Working in Stable but Structurally Constrained Organisation.

Introduction

In my relatively short time in the working world I have worked in several long established orgnisations. What stood out was how reliably they operated. DIvisions were clearly defined. Teams knew their roles. Day-to-day execution was consistent, supported by experienced staff who understood how to get things done.

On the surface, these organisations seem to just work. As I spent more time in such organisations I noticed recurring patterns beneath the stability.

Seeing the Organisations Beyond Day-to-Day Operations

Across several established organisations, I noticed a recurring asymmetry: mechanisms for organising work within established boundaries were often stronger than mechanisms for coordinating work across them. Typically each division had its area of focus.

Typically, each division had a clearly defined area of focus. Within those divisions were the core operational teams, supported by functions such as administration, marketing, digital, or other locally embedded support roles. This gave each division much of what it needed to operate independently.

Consequences of the structure

This structure had clear advantages. Responsibilities were easier to define, teams could build deep expertise within their own domains, and day-to-day execution remained relatively stable.

Its limitations became more visible when work crossed divisional boundaries. Across these organisations I observed, this sometimes resulted in:

• similar work was repeated across multiple teams
• best practices remained local instead of spreading
• coordination depended heavily on personal relationships rather than structure

It wasn’t obvious in isolation. Each division functioned well on its own. But when viewed as a whole, these organisation weren't operating as single systems, they were operating as multiple parallel systems.

The recurring pattern was not that these organisations lacked structure. Rather, they often had stronger mechanisms for local execution than for horizontal integration.

The Human Side: Where It Became Most Visible

This structural model worked well for employees who had been around for a long time.

They understood:

• who to approach
• how things were actually done (beyond formal processes)
• how to navigate the organisation informally

But for newer employees, the experience was different. Despite a formal HR onboarding process, day-to-day assimilation took significantly longer. Without those informal networks, these organisation was much harder to navigate. Processes were partially documented and fragmented on top of that, understanding how things really worked required context that wasn’t easily accessible.

This often led to:

• slower assimilation
• uncertainty in the early months
• reliance on trial and error

Across some of these organisations I observed, newer hires appeared more likely to leave before becoming fully integrated. I did not have access to formal attrition data, so I could not determine the scale or causes of this pattern. However, it raised a broader question.

When newer employees leave early, organisations do not only lose potential successors. They may also lose perspectives, practices, and assumptions developed outside these organisations before those ideas have had time to influence how work is done internally.

Over time, this increased dependence on the experienced core while making it harder for new knowledge to become embedded in the organisations.

Tacit and distributed
organisational knowledge
        ↓
Slower newcomer
integration
        ↓
Greater early-stage
uncertainty
        ↓
Some newcomers leave before
becoming fully integrated
        ↓
Less external knowledge becomes
embedded in the organisation
        ↓
Greater dependence on the
experienced core
        ↓
More knowledge remains tacit
and relationship-dependent
        ↺

Informal Status and Organisational Relevance

The strong bases of experienced staff who developed deep knowledge of how work was actually carried out beyond formal processes. These individuals maintained operational continuity, bridging gaps that systems and structures did not fully address.

But this created a paradox. In some cases, organisational importance came partly from the ability to navigate complexity that the organisation itself had created. Knowledge of undocumented processes, manual workarounds, informal relationships, and fragmented systems could make individuals indispensable.

Changes that simplified or formalised these arrangements therefore did more than alter workflows. They could also change whose knowledge mattered, who controlled information, and who remained central to getting work done.

In this context, attempts at introducing change particularly structural or technological would naturally be met with resistance. However, this resistance was not driven by unwillingness or lack of capability. Resistance emerged as a rational response within a system that rewards stability and continuity.

This resulted in:

• Persistence of existing practices through technological upgrades
• new approaches struggling to gain traction
• structural inefficiencies remained unaddressed

The Incentive Problem: Local Risk, Distributed Benefit

Individuals and teams were primarily accountable for outcomes within their own scope, particularly at the division level and department levels. Cross-boundary changes introduced disruption and uncertainty into existing operations. Maintaining established practices could therefore be a rational response even when a change appeared beneficial from a wider organisational perspective.

Observed Dynamic

• local success was prioritised over cross-organisation optimisation
• change carried higher perceived risk than maintaining current practices
• benefits of alignment were distributed, while risks were individual

In this context, behaviours that appeared as resistance were often aligned with rational self-preservation within existing incentive structures.

The consequence:

• initiatives requiring cross-division alignment faced natural friction
• system-level improvements were difficult to implement
• existing structures continued to be reinforced over time

Technology: Capability Without Realisation

The more interesting observations were around technology.

These organisations already had access to capable platforms, including collaboration tools and enterprise systems. On paper, these platforms were sufficient to support efficient workflows and cross-functional coordination.

However, their utilisation varied significantly across divisions.

Some teams adopted them actively, while others relied on localised or manual processes. There was no consistent approach to how these platforms should be used across within each organisation.

As a result:

• information remained fragmented
• workflows were not standardised
• integration opportunities were not realised

Technology: Capability Without Alignment

What made this more interesting was that these organisations already had access to capable tools.

Platforms like SharePoint and enterprise systems were available, but their usage varied widely. Some teams used them actively, while others barely incorporated them into daily workflows.

So the issue wasn’t a lack of tools.

It was that: there was no structural alignment to support how those tools should be used across an organisation.

IT departments, in particular, were positioned in a way that limited its influence in departments. IT exist, but serve more as a responder than a driver.

As a result:

• systems remained fragmented
• integration didn’t materialise
• enterprise-wide automation and integration were harder to realise consistently

System Landscape: Redundancy and Fragmentation

Another pattern that became apparent was the presence of multiple systems serving similar or overlapping functions. Across divisions and functions, different tools were often used to achieve comparable outcomes. These systems had typically been adopted independently over time, based on local needs rather than organisational alignment.

While each system was effective within its own context, the overall landscape became:

• fragmented
• inconsistent
• difficult to integrate

Observed Effects

• duplication of effort across teams
• inconsistencies in data and processes
• increased complexity in coordination
• higher reliance on manual workarounds

The Gap Between Capability and Readiness

One of the more striking observations was around digital capability. There was increasing awareness of technologies like automation and AI, but very little real adoption. It wasn’t because the tools weren’t available — it was because the organisations weren't structurally set up to use them effectively.

Adopting these technologies requires:

• alignment across teams
• consistent processes
• shared platforms
• strong ownership of systems

Without these foundations, new capabilities remain theoretical.

It wasn’t resistance it was a quiet form of misalignment.

Understanding What the Organisations Were Optimised For

Over time, it became clear that these organisation weren’t struggling.

It was doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It prioritised:

• stability
• continuity
• reliable execution

And it succeeded at that.

But those same qualities also made it difficult to:

• reduce duplication
• improve integration
• scale digital capability
• adapt quickly to change

The Bigger Realisation

The key insight wasn’t that something was “wrong”. It was these organisation were optimised for preserving how it currently operates, rather than evolving how it operates. And that’s a very different thing.

These experiences fundamentally changed how I think about organisations.

I realised that:

• inefficiencies are often structural, not individual
• technology adoption depends more on alignment than tools
• stability and adaptability often sit in tension
• and most importantly, an organisation can function well and still be constrained in how far it can evolve

Closing Reflection

In the end, these observations aren't about organisational failure.

It is about fit.

These organisations were stable, experienced, and operationally strong.

But the way they are structured limited how effectively it could integrate, adapt, and make use of modern capabilities.

And recognising that difference between what works and what can work is the most valuable part of the experience.