After a Reorg, Map the Real Workflow Before Designing the Comms Plan
Key Takeaways
A Ragan analysis of post-reorg communications work found that comms leaders are increasingly asked to operate in matrixed environments without org-chart visibility into how work actually moves, and identifies mapping informal workflows as one of the skills communicators need most.
18 Coffees research and client experience has shown that hierarchical, matrixed, and decentralized organizations each create different communication dynamics, so a single playbook fails in at least two of them by default.
McKinsey research on "open-source change" shows that organizations where employees have real roles in planning and implementation are dramatically more likely to achieve their transformation goals than organizations relying on top-down cascades.
Peter Senge's longstanding finding still holds: people do not resist change, they resist being changed by others. That makes mapping informal influence a leadership responsibility carried at every level of the organization.
The most useful move a comms leader can make in the first 90 days after a reorg is to map how work actually flows through the new structure, before sending a single all-hands email. According to a Ragan analysis of post-reorg communications complexity, one of the most common resource requests communicators bring to industry peer groups is to see other teams' org charts, because reporting lines now shape approvals, message consistency, stakeholder alignment, and decision-making authority in ways many leaders did not anticipate before the reorg landed.
We see this pattern in client work consistently. A new structure goes live on a Monday. Within two weeks, the same friction points that existed in the old structure reappear in slightly different places. The structure shifted on paper. The underlying network of who-talks-to-whom, who-owns-which-data, and who-can-greenlight-a-decision stayed where it was. The reorg deck describes one organization on paper. The work happens through the older network of relationships and dependencies that no reorg touches directly.
That difference is where comms leaders, and change leaders more broadly, do their highest-value work. The org chart tells you reporting lines. Mapping the work itself tells you where decisions actually get made, where information stalls, and who others rely on to move things forward.
Why doesn't the org chart show how work actually gets done?
The org chart describes formal reporting relationships, which are only one input into how work moves. Decisions actually move through recurring meetings, trusted relationships, and people who control specific inputs (subject-matter experts, system administrators, budget approvers, gatekeepers between teams). The Ragan analysis identifies three common structures (centralized, matrixed, and decentralized) and notes that each one creates different communication dynamics that live beneath the org chart entirely.
In our organizational change consulting practice, we ask a version of this question on day one: who is our spine? In other words, where are the nodes of influence at every level, and who do others actually listen to? Those people rarely line up neatly with seniority. A senior director who carries no operational credibility is worth less than a manager three layers down who controls the weekly product sync. The reorg may have rearranged the seniority, but influence tends to stay where it was, with the people who have built the relationships that carry work through the organization.
Where does friction concentrate after a reorg?
Friction concentrates at the seams between teams that used to coordinate informally and now have to coordinate formally. In a centralized structure, friction queues at the top, where every major decision waits behind a single approver. In a matrixed structure, friction shows up at the intersection of dotted-line and solid-line reporting, where employees field conflicting priorities from two managers. In a decentralized structure, friction lives between local optimizers who are each rational on their own but collectively pull in different directions.
McKinsey research on workforce change capacity has found that the majority of employees report moderate-to-high change fatigue, and change-fatigued employees are significantly more likely to consider leaving the organization. Friction left unaddressed compounds into change fatigue, attrition, and lost capacity to absorb the next initiative. The biggest shift in change management right now is the collision between accelerating change demands and declining employee capacity to absorb them. Reorgs intensify that collision rather than resolve it.
What should a comms leader actually do in the first 30 days?
The work in the first 30 days is mapping. Messaging comes later, once the map is in hand.
First, identify the spine. Sit with three to five people at different levels and ask: when you need to get a decision made, who do you actually call? The names that come up across multiple conversations are your influence nodes. Those are the people who carry or kill messages depending on how they read the change.
Second, identify the predictable friction points. Where do approvals queue up? Where do priorities conflict? Where does information get stuck in translation between functions? Each of those is a place where the org chart is fighting the work, and no comms plan will paper over that fight. Some friction points call for a process redesign, not a message.
Third, recruit a cross-hierarchical group of change champions before launching any formal communication cadence. A senior-leadership-only steering committee will produce decks. A cross-functional, cross-level group with skin in the game will produce adoption. We've written before about change fatigue and leadership strategies that hold up under pressure, and the through-line is the same: communication moves behavior when it travels through a network of credible peers who carry the message in their own words.
How do you measure whether the reorg is actually working?
Measure behavior change. Are people doing things differently a quarter after the reorg than they were before it? Are cross-functional handoffs faster? Are decisions getting made closer to the work? Are the new reporting lines pulling weight, or are people still routing around them to the contacts they trust?
It is easy to count town halls held, FAQ documents published, and trainings completed. Those metrics feel like progress but rarely tell leaders whether the reorg landed. The measures that matter (how fast handoffs happen, whether decisions get made closer to the work, whether the new reporting lines are actually pulling weight) take more effort to observe but reveal far more about whether behavior has actually shifted. Organizations that track behavioral KPIs during change succeed at dramatically higher rates than those tracking activity alone. Until behavior actually shifts, the reorg is a diagram of intentions.
What's the role of resistance after a reorg?
Resistance is information. Peter Senge's longstanding finding still applies: people do not resist change, they resist being changed by others. When you encounter resistance in the weeks after a reorg, treat it as diagnostic data. Are people skeptical because of failed past reorgs at the company? Because they can't see a viable path forward on implementation? Because the new structure threatens something they legitimately value, like a working relationship with a peer who is now in a different reporting tree?
Each of those resistance signals calls for a different response. Sometimes the right move is to listen, recalibrate, and bring detractors onto the change team. Once skeptics have their fingerprints on a direction, they often become its most effective advocates, and they are credible because they arrived at conviction through doubt. Sometimes resistance reveals that the reorg itself was designed for the org chart, not the work, and the design needs adjustment before the rollout can succeed.
Frequently asked questions
What is the first thing a comms leader should do after a reorg?
Map how work actually flows through the new structure before drafting any messaging. Identify the people others actually listen to, the friction points where decisions queue up, and the cross-functional handoffs the org chart does not make visible. Mapping the real workflow informs every message that follows it.
Why do reorgs often produce the same problems in new packaging?
Reorgs change reporting relationships, but the informal network of relationships, expertise, and trust that carries work through an organization changes far more slowly. When leaders move the boxes without addressing the underlying network, the same friction points reappear in slightly different locations within a quarter.
How do you build change momentum in a matrixed organization?
Build a cross-functional change champion network with representation across both the dotted-line and solid-line reporting structures. Make sure information and influence can flow in both directions so leaders surface resistance early and frontline employees see their feedback shape implementation.
What does behavior change look like in a post-reorg context?
Behavior change shows up as faster cross-functional handoffs, decisions getting made closer to the work, fewer routing-around-the-structure shortcuts, and adoption of the new processes the reorg was designed to enable. Awareness happens with an all-hands email. Behavior change takes months of new habits carried by managers at every level, and it is the only metric that actually tells leaders whether the reorg landed.
Should you involve skeptics on the change team?
Often, yes. Skeptics who eventually come to believe in the change become its most credible advocates because their colleagues watched them work through their doubt. Read for the source of the skepticism. Constructive doubt sharpens a team. Cynicism rooted in bitterness can poison one.
About the author
Robin Kasner is Managing Partner at 18 Coffees, a strategy consulting and training firm that helps organizations develop the muscle memory for change. Read more about Robin and the team on the 18 Coffees About page.
In the middle of a reorg, or staring down one next quarter?
That's our bread and butter. Let's talk.
Read next:
Read next: Change fatigue and leadership strategies
