The Peril of Deciding the “Future Org Chart” Today
News has reported that IST Software Co., Ltd. has announced its new organizational structure and personnel transfers for the fiscal year 2026. At first glance, clearly outlining a future organizational vision in advance seems like a positive message demonstrating high planning capability and management transparency. However, from the perspective of “reversible management,” this could be seen as an extremely high-risk decision that is a classic example of compromising reversibility.
This is because organization and personnel are among the areas of management decisions that are most difficult to “reverse.” Once announced and people’s expectations and career perspectives are formed around a future org chart, it cannot be easily revised even if the environment changes. Especially fixing a structure for a long span like two years later is nothing but a “decision” that ignores market changes, technological innovation, and the growth of internal talent during that period.
Using this news as a case study, this article analyzes the concrete mindset for executing organizational restructuring as a “reversible decision” and the three irreversible risks brought about by long-term fixation.
Three Irreversible Traps Created by Long-Term Fixation
Why does deciding the 2026 org chart now lead to an “irreversible decision”? It’s because it inherently builds in the following three traps as mechanisms.
1. The Trap of Fixing “People’s Expectations”
Once an org chart is announced, the positions and departments listed on it are perceived by employees as a “promise.” If a specific post has a name attached to it, that person expects a career advancement, and others start to see them that way. But what if the business environment changes drastically a year later and that post itself becomes unnecessary?
One of the basic principles of “reversible management” is to “look at the work, not the people.” Linking people to positions at a stage when the future work structure is uncertain increases the risk of it later manifesting as a “people problem.” The necessity of the work should come first, and people’s roles should be decided accordingly, but this order gets reversed.
2. The Trap of Robbing the Opportunity for “Observation and Learning”
An organization is a living thing. Even if an ideal structure can be designed on paper, how it actually affects workflow, human relationships, and decision-making speed cannot be known until it’s put into operation. “Reversible management” prioritizes observation over fixation. In other words, a new organizational setup is a “temporary placement,” and a set evaluation period must be established to collect data during that time (decision speed, frequency of inter-departmental collaboration, employee satisfaction, etc.).
By deciding on a single point in the distant future of two years later, the process of “temporary placement” and “observation” during that interval is omitted, losing the chance to notice design flaws. By the time it’s noticed, personnel assignments and internal politics are likely already fixed, making it difficult to go back.
3. The Trap of Inflating “Psychological Cost”
Changing a plan once made public is often criticized as management’s “lack of consistency” or “poor planning.” This creates a significant psychological cost, becoming a factor that causes hesitation to change plans even when environmental shifts are obvious. As a result, it can lead to the absurd situation of maintaining an obviously outdated organizational structure simply because “it was promised.”
“Reversible management” is designed with the possibility of failure in mind. By deciding on an evaluation period and exit criteria in advance, the negative perception of “plan change = failure” can be transformed into a constructive process of “part of hypothesis testing.”
Four Practical Frameworks for “Reversible Organizational Restructuring”
So, how is it possible to design an organization with reversibility while keeping an eye on the future? Below are four concrete frameworks.
1. Define “Roles” First, Assign “Titles” Later
The first thing to decide should be the “chunks of work (roles)” that will be needed in the future and the interfaces between those roles (who decides what and how they collaborate). At this stage, do not specify concrete names or job titles. Define roles such as “Person responsible for strategy formulation in Area A” or “Coordinator for collaboration between Process B and Process C.” This ensures design starts from the necessity of the work structure.
Names and titles should be assigned in a “provisional” form, to the minimum extent necessary, only after assessing the capabilities of the personnel who will actually take on those roles and the internal situation at that time. This is the practice of the basic principle: “Prioritize observation over fixation.”
2. Always Declare an “Evaluation Period” and the “Method of Reversal” Together
When introducing a new organizational structure or personnel assignments, always explicitly state an evaluation period, such as “This is a trial implementation until Q4 2024” or “We will verify effectiveness in January 2025 and decide whether to continue, modify, or terminate it.” More importantly, it’s crucial to share in advance the principles of “how personnel will be reassigned if the structure is terminated or modified.”
For example, establishing a rule like, “If a newly created post is abolished, the affected individual will return to a senior member role in their original department,” can minimize personal damage and confusion during changes. This embodies the idea of “designing with failure in mind.”
3. Draw the Org Chart “in Pencil, and Use an Eraser Regularly”
As a management mindset, consider the org chart as drawn in pencil, not ink. Establish an opportunity at least once a quarter to re-examine whether the current organizational structure is functioning to match the reality of the work and deliver optimal performance. In this review, verify whether the initial design hypothesis was correct based on data (performance, employee surveys, project completion speed, etc.).
This habit encourages rethinking the organization not as a fixed “thing” but as a fluid “process.”
4. Communicate “Principles of Evolution,” Not a “Detailed Future Picture”
Instead of showing employees a detailed, predetermined future org chart, communicate to them “the direction our organization is heading” and “the principles we value for adapting the organization.” For example, principles like “We will increase cross-departmental project teams to strengthen customer touchpoints” or “Decision-making will be data-driven and delegated to the front lines as much as possible.”
By sharing the design philosophy rather than a specific blueprint, employees understand the essence of the change and start thinking about how to work in alignment with those principles themselves. As a result, even if the specific org chart is changed later, it is less likely to be perceived as “the direction has shifted.”
Conclusion: Design Organizations with a Compass, Not a Destination
The case of IST Software serves as a trigger to consider the risks of fixing a long-term org chart in today’s highly uncertain world. What “reversible management” aims for is not drawing a perfect future picture, but incorporating a “robust process” to move forward while adapting to change.
The most critical thing to avoid in organizational restructuring decisions is prematurely linking people’s expectations to positions, creating a psychologically and institutionally irreversible state. First, focus on the “work” and define the necessary “roles.” Treat them as “temporary placements” and “observe” them over a set period. And share in advance the principle of fearlessly “reversing” or “modifying” if necessary.
This is not a lack of planning, but the best preparation for uncertainty. Will your next organizational design be a map specifying a detailed destination, or a powerful compass that never loses direction no matter the storm? It begins with incorporating decision reversibility into the design.
Comments