Table of Contents
We can hire managers, build departments, redraw the org chart, and still have a business where nearly every meaningful decision eventually works its way back to us.
That is a decision rights problem.
And it is one of the least visible parts of organisation design because you cannot see it on the chart.
The chart tells us who reports to whom.
It does not necessarily tell us who is actually allowed to decide.
That difference matters more as the company grows.
A founder can make hundreds of decisions personally when the business is small. But if we keep those same decisions as the organisation expands, we create a strange situation: we add management capacity without actually giving management much capacity to manage.
People get titles.
The founder keeps the authority.
And eventually everything slows down.
Why Decision Rights Get Stuck With the Founder
Giving someone a management position is relatively easy.
Giving them real decision rights requires something harder.
Trust.
It also requires enough documentation that the person understands what they own, what good looks like, and where their authority stops.
A lot of founder-led companies have not built that yet.
So we default to what feels safer. Managers can recommend. They can prepare information. They can bring us options.
But the decision still comes upward.
That may feel like control. The problem is that we eventually become the constraint in the very organisation we hired people to help us run.
Every meaningful decision waits.
Managers learn to operate with limited authority.
And capable people eventually get the message that making decisions is not really their job. Their job is to bring decisions to us.
We are paying for a management layer without receiving the full benefit of the judgment sitting inside it.
Decision Rights Should Match Accountability
This is where organisation design often gets backwards.
We make someone accountable for an outcome without giving them enough authority to produce it.
Then we wonder why they keep coming back to us.
If a finance director is accountable for management accounts, that person should also be able to determine the format, timing, and level of detail without needing approval on every element.
The same applies in operations.
If an operations director owns delivery quality, that person needs enough authority to change the processes affecting delivery, assuming those changes stay within clearly defined budget and risk limits.
That does not mean unlimited authority.
It means the decision rights should match the accountability.
There is a major difference between giving away control and defining where control belongs.
Good organisation design does the second.
We decide what someone owns. We define the boundaries. Then we allow them to operate inside those boundaries without continually pulling the decision back upward.
Otherwise accountability becomes theater.
The manager owns the result on paper, while the founder still owns every decision required to create it.
Document Decision Rights, Not Just Job Descriptions
We tend to document responsibilities.
We should be documenting authority alongside them.
When we redesign a role, we should be able to answer a simple question:
What can this person decide without coming back to me?
If the answer is unclear, the person will normally do one of two things.
They will make decisions and risk being corrected for exceeding authority, or they will protect themselves by referring decisions upward.
In founder-led businesses, the second option is often safer.
That is how the bottleneck forms.
Clear decision rights remove some of that ambiguity. The manager knows the result they own, the decisions they can make, and the limits around those decisions.
Now we can actually use the intelligence we hired.
But authority is only one part of organisation design.
We also have to look at how many layers we have created and how many people each manager is actually managing.
Too Many Layers Create Distance
Layers measure the distance between the CEO and the front line.
For a business below $15 million in revenue, a well-designed organisation generally should not have more than three layers between the CEO and the people doing the front-line work.
If we have more than that, there is something worth examining.
Maybe we have managers managing too few people.
Maybe supervisory positions accumulated over time as the company grew and nobody went back to question whether those roles were still needed.
Either way, more layers create more distance between the strategic decision and the operational execution of it.
And an org chart can look impressively structured while hiding a lot of unnecessary management overhead.
More management is not automatically better management.
Sometimes we have simply built more places for information and decisions to travel through.
Span of Control Tells Us Whether the Layers Make Sense
The second number worth watching is span of control.
How many direct reports does each manager actually have?
One or two direct reports can be a sign that we have created an uneconomic management layer.
At the other extreme, once a manager reaches more than roughly ten or twelve direct reports in most professional environments, the problem starts moving in the other direction. There are too many people for the manager to give adequate attention to.
The right number varies depending on the work, but five to eight direct reports is a reasonable benchmark for many management roles in a service business.
This is why we cannot judge organisation design by boxes and reporting lines alone.
We need to look at the authority inside those boxes.
Who decides?
Who is accountable?
How many layers sit between the founder and the front line?
How many people is each manager actually responsible for?
Those questions tell us far more about how the business really operates than the org chart does.
The Founder Should Not Be the Default Decision-Maker
The difficult part of distributing decision rights is that we have to give up some decisions before the organisation feels completely comfortable making them.
That requires trust.
It requires documentation.
And it requires clear limits around budget, risk, and accountability.
But the alternative creates its own risk.
We keep hiring people while decisions keep flowing upward. The business gets larger, yet the founder becomes more involved instead of less.
That is not really scale.
We have just built a bigger organisation around the same decision-maker.
If we want the management structure to carry real weight, authority has to move with accountability. Otherwise the org chart changes, the titles change, and the headcount changes, but the business underneath it still works exactly the same way.
Everything still waits for us.
And eventually the company can only move as fast as we can decide.
Justin D Maxwell provides family office and investment bank services to the lower midmarket to founders who want 8 or 9 figure net worths. You can learn more here: www.justindmaxwell.com or take our free assessment here: https://fielding.global/articles/diagnostic.html