or a specific constraint: separate these explanations before changing the route.

Deciding what stops, too

A new rule is hard to apply if the old one stays active by default. The executive committee states what changes, and also what ends.

For each route reviewed, record a short rule: the decision concerned, the authorized owner, the information required and the exceptions that call for another sign-off. Set an effective date and name who informs the teams and dependent departments. Before the change takes effect, set an observation period (for example the previous four weeks) and a rule for selecting cases, then review, within that scope, the cases requiring a double sign-off (separating sign-offs that remain necessary), those sent back and pending exceptions: this review is the baseline.

Entirely fictional example. A company gives operations the authority to approve exceptional interventions. The former route also required sales approval, and teams keep asking for both, even when the intervention changes no customer commitment. The decision keeps sales approval only for cases that change that commitment; operations approves the others within its scope; an ambiguous exception follows a clear escalation path instead of a chain of informal requests. From the effective date, systematic sales approval ends; the operations manager informs the teams and the sales department.

Checking application on a set date

On the agreed date, repeat the review on the same scope, over a period of the same length and with the same selection rule, then compare it with the baseline: remaining double sign-offs, cases sent back, exceptions left undecided. Note how many cases were reviewed and the constraints of the moment, then discuss the gaps with the teams.

If the old route is still in use, look for the reason before calling it resistance to change: a misunderstood rule, missing access rights, a forgotten dependency. The process owner must be able to fix these gaps. Likewise, shorter lead times may reflect activity volume or other changes; the follow-up accounts for that context.

Before redrawing the organization, the executive committee then has a precise basis: what works, what needs adjusting, and which decisions are not yet applied. This check complements change management, social dialogue and prevention; it does not replace them.

Where to start

Pick an interface where responsibilities have just changed. Describe how it should work, review one case with the teams, make a verifiable decision on the route, then give it an owner and a review date. To keep the loop going, the thirty-day action plan template, designed for workplace climate, adapts to following up a decision route.

Brainmood helps executives read how the organization works after a change, through aggregated team feedback, and then follow up on the decisions made. To assess your situation, see organizational diagnosis or book a 30-minute call.