Everything was working great. A tight-knit team, everyone knew the names of their teammates' closest family members, syncing happened in hallways, turnaround was quick. Then suddenly, everything became surprisingly complicated and difficult.

​

Why is that?

​

When there are 15 or 20 people, a lot can run on proximity. There is plenty of implicit knowledge about who is doing what. And when you're unsure, you ask. Decisions happen in conversations. No long, boring meetings, not too much writing — things just happen. New people learn by being around those who have been there longer.

​

And then the organisation grows.

​

Suddenly, two people think they own the same decision. Or, even worse, nobody does. There is a sudden need for managers, who somehow end up being expected to know the answer to every small question. Beer talks about what's working and what's not suddenly become feedback sessions. A new person needs three conversations to understand something everyone else assumes is obvious.

​

The natural response is often: we need more structure.

​

And sometimes we do.

​

Working on both sides - on building People practices inside rapidly growing organisations and supporting smaller organisations as they reach the point where informal ways of working aren't quite enough anymore.

​

What's important is understanding that structure and process are not the same thing. Adding new layers of decision-making can make things better, but it can also create friction and misunderstanding.

Often, our conversations start when some new structure has already been introduced, but hasn't really translated into how work gets done. People are confused, the free flow of information has been disrupted, and the organisation is left with the irritation of additional structure without much of its intended benefit.

​

This is why, before adding another process, it's worth looking at where things are actually getting stuck.

Is ownership unclear? Are people missing information? Is a decision being made at the wrong level? Have expectations changed without anyone really talking about it?

​

Yes, we can build performance systems, onboarding, manager practices, career frameworks and other People infrastructure when the organisation genuinely needs them.

​

But sometimes the useful intervention is much smaller.

​

Clarify who makes a particular type of decision. Agree on what a team lead is actually responsible for. Give a new manager a clearer way to handle 1:1s. Remove an approval rather than add one.

The goal isn't to keep working exactly like a 20-person company forever. It's to preserve what's valuable about that closeness and ease of working together, while adding just enough structure to support the organisation as it grows.

​

Sometimes growing up simply means becoming clearer. 

​

Tools and conversations clients find useful when working through this:
Role & decision mapping · RACI · Employee journey mapping · Performance frameworks · What is and what is not leaders day to day work