Org design
Org design illustrates how your movement and team work together, who does what, and where decisions are made. Even when you are just starting out with a handful of people, this is important to sketch out to ensure clarity and ensure you are ready to grow.
Org charts sound a little corporate, but really they are just a visual representation of how your team or movement is structured. They can be used internally to help people understand where they fit within the team and externally to show the level of organization.
Mapping your teams
This should be done after your Theory of Change, so that you are able to build teams and roles around your mission and aims.
Map out all the roles and responsibilities needed to achieve your mission and aims (you can do this with sticky notes, on a Jamboard/Miro, or on paper).
Don’t forget the support roles, such as finance, culture/HR/people, comms/social media
You may find that not all roles are covered yet, that is totally normal and helps inform where you need to grow your team
Group similar roles together, creating teams or groups
Keep it as simple as possible, creating ‘now’ and ‘future’ versions if that is easier
Different org structures
Now that you have teams or groups, the next stage is figuring out how they interact and where decisions get made. Below are the most common types of org structures. This is not an exhaustive list of org structures.
Top-down
This is the most traditional structure, with a top-down hierarchy and clear lines of command. Decisions are made at the ‘top’ and passed down, while updates and reports are passed up. One benefit of this structure is that it is super easy to understand who is accountable and where decisions are made. However, this hierarchical approach usually does not fit in with movements’ values, especially around autonomy, trust, and shared decision making.
Decentralised
This structure is also called sociocratic, holocratic, distributed, and more. There are differences in these approaches, but the basic principles are the same: Decisions are distributed to the team or role mandated to take action. This means that those doing the work are those making decisions around and taking responsibility for it. The mandates are decided on together so ensure clarity and that there are no overlaps. Usually each circle or team has a lead/coordinator/rep (lots of names for these too) who facilitates the team’s work and who can represent the team and their work in the Core Team/Anchor Circle/etc.
This is relatively common in movements as this approach allows for quick decision-making, aligns with many movements’ values, and is flexible. There are, however, some challenges to consider. The main one is that this approach needs constant upkeep to maintain the structure and keep clear communications flows between circles.
For more details, you can explore the sociocratic and holocratic approaches.
Flat
Here there are no hierarchies and sometimes no set roles, instead people take ownership and make decisions more fluidly. This is often how movements start out, by the virtue of being a small group of people and not having defined roles or responsibilities yet.
Decisions are usually made through consensus, or are entirely distributed to individuals. While this can work well when just starting out, it can become more difficult as the movement grows.
Hybrid
It may be that none of the above structures feel right for your movement. One structure we often support moevembts toe design and implement is a hybrid structure that is adapted to the movement’s specific aims and mission. As each one is unique, there is no ‘standard’ hybrid org structure. There are some common suggestions, though, such as having teams like finance and fundraising within a top-down structure (so that decisions on budgets and spending are held by the core team), while keeping more campaign-focussed or creative teams in a decentralised structure.
Which structure is right for your movement?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but here is a comparison table and below some key factors to consider. Also, making an org structure now does not mean there is no room for change later. As your movement grows and evolves, so will your org structure.
Factors to consider
Pace of change
Rapidly changing environment or the need to react quickly, fits better with a more decentralised structure
Size
Smaller, local groups could be flat
Larger or cross-national ones need more definition
Funding & partnerships
Self-funded and those with less reliance on partnerships could be flat
External comms or budget decisions may need more structure
Values
Values should be reflected in your structure