Structure is boring until it isn't. You start a company with three friends in a garage, and for a while, everyone just does everything. It’s chaotic. It’s fun. But then you hire person number ten, then twenty, and suddenly, nobody knows who is supposed to approve a vacation request or who has the final say on the new marketing spend. That's usually the moment someone screams, "We need a chart of human resources!" and everyone rolls their eyes thinking about corporate bureaucracy.
Honestly, an organizational chart—or an HR chart—isn't just a collection of boxes and lines meant to make people feel important. It's a map. If you're lost in a forest, you don't call a map "corporate fluff." You use it to find your way out.
Most people get this wrong. They think a chart is about ego. It’s actually about clarity. When roles are fuzzy, stress skyrockets. According to a frequently cited study by the American Psychological Association, role ambiguity is one of the top drivers of workplace burnout. People don't quit because they have too much work; they quit because they don't know what their work actually is or who they're trying to please.
The Chart of Human Resources: More Than Just Boxes
Let’s be real. If your HR chart is a dusty PDF sitting in a folder titled "Onboarding 2022," it’s useless. A living chart of human resources identifies the skeleton of the company. It shows the flow of data. It shows how decisions get made.
You’ve got your standard hierarchical setups, sure. The CEO at the top, VPs below them, then managers, then the people actually doing the heavy lifting. This is the "functional" structure. It’s old school. It works for manufacturing or companies where "staying in your lane" is a safety requirement.
But then there's the flat org chart. Startups love this. Everyone reports to everyone. It sounds democratic and cool until you realize that when everyone is responsible, nobody is responsible. GitHub famously tried a completely flat structure years ago and eventually had to pivot because, well, humans need some level of direction to scale effectively.
Then there’s the matrix. It’s the headache of the HR world. You report to a functional manager (like the Head of Engineering) but also a project manager (like the Lead for the New App Launch). It’s great for resource sharing, but it’s basically a recipe for "Who do I listen to when they both give me conflicting deadlines?"
Why the "Who's Who" Actually Matters for Mental Health
Imagine joining a team where you have to ask three different people for permission to buy a $20 software subscription. That’s a failure of the chart of human resources. A good chart defines "span of control."
Management experts like Gary Hamel have argued for years that we have too many managers. But if you have too few, you get a bottleneck. If one manager has 20 direct reports, they aren't managing; they're just firefighting. Most experts suggest a ratio of 1:6 or 1:8. When you see that laid out visually on a chart, the gaps become glaringly obvious. You might see one manager drowning while another has two people reporting to them.
Real-World Messes: What Happens Without a Map?
I remember a mid-sized tech firm—let's call them "InnovateX" for the sake of an illustrative example—that doubled its headcount in eighteen months. They didn't update their chart of human resources.
Total disaster.
The Sales team was promising features that the Engineering team hadn't even heard of. Why? Because the "link" between the departments on the chart didn't exist. There was no clear line of communication established in the hierarchy. They had "dotted line" relationships that meant nothing. In the end, they lost about 15% of their senior talent in a single quarter because the veterans were tired of the "invisible" work—the tasks that fell through the cracks that they felt obligated to catch.
✨ Don't miss: When Will Walmart Be 24 Hours Again: What Most People Get Wrong
This isn't just a "big company" problem. Small businesses suffer more. In a small shop, a chart tells you which hats you’re wearing. You might be the "Marketing Lead" on Mondays and the "Customer Support Rep" on Tuesdays. If that isn't on a chart, you just feel overwhelmed.
Different Flavors of Org Design
- Functional: Grouped by specialty (Marketing, Finance, IT). Simple. Solid.
- Divisional: Grouped by product line or geography. If you’re Amazon, you can't have one HR chart. You need one for AWS, one for Retail, one for Devices.
- Flat (Horizontal): Minimal middle management. Great for speed. Risky for accountability.
- Network: This is the modern way. A core team that connects to various freelancers, agencies, and partners.
Digital Transformation of the HR Chart
We aren't drawing these on whiteboards anymore. Tools like ChartHop, Lucidchart, or even the built-in features in Workday and BambooHR have changed the game.
A modern chart of human resources is interactive. You click a face, and you see their LinkedIn, their current projects, and their "Personal User Manual" (how they like to receive feedback). It becomes a directory of human capital.
But beware of "Shadow Hierarchies."
Sociologists have long studied the difference between the formal chart and how things actually get done. Sometimes the "Assistant to the CEO" has more power than the "Chief Operations Officer" simply because of proximity. A chart won't show you who gets lunch together, but it should at least tell you who is legally responsible if a project goes south.
The Misconception of "Agile"
People think "Agile" means "No Chart."
Wrong.
Agile teams (or "Squads" and "Tribes" if you follow the Spotify model) require even more rigorous charting. You need to know exactly who is in which squad, who the Product Owner is, and who the Scrum Master is. Without that, "Agility" just becomes "Stalling."
Actionable Steps to Fix Your Org Map
Stop treating your chart of human resources like a static document and start treating it like a piece of software that needs regular updates.
- Audit the "Hidden Work": Ask your team who they actually go to for help versus who they are supposed to go to. If there's a huge gap, your chart is a lie. Change the chart to reflect reality, or change reality to reflect the chart.
- Identify Bottlenecks: Look for the "Superstars." If one person's name is the only bridge between two major departments, you have a single point of failure. If they quit or get sick, the bridge collapses.
- Define Decision Rights: For every box on that chart, you should be able to answer: "What is the maximum dollar amount this person can approve without asking their boss?"
- Visual Simplicity: If a new hire can't understand the reporting structure in 30 seconds, it’s too complex. Cut the jargon.
- Regular Cadence: Review the structure every six months. People change, roles evolve, and the business goals you had in January might not match the reality in July.
Ultimately, a chart of human resources is about respect. It respects an employee’s time by telling them exactly where they fit. It respects the leadership’s vision by showing how that vision is distributed across the workforce.
Build a map that people actually want to follow.
✨ Don't miss: Travis Boersma Net Worth: Why the Dutch Bros Founder is Selling Millions in Shares
Start by listing every primary function in your business, then assign a single "Accountable" person to each. Don't worry about names yet—focus on roles. Once the roles make sense, then you drop in the names. You’ll likely find you have three people doing one job and one person doing three. Fix that, and you’ve fixed your business.