In today’s rapidly evolving business environment, understanding the nature of “work” and the varying levels of complexity involved is essential for organisations seeking to enhance productivity and foster value-creating roles. As we explored in Part 1, many organisations are mired in structural inefficiencies that obscure accountability and hinder meaningful contribution.
Employees often struggle with unclear expectations, overlapping responsibilities, and excessive managerial interference—symptoms of poor role definition and misaligned structures. To address this, organisations must align role design and reporting relationships with the complexity of work required at each level. This article focuses on aligning roles by work complexity; the question of talent and capacity will be addressed in the next instalment.
Understanding Work Complexity
In the Strategic Organisation framework, work complexity is assessed through the concept of time-span of discretion—the maximum duration within which an individual is expected to exercise judgment and deliver outcomes without further instruction.
For instance:
- A frontline employee working within a 1- to 3-month time span typically handles well-defined tasks and solves immediate problems using standard procedures.
- A supervisor operating within a 3-month to 1-year time span coordinates schedules, manages short-term performance, and sets tactical goals—requiring broader judgment and planning.
As the time-span increases, so does the inherent complexity of the role, encompassing greater ambiguity, integration, and long-term thinking. Thus, time-span of discretion offers a measurable and practical lens for mapping work across the organisation.
Naturally Occurring Levels of Work Complexity
Based on in-depth research, it is found that there are natural levels of complexity within an organisation that can be mapped using time-span as a measure of decision-making scope. For most organisations, these levels progress as follows:
- Level 1 (1 day to 3 months) involves direct task execution;
- Level 2 (3 months to 1 year) includes supervisory planning and short-term coordination;
- Level 3 (1 to 2 years) encompasses managerial integration across functions;
- Level 4 (2 to 5 years) focuses on business unit leadership and mid-range strategy; and
- Level 5 (5 to 10 years) addresses enterprise-level strategy and long-term value creation.
Each level represents a qualitative leap in complexity, requiring greater cognitive capability, judgment under uncertainty, and responsibility for longer-term outcomes. Roles at the higher levels must deal with greater ambiguity, integration across functions, and strategic planning under uncertain conditions. From a practical standpoint, the longer the time horizon a role is accountable for, the more complex the decisions become, as they involve more variables, longer-term consequences, and fewer clear precedents.
At each ascending level, roles demand more abstract thinking, broader systems integration, and accountability over longer horizons. This progression provides the foundation for a vertically aligned organisational structure—one that reflects the true complexity of the work at each level.
Symptoms of Misalignment: Too Many or Too Few Layers?
Many organisations suffer from structural misalignments that distort the natural levels of work:
- Role compression occurs when multiple roles operate at the same level of complexity. This leads to micromanagement, decision bottlenecks, and stifled initiative as people are unable to exercise discretion appropriate to their title or responsibility.
- Role vacuums arise when a level of work is absent altogether—leaving vital integrative or strategic tasks undone. This results in poor coordination, unclear ownership, and missed long-term opportunities.
Both conditions produce friction, miscommunication, and inefficiencies. Without a structure that clearly delineates levels of complexity and corresponding authority, organisations struggle to scale, adapt, or execute strategy with discipline.
Conclusion
Strategic Organisations are deliberately designed to reflect the inherent levels of work complexity. By assigning roles based on appropriate time-span of discretion and decision-making authority, organisations eliminate structural distortions like compression and vacuums.
The outcome is a clear, accountable, and scalable structure—where each role adds unique value and supports the levels above and below. This vertical alignment enables effective delegation, stronger strategic execution, and a culture built on trust and performance.
By matching people to the real complexity of their work, organisations can unlock deeper engagement, enhanced productivity, and long-term adaptability.