The Day a “Future Org Chart” Shackles Management
IST Software Co., Ltd. announced its “new organizational structure and personnel transfers for FY2026.” The stated aim is to accelerate growth strategy by strengthening business units and expertise while deepening inter-departmental collaboration. On the surface, this sounds like a proactive and well-planned announcement. However, from the perspective of “reversible management,” this is an extremely precarious decision. The reason is that by deciding the organization and personnel for two years from now, they are significantly compromising reversibility.
Many managers believe that presenting a future vision is leadership. Indeed, showing direction is important. However, fixing concrete execution details like “organizational structure” and “personnel transfers” two years in advance, without observing the actual situation, is an entirely different matter. This is nothing less than an act that increases the “difficulty of reversal” of management decisions in the face of future uncertainty.
Three Points of No Return Created by Announcing the “FY2026 Organization”
Analyzing the IST Software case against the principles of “reversible management” reveals risks of losing reversibility in at least three areas.
1. Prematurely Fixing People’s Roles and Expectations
The moment “FY2026 personnel transfers” are announced, unconscious expectations and role fixation begin internally within the company. If the perception spreads that “that person will be the head of that department in two years,” that person starts to be seen as the “future head,” distorting current working relationships. Furthermore, the individual themselves may start thinking “I’m supposed to be in that position in two years,” potentially reducing their commitment to their current role.
A decision that preserves reversibility would be to communicate the “direction for strengthening expertise towards FY2026” while reserving specific personnel transfers to be “implemented as needed.” Define the “tasks” and “specialized areas” to be strengthened first, not the people. People are then assigned based on observing their performance and aptitude for those tasks, at the minimal necessary timing. This is the perspective of “decomposing tasks, not assigning people.”
2. Robbing Adaptability to Environmental Change Through Formalization
Two years is ample time for technology or market conditions to change drastically. It’s not uncommon for an optimal org chart drawn today to become obsolete in a year. However, once officially announced as the “FY2026 Organization,” any change is seen as a “planning failure” or “management confusion,” incurring enormous psychological and political costs. As a result, even when environmental changes occur, a “rigidification of the system” takes place, trying to force reality to fit the announced org chart.
What we experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic was precisely this danger of rigidification. Mid-term plans formulated in advance were powerless against the pandemic. The key is to establish an “observation period” between “policy” and “execution.” While setting the policy of “strengthening business and expertise,” the specific means (organizational restructuring) should be adjusted in small increments based on quarterly performance and environmental analysis. Plans should be treated not as “decisions” but as “the most plausible hypotheses.”
3. Plans Without Substance Become “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies”
When a grand future org chart is announced, there’s a danger that management itself becomes focused on realizing it and stops paying attention to small contradictions or data right in front of them. For example, if a department merger is planned, even if problems arise in inter-departmental collaboration before the merger, they might be postponed with the reasoning “we’ll merge eventually,” allowing the issues to worsen. The plan clouds the vision for observing reality.
In a design with reversibility, an “evaluation period” and “exit conditions” are decided in advance. For instance, if aiming to “deepen collaboration between Division A and Division B,” first create a “temporary” joint project team with a 6-month evaluation period. Set evaluation metrics (e.g., rate of winning joint projects, frequency of information sharing), and if they are not met, disband the team and try a different approach. This is the practice of the principle “prioritize observation over fixation.”
A Concrete Framework for “Reversible Organizational Restructuring”
So, when you want to change the organization for growth, how can you preserve “reversibility”? I propose the following three-step framework.
Step 1: Create a “Function Map,” Not an Org Chart
First, discard the org chart drawn with boxes and lines. Instead, create a “Function Map” that lists all the necessary “business functions” and “decision points” required to achieve strategic goals. This is the work of defining what is needed, not who. For example, if a function like “collecting customer insights for new markets” is needed, do not decide at this stage which department or person should handle it. Simply clarify the priority of functions and their interdependencies.
Step 2: Form “Temporary Teams” to Handle Functions for a Limited Time
Once the necessary functions are clear, form “temporary teams” or “task forces” that cut across the existing organization to bundle these functions. The keywords here are “concurrent roles,” “time-limited,” and “clarification of evaluation metrics.” Members hold concurrent roles, minimizing impact on their primary duties. The team’s duration is set for 3-6 months, and specific outcome indicators to be achieved in that period (not KPIs, but process or learning indicators) are agreed upon by all.
Step 3: Formalize Gradually Based on Reality
After the evaluation period ends, review the team’s outcomes and process. If the function operated well and demonstrated continued value, the next step is to define it as a more permanent “role” and gradually allocate necessary resources. If it didn’t work well, disband the team cleanly, change who handles the function, or reconsider the necessity itself. By repeating this cycle of “temporary placement → observation → adaptation,” the organization can flexibly change shape according to its living reality.
The core of this approach is recognizing that “organizational restructuring is not a one-time event.” It is a “process” that is continuously fine-tuned in line with changes in the environment and internal capabilities.
The “Courage Not to Announce” and the “Wisdom to Place Temporarily”
IST Software’s announcement likely had the intention of showing a firm will for growth to both inside and outside the company, and managing the expectations of investors and employees. However, a manager’s true strength lies not in presenting a grand vision of the future, but in acknowledging uncertainty, designing “room” to run with plans as “temporary placements,” and being able to course-correct as many times as necessary.
At a mid-sized software company we support, when launching a new business unit, they did not publicly announce the leader. Instead, they gathered three members in concurrent roles under the name “New Business Creation Team” and started it as a six-month experimental project. As a result, it became clear early on that the assumed technological direction did not fit the market. The team was promptly disbanded, and they tried again with a different approach. If they had appointed a “New Business Unit Head” from the start and put it on the org chart, this pivot would have come at a much greater cost.
In management decisions, the choice “not to announce” is often more strategic than “to announce.” It is humility towards the future and a manifestation of realism that values substance.
Is your organization’s “future plan” on rigid rails, or on a soft path where you can change course according to the situation? That difference will determine your organization’s vitality two years from now.
Comments