Stability Fosters Agility More Than Restructuring Does

Most organizational reorganizations fail not because of poor execution, but because they start with the wrong assumption: that structure drives performance. In reality, work happens through informal networks, trust, and adaptive behavior--none of which show up on an org chart. Phil Le-Brun, former CIO at McDonald’s and AWS executive, argues that reorgs based on structural reshuffling destroy more value than they create by disrupting the very human systems that deliver results. The hidden consequence? Teams lose psychological safety, productivity plummets, and the organization becomes less agile just when it needs to be more. This post is for leaders who are tired of repeating the same cycle of disruption and disillusionment. It reveals how to shift from theatrical restructures to meaningful, lasting change by prioritizing stability, curiosity, and small-scale experimentation--giving those who apply it a quiet but decisive advantage over peers still chasing the next big transformation.

Why the Obvious Fix Makes Things Worse

When a leader announces a reorganization, the first instinct is often to redraw the org chart. It feels decisive. It looks like progress. But as Phil Le-Brun points out, this is where most reorgs go off the rails: they treat the org chart as the organization, when in reality, it’s just a crude map of a much more complex, living system.

"We’re simply changing the wrong things... an org chart is an artifact. It doesn’t represent how work really happens."

-- Phil Le-Brun

Work doesn’t flow neatly down vertical silos. It flows sideways, diagonally, through backchannels and informal calls between people who’ve figured out how to get things done despite the structure. John in IT calls Amanda in marketing because he knows she can cut through red tape. That connection isn’t documented. It’s not in any process manual. But it’s real. And when you reorg, you break those threads--often without even knowing they existed.

The immediate effect? Chaos. People go into survival mode. Their first question isn’t “How can I contribute?” It’s “Do I still have a job?” Leaders dismiss this as “resistance to change,” but it’s not resistance--it’s rational fear. And once that fear takes root, curiosity dies. Psychological safety evaporates. The very conditions needed for innovation are destroyed in the name of “improving” the organization.

This is the core contradiction: the act of restructuring to become more agile often makes the organization less agile. It creates a second-order negative that outweighs any first-order benefit. The org chart may look cleaner, but the system is now more fragile, less responsive, and slower to adapt.

Le-Brun’s alternative? Don’t start with structure. Start with clarity of purpose. Start with the problem you’re actually trying to solve. Is it speed? Cost? Innovation? Customer focus? Name it honestly. Then, instead of imposing a solution, invite the people doing the work to help design it.

This flips the script. Instead of top-down decree, you get bottom-up ownership. Instead of disruption, you get continuity. And instead of destroying informal networks, you begin to strengthen them.

Where Immediate Pain Creates Lasting Moats

One of the most counterintuitive insights from Le-Brun’s work is this: structural stability enables agility, not the other way around. Most leaders assume that to be agile, you must be ready to restructure at a moment’s notice. But Amazon’s “two-pizza team” model proves the opposite.

These small, dedicated teams--no larger than can be fed with two pizzas--are given a business outcome and the autonomy to achieve it. They’re not pulled in multiple directions. They’re not juggling competing priorities. They’re focused. And because they stay together over time, they develop deep tacit knowledge, trust, and cohesion.

"The worst form of corporate vandalism is to disband high-performing teams."

-- Phil Le-Brun

This is where conventional wisdom fails. Most organizations believe that rotating talent across projects maximizes flexibility. But in practice, it destroys it. Every time you break up a team, you lose the compounding value of shared experience. You reset the clock on trust. You force people back into “storming” mode instead of letting them stay in “high-performing.”

The real advantage isn’t in constant churn--it’s in consistency. It’s in letting teams build momentum, learn from failure, and refine their approach over time. This kind of stability doesn’t happen by accident. It requires leaders to resist the urge to “fix” things that aren’t broken, to tolerate a little messiness in the short term for long-term gain.

And it pays off in ways that are hard to replicate. Competitors who rely on reorgs as their primary change lever can’t keep up. They’re always one step behind, reacting to yesterday’s problems. Meanwhile, the stable, adaptive teams are already iterating on tomorrow’s solutions.

This is where the octopus metaphor shines: two-thirds of its neurons are in its arms. The center provides vision and direction, but the edges have the autonomy to act. They don’t wait for permission. They adapt in real time. And because they’re not constantly being restructured, they get better and better at it.

The 18-Month Payoff Nobody Wants to Wait For

Most reorgs are framed as urgent. “We need to move fast.” “The market is changing.” “We can’t afford to wait.” And so leaders launch big, sweeping transformations--18-month initiatives that promise to “future-proof” the organization.

But Le-Brun warns: transformations are self-destructive. They demand so much energy, so much buy-in, that no one can admit when they’re failing. Leaders fall into loss aversion: “We’ve invested too much to turn back now.” So they keep pushing, long after the original rationale has faded.

The alternative? Small, reversible experiments. Instead of betting the company on one structural redesign, try a pilot. Move one team. Test a new way of working. See what happens. If it works, scale it. If it doesn’t, walk away. No shame. No sunk cost.

This approach requires patience most leaders lack. It doesn’t look impressive in a board meeting. It doesn’t come with a shiny new org chart. But it’s how real change happens: incrementally, iteratively, through learning.

And here’s the kicker: when you involve people early--not after the plan is “fully baked,” but while it’s still messy and uncertain--you tap into a reservoir of insight and energy that most organizations leave unused.

Frontline employees know where the bottlenecks are. They know which processes are broken. They often know the solutions. But they’re rarely asked. Instead, leaders bring in consultants, run workshops, and design changes in isolation--only to be surprised when people “resist.”

But it’s not resistance. It’s exclusion.

When you start with curiosity instead of certainty, you shift the dynamic. You signal that you don’t have all the answers. That you value input. That you’re willing to learn. And that, over time, builds trust--the kind that makes future change easier, not harder.

How the System Routes Around Your Solution

One of the most powerful systems-thinking insights in the conversation is this: people will adapt to your structure, not follow it. No matter how elegant your org chart, employees will find the shortest path to getting work done. If that means bypassing official channels, they’ll do it.

Leaders who ignore this reality design systems that look good on paper but fail in practice. They add governance to control complexity, only to create more of it. They centralize to improve consistency, only to slow everything down.

The octopus organization embraces the opposite: design for emergence. Create conditions where the right behaviors can emerge naturally--through small teams, clear outcomes, and psychological safety. Then get out of the way.

This isn’t passive leadership. It’s more demanding. It requires letting go of control. It means being comfortable saying, “I don’t know.” It means coaching instead of commanding.

But it’s also where the real leverage lies. When you stop trying to force the system into compliance and start nurturing the conditions for adaptability, you unlock a kind of resilience that no reorg can deliver.

Key Action Items

• Start with the problem, not the structure. Before touching an org chart, clearly define the outcome you’re trying to achieve. Is it speed? Cost? Innovation? Communicate that widely and invite input. This shifts the focus from “Who reports to whom?” to “How do we solve this?”

• Protect high-performing teams. Resist the urge to disband or reassign people from teams that are delivering results. Over the next quarter, audit your key initiatives and identify which teams are in “high-performing” mode. Shield them from disruption.

• Run small, reversible experiments. Instead of a company-wide reorg, test a new model with one team or division. This pays off in 12--18 months as you build evidence-based practices that can scale organically.

• Communicate early--even when you’re uncertain. Within the next 30 days, if you’re considering structural changes, share the intent and the problem with your team, even if the solution isn’t clear. This builds trust and reduces speculation.

• Shift from mentoring to coaching. In your next 1:1, ask more questions than you give answers. Focus on helping your reports think through challenges, not solving them for them. This creates lasting capability, not dependency.

• Clarify what won’t change. In times of uncertainty, people crave stability. Name the constants: customer focus, core values, key priorities. This creates an “oasis of calm” within your team, even if the broader organization is in flux.

• Be honest about objectives. If cost reduction is a driver, say so. Avoid corporate jargon like “synergies” or “efficiencies.” This discomfort now--naming the hard truths--creates credibility and buy-in later.