Table of Contents
Organisation design comes before recruitment.
That sounds obvious, but it is one of the easiest things for a founder-led business to get backwards. We hire someone because there is a problem, then we figure out what that person should own. Someone leaves, we replace them with a slightly different person, and the role changes again. Over time, the structure of the company starts reflecting the people we’ve hired rather than what the business actually needs.
And once that happens, it becomes difficult to see where the real problems are.
Design the organisation before you fill the seats
The distinction matters because a business designed around its current people is limited by its current people.
When we start with organisation design, the question changes. Instead of asking, “Who can we hire?” we can ask, “What does this seat need to accomplish?”
That gives us a much more precise recruitment process. We can define the capabilities the seat requires, determine who is accountable for what, and establish what excellent performance actually looks like before we ever put a candidate in front of us.
The other approach tends to create roles around individual strengths and preferences. Accountability gaps develop between people. Two people may believe they own the same outcome, while something else critical has no owner at all.
The structure becomes a reflection of history instead of a reflection of where the business needs to go.
That’s why organisation design needs to happen first.
The Accountability Chart shows us what the business actually needs
One of the most useful tools for organisation design in a founder-led business is the Accountability Chart.
A conventional org chart tells us who reports to whom. That’s useful, but it doesn’t tell us enough about how the business actually operates.
An Accountability Chart defines the seats in the organisation, what each seat is accountable for, who owns that seat, and the three to five most important responsibilities attached to it.
That forces us to answer two questions that can otherwise stay hidden.
First: what does the business actually need?
We aren’t looking at the roles our current people happen to fill. We’re looking at the seats the organisation needs in order to deliver its strategy.
Second: who is accountable for what?
Every seat should have clear ownership. When we build the chart, we can see where nobody owns a critical outcome and where multiple people believe they own the same one.
In most businesses examined for the first time, the Accountability Chart exposes at least one significant accountability gap. It also commonly reveals an overlap and at least one role that exists because someone previously left and was replaced by somebody slightly different.
You won’t necessarily see any of that on a conventional org chart.
Organisation design starts with outcomes, not activities
Once the seats are defined, the next step is role design.
This is where organisation design becomes much more specific. We’re defining what each seat requires in terms of outcomes, accountabilities, decision rights, and capabilities.
That’s different from a job description.
A job description is written to attract candidates. A role design specification is written to clarify what the organisation needs.
The biggest shift is moving from activities to outcomes.
Consider the difference.
A finance role might be described as managing the finance team, overseeing monthly reporting, and working with the external accountant. Those are activities. They tell us what the person does, but they don’t give us a clear standard for whether the job is being done well.
An outcome-based role specification is different. The finance director could be accountable for monthly management accounts by working day 10, gross margin reporting by service line, and a 13-week cash flow forecast updated weekly.
Now we have something we can actually assess.
We’re no longer asking whether someone can talk about managing a finance function. We can ask how they would build a 13-week cash flow forecast. We can ask what could prevent monthly accounts from being completed by working day 10 and how they would address it.
That changes the hiring conversation.
Better organisation design makes better hiring possible
This is where the connection between organisation design and recruitment becomes important.
When we hire first and define the role later, the interview tends to revolve around activities. Can this person manage a team? Have they worked with accountants? Have they handled reporting?
Those questions may tell us about someone’s experience, but they don’t necessarily tell us whether they can produce the outcomes the seat requires.
When the seat is designed first, we can assess candidates against the actual work the organisation needs from them.
If the role requires a 13-week cash flow forecast, we can ask the candidate to show us how they build one.
If the role requires management accounts by a specific deadline, we can explore how they would protect that deadline and what they would do when something gets in the way.
The difference is significant. Activity-based roles produce activity-based interviews. Outcome-based roles give us a way to assess whether someone can actually deliver.
Build the structure before you fill the seats
This is the part worth slowing down for.
We don’t want to build an organisation around the people who happen to be sitting in it today. We want to understand the organisation the business requires, define the seats, clarify accountability, and establish the outcomes those seats must produce.
Then we find the people who can fill them.
That’s what good organisation design gives us. A structure based on what the business needs rather than what happened in the past.
Because as the company grows, unclear ownership doesn’t disappear on its own. It gets harder to see, harder to fix, and more expensive to ignore.
If we want to build a business that can grow beyond the founder, the structure has to support that goal.
Otherwise, we’re just adding more people to a structure that was never designed to work without us.
And eventually, the question isn’t how many people we have.
It’s whether the right people own the right outcomes.
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