Earn an Operating Model Workshop From a Vague Reorganization Request

A request to redesign an operating model often arrives as a demand for a new chart. Behind those words, a sponsor might face delayed approvals, overlapping work, unclear ownership, or pressure from a recent business change. A director earns useful work by finding the operating moment before proposing a workshop. The goal is a decision leaders need to make with a shared view of present work.

Start with one recent event. Ask the sponsor to name a delayed decision and describe who waited for an answer. A vague complaint becomes useful when linked to a date, meeting, customer request, or internal handoff. “Too many layers” gives little material. “A regional pricing request waited eighteen days because three leaders each expected approval from another leader” gives a team a place to start.

Discovery does not need a solution for the delay. Discovery needs enough detail to judge whether leaders share a workable question. Listen for the decision, people involved, sequence of actions, and effect of waiting. Ask what changed before the issue appeared. A new product line, regional expansion, leadership departure, or revised planning cycle might shape the discussion. Ask what leaders tried already.

In a fictional conversation, CEO Kim says, “We have too many layers. Redesign our organization.” Director Theo answers, “Which decision takes too long today, and whose work waits for approval?” Kim names product approval for regional offers. Regional leaders send a proposal to product. Product asks finance for a margin view. Finance seeks confirmation from a regional executive. Kim says one offer stayed open for three weeks during the prior month. Theo asks, “What happened during those three weeks?” Kim says the regional sales lead paused contact with the prospect because no approved offer existed.

Theo follows with a narrower question. “Who believed they owned the final choice?” Kim names the product vice president and regional executive. Theo asks whether both leaders used one decision rule. Kim says no written rule exists. Theo now has a workable opening. The issue is not a count of organizational layers. Leaders lack a shared ownership path for a recurring commercial decision. A workshop helps leaders compare present practice, identify unresolved ownership, and choose a future path. Theo avoids promising a new structure before the group studies the work.

An operating model workshop needs a bounded purpose. A useful purpose reads: map regional offer approval from request to answer, identify decision points with competing owners, and prepare options for executive choice. Those words name a process, visible friction point, and output. They do not pretend a half hour discovery call established a final answer. The sponsor also sees session scope. A workshop about one approval route does not need to settle every reporting relationship across the company.

Ask who needs a seat in the session. Invite people with direct knowledge of the path, rather than only senior people with opinions about structure. For the fictional offer example, product operations explains intake, a regional sales leader describes the requester experience, finance explains margin review, and both leaders with disputed authority explain their choices. Ask every participant for one recent example.

Preparation deserves care. Ask the sponsor to collect five approval requests from a defined period, such as the prior six weeks. For each request, capture request date, requested decision, every handoff, response date, and returns for missing information. Keep a separate note for questions unavailable records do not answer. Those questions belong in the workshop rather than in a polished story assembled before people meet.

Resistance often appears as a preferred answer. A sponsor might say, “Put product under regional operations and the problem disappears.” Do not argue about the chart. Ask what decision rights would change under the proposal. Ask who would own margin exceptions, product suitability, and final offer approval. Ask how the sponsor would know whether the new arrangement changed the observed delay. Those questions respect the idea while requiring a link between structure and daily work.

In a second fictional practice situation, chief revenue officer Dana asks for a full reorganization after two regional launches miss internal dates. Director Noor asks for one launch chronology. Dana explains regional teams received product material late, waited for legal review, and asked product for local changes. Noor asks which leader chose the review sequence. No single leader did. Each team followed local habit. Noor proposes a ninety minute session focused on launch approval steps, using one recent launch from every region. The sponsor agrees after hearing the output: a shared sequence, an owner for each decision, and choices leaders need to resolve.

Timing matters. Ask when a leadership decision needs to occur and what event drives the date. A workshop near an annual planning meeting might prepare options for a later decision. A workshop before a product launch might focus on one immediate path. Do not fill a room merely because a calendar holds an open day. Timing should serve a pending choice. If leaders need an answer on Friday, a broad organizational exercise might not fit.

Clarify success from the sponsor’s view. “Faster decisions” is a direction, not a measure. Ask what the sponsor watches now. Leaders might watch elapsed days from request to answer, return count for missing information, or escalation count. Keep each measure close to the example. The plan needs a simple way to see whether a chosen change alters the delay.

Use neutral language when competing groups appear. Regional teams often view central review as needless control. Central teams often view regional requests as incomplete. A director should avoid adopting either account before hearing the work route. Ask what information reaches product, what finance needs, and which choice leads to a return. The map gives people a shared object, moving discussion away from blame.

Leave room for uncertainty in session design. A group might find two possible owners for a decision or an activity with no clear owner. Mark such points unresolved. Do not force agreement for a clean diagram. The group needs to see questions requiring an executive decision after the session. A clear unresolved item is stronger than false consensus. Name the decision owner, needed information, and date for a follow up choice.

Before proposing work, repeat scope in plain terms. In the fictional Kim example, Theo says, “We will examine regional offer approval from request through final answer. Product, finance, and regional leaders will bring recent cases. By session end, leaders will have a map of present handoffs and ownership choices.” Kim then knows workshop output and commitments. Theo has earned discussion about the right engagement rather than selling a generic reorganization.

For a fictional practice case, use a reorganization request dated April 8. Set a decision delay at twelve days and name four people who touched the decision. Write one question for each person about an action rather than a preferred structure. Write a session invitation around one decision path with a defined output. Read the invitation aloud. If a listener cannot name the decision, replace broad language with the exact choice leaders need to make. Place a thirty minute preparation call on the fictional sponsor’s calendar for April 15, and ask every participant for one approval example from March.