Re-orgs are inevitable. Use them intentionally.

If you stay at a company long enough, you will inevitably experience re-orgs.

Some are thoughtful responses to the real needs of the business. Others are reactive, and that is where re-orgs often introduce more disruption than progress.

When done well, a re-org aligns structure with the evolution of the company and positions teams for what comes next. When done poorly, it introduces disruption without solving the underlying problem.

Re-orgs are uncomfortable because they involve people, and change is naturally uncomfortable. Reporting lines shift, relationships evolve, and uncertainty follows. One of the first questions people inevitably ask is: what does this mean for me?

A large part of leadership during a re-org is addressing that uncertainty directly.

In a healthy and growing company, re-orgs are often a good sign. They signal something important: the way we operated in the past may not set us up for what we need to deliver in the future.

Strategy evolves. Structure should follow. The key question is not whether to re-org. It is why.

When re-orgs are healthy

In a growing company, priorities change. Products evolve. Teams scale. Constraints shift.

A re-org can be an acknowledgement that the company is adapting to those realities and preparing teams for success in what comes next.

The best re-orgs are clearly tied to strategy. Leaders should be able to articulate what changed, why the current structure no longer fits, how the new structure improves alignment, and what success should look like after the shift.

If those answers are clear, the disruption has purpose.

When re-orgs become risky

Re-orgs become risky when they are not tied to a clear reflection on how the organization needs to evolve to succeed.

If a leader leaves and the instinct is to move an entire org somewhere new, it is worth asking whether the structure was wrong to begin with.

Teams should not be moved solely to give a new leader broader remit, justify a level, or make a role more attractive. Structure should follow strategy, not personalities.

If the job itself is not meaningfully changing, it is fair to ask why the reporting line is. Sometimes the real issue is not structural. It is a leadership gap, a skills gap, a clarity problem, or an accountability problem.

A re-org on its own will not fix those.

Questions I ask when considering a re-org

A few questions help clarify whether the change is truly necessary:

1. What problem are we solving by making this change?
2. What is the team’s overall objective?
3. Will the team genuinely be better positioned in the new structure? Why?
4. Are we addressing the root cause of the issue, or applying a structural bandage?
5. What are the risks of not making this change now? Do they outweigh the potential gains?

A re-org is a powerful lever. It can accelerate execution, but it can also introduce instability. Being explicit about the trade-offs matters.

Re-orgs are structural decisions

Re-orgs often feel personal because they disrupt identity and stability.

But structurally, they are tools. Used well, they help us adapt to growth and change. Used poorly, they mask deeper issues or introduce avoidable risk.

The most important thing is honesty about the problem you are trying to solve. Structure should follow strategy. And strategy should be clear before the boxes move.