Please hit subscribe wherever you consume our podcast ✌️
Josh Epperson is a Senior Manager of Organization Development at Amazon, specializing in strategic design, change management, and cultural transformation. He holds a Master's in Organizational Development and has extensive experience leading high-impact organizational initiatives, focusing on aligning organizational capabilities with business objectives. Epperson's multidisciplinary background in business, psychology, and theology allows him to effectively bridge the gap between individual and systemic change. Learn more about him on his expert page.
In this powerful episode, Amy Springer and Tim Brewer are joined by Josh Epperson, Senior Manager of Organizational Development at Amazon. Josh shares a refreshingly honest, thought-provoking journey from play-based therapy with children to shaping strategy, structure, and systems at one of the world’s largest companies.
This conversation explores how org design is evolving in an AI-infused world—why the org chart is no longer enough, how agentic AI changes workforce strategy, and what leaders should be measuring (but often aren’t). Josh reveals practical frameworks like Fit to Purpose and Fit to Deliver, explains why most org design efforts are reactive (and broken), and challenges us to design ourselves out of a job before AI does it for us.
Whether you’re an org design pro or a founder navigating scale, this is your blueprint for designing resilient, high-performing organizations.
[00:00:00] Amy Springer: Welcome to the Org Design Podcast, Tim Brewer, Amy Springer is your host for this episode, and we are joined by Josh Epperson out of Seattle. He is the senior manager for organizational development at Amazon. Thank you for joining us, Josh.
[00:00:18] Josh Epperson: Glad to be here.
[00:00:19] Amy Springer: Our usual kickoff,
[00:00:21] Tim Brewer: yeah.
[00:00:22] Amy Springer: Changes, every time, every story is different. How did you find your way into this space called org design? Whether you call it that or not, whether it's a familiar term or not, tell us how you got here.
[00:00:35] Josh Epperson: So I, I've heard that I was loosely prepared from some of your previous episodes. And funny, funny answer is, I didn't find my way into org design, it found me. I started my career in behavioral sciences working with kids ages six to 17 with severe mental health, and I had a turning point with a 6-year-old boy named Patrick, who was mute and was doing play-based therapy with him, and I realized that, we made progress one day out of three months, and I dumped him back into a system and structure that would belie everything that we had just progressed in his life. And so that's when I got into the field. Shortly, there after I was working at a consulting firm and I found myself on my first ever first class flight. I was fresh outta grad school and I was headed to a large healthcare system. And on the flight, the founding partner turns to me and says, "all right, so when we break out to do our org design small groups, you're gonna run one of the sessions". And I said, "huh. We're doing org design breakouts. Can we talk about that? Because I'm not even sure what that means". And the funniest part about it, was when I got in the room, I was working with the COO of the healthcare system , and my colleague and dear friend had the CEO's group, and we were supposed to, do current state operating models. And the COO turns to me with his group and he says "do you want us to draw this or do you want us to write about the current state operating model?" And I was like, I don't have a freaking clue what I'm supposed to do. And as a good consultant, I just said, "you know what? I'm gonna have you, I'm gonna have, you do both. I'm gonna have you draw a picture. and I'm gonna have you write about it."
So anyway, so that was the start to my uh, org design career. I
[00:02:41] Tim Brewer: we have a lot of listeners that work in the area of org design and know what org design is, but we have lots and lots of leaders that find themselves running an organization or like you become responsible for looking after their organization in that way.
How would you describe for a non org design professional? What you do and why it matters that it's done well?
[00:03:07] Josh Epperson: Yeah, in short, businesses, even communities, non-governmental organizations are *here to do something of value. They have a mission or a purpose where they aspire to certain aspirations with the customers that they serve or the donors who are giving them money and they have a set of assets that is their organization that will either transform those aspirations into intended results or not. And so org design is the intentional practice of configuring those assets to ensure that we achieve aspired to results with customers or outcomes.*
[00:03:50] Tim Brewer: I've just come outta San Francisco after a couple of weeks talking to leaders in organizations, technologists, people thinking about the future. As we do at Functionly where me and Amy work, we think a lot about what's gonna change in the next five to seven years. Everyone's talking about agentic AI, robotics, they're really big influences in many organizations. How do you think org design is gonna change, or how do you think that practice is gonna change over the next coming years as we see that revolution kick in with AI and robotics?
[00:04:23] Josh Epperson: Totally, earlier today I was, I found myself at a whiteboard with a coworker noodling on an idea. It was a X and Y axis of course. And on the vertical, I labeled it headcount or resource stack. And in that resource stack, the first place that we go to are people. But out of the four areas, two of the four were actually not people, it was strategic executive leadership, then it was agents or agentic AI, then it was tactical execution, and then the fourth was automation or outsource. And and I was plotting and trying to do percentages by type of work, which is the horizontal access. And I was revving this idea with my coworker around, "Hey, for truly strategic differentiated work, how would we break down the percentages of that headcount resource allocation stack? And the first one that we did was the strategic differentiation set of work activities, we broke it down 35% strategic executive leadership, 30% agentic or agent resource, which by the way, is not human. And then 35% probably tactical delivery. So for a nine person team, it's roughly three executives, three people working in the organization, not on it, and then three agents roughly. And so thinking about resource allocation. Human and technological and thinking about that as your stack is just a whole new, I haven't ever really done org design that way. And she looked at me and she said, " We're not doing that, we don't build in agents into our roles and job profiles".
[00:06:23] Tim Brewer: Yeah. We were just chatting before this call, actually, Amy just traveled quickly outta the city after going and attending a talk, which was essentially titled, " the org chart is dead". And I don't think it was saying like, Hey, you shouldn't visualize things, I think people love visualizing and creating observability within systems that they work in. Today, we put humans, we take a payroll system, we put all the humans in the organization that are on payroll, and leaders are putting them in a chart and, "okay, here's where my people are, this is who they report to". That feels to me like it's gonna have pretty big implications about how we go about doing org design.
Do you have a sense in how it's gonna impact how often we do org design? For the listeners, if you're sitting in an organization, traditional org design a as used to do in a consulting firm was every three years. Things would change slightly. You'd become out of alignment. You'd bring in a Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey, and they'd come and do this huge reorg project that no one looks forward to, but is necessary to stay aligned. Is that world still gonna be something we see 10 years from now where we do this big projects over time? Or do you think that's gonna change the way and is that the changing the way you look at org design in terms of its cycle?
[00:07:45] Josh Epperson: Yeah, it's absolutely changing. I think before I answer that, the preface to my answer is that, if we're always doing org design, that should be a defect, because one of the things we'll inadvertently trade off is a lack of continuity.
*And I believe that there's a lot to be said for leadership continuity, for operating model continuity. It's hard to build trustable business rhythms or reliable business rhythms if you're always changing how you're operating and you're always changing the hierarchy or structural kind of design*. And so the preface would be, it ought to be a defect if we're doing it, weekly, monthly, quarterly because we lack continuity.
What I am really working on right now is what I would call more *continuous monitoring on a broader set of systemic signals that inform real org design and metrics around org health.* Because a lot of organizations, even very data-based organizations don't have a good set of systemic org metrics. Most organizations quickly index on span of control, layers, nesting, because that is what we have at our fingertips. But a lot of organizations don't have things like, meeting effectiveness or formal process strength or decision making. And *the continuous for me and being truly adaptable is responding to those changing signals that show the system's perspective*.
Because ultimately we design organizations to deliver strategy. And when the strategy shifts, that's when we need to adapt and change, and so I'd be amiss to give you a, it's every x days, months, quarters, years. *Really what we're responding to is *_*a continuous and ongoing set of signals that inform*_*, *_*"Hey, we need to rethink how we organize our offsets to deliver our strategy"*_.
[00:10:06] Amy Springer: Historically, we're all humans. We were the core part of that system. We can walk up to someone, we can read the room, we had more of an instinct for maybe those issues and we didn't have a good global view of an organization, but there was a bit more "something doesn't feel right".
Does this then feel like our shift to incorporating that percentage of agentic, we almost have that imperative to truly have real metrics. Is that sort of the instinct you're going and that's why you're thinking about that?
[00:10:42] Josh Epperson: So if we're all working back from customers or like some sort of value proposition, if that's what we're working back from, what we know is that with the technology, that discontent, those desires, the whole supply and demand concept, like that's all just changing more rapidly. And so, so part of effective organizations or organizational health is keeping in step with that. If you thought it was hard to keep in step with your customers currently or in the past, it's only gonna get harder. Because stuff is just gonna be cycling quicker, and so that's why I've just been indexing on continuous monitoring and the right signals and really system signals versus, what I would characterize, like just specifically talent signals or people signals. So, I think a more holistic set of metrics are gonna help us stay in better step with who we're working back from, and it's gonna ultimately make us quicker because we're gonna build machine learning algorithms that we can trust based on the signals that we're seeing.
[00:12:02] Amy Springer: Just wanna double check I understand what you're saying. You mentioned before there's the bits of the organization system we don't want to be changing all the time because that actually hurts us more. Very heavy resourcing. So I'm talking strategy,
[00:12:17] Josh Epperson: Yep.
[00:12:17] Amy Springer: operating model, and really the structure as well. However you define structure for you.
It sounds like maybe if we're listening to those signals that you mentioned already, the decision making, meeting effectiveness, is your sense that actually it means we'll focus on fixing those things that can be fixed at a more constant rate and rather than thinking "it's not working, blow it all up", actually, do you feel like that'll push us to better behaviors.
[00:12:46] Josh Epperson: I hope. I hope so. I think so. And I hope so. And, I think that's where we have to, as practitioners, we have to get really crisp on the problem or opportunity that we're, working toward, and then there needs to be freedom and flexibility because every business, every org is a little different.
And I think that's what makes good org design, good, is that it's in, it's very contextual for the business, the strategy and where it's headed. And I think *what organizations have to do is they have to validate meaningful metrics*. I think from a system standpoint, I could organize my thinking or my mental model around like areas of measures.
But the metrics in one org for business processes and mechanisms may look different than for another org. So just take business mechanisms and processes as a portion of a system signal, and then a lever to design for. If you're a meeting intensive culture and meetings run rampant, your design is gonna look different than if you're very decoupled and very federated, and everybody at high autonomy and everybody does their own thing, they don't have to meet together.
So how you measure business mechanisms and processes might look a little different for company A than it does for company B. And then org health might look a little different, and thus design might look a little different.
[00:14:19] Tim Brewer: For someone running a 500 person org, you've been a founder and seen it through those different phases, measuring all different kinds of things across your organization. What are the top three to five things, if you were sitting with a friend and they're like, man, my I'm just trying to keep up with the pace of everything. And they're thinking about a reorg. How would you advise them on measuring the top things you think a mid-market CEO in the US today should be absolutely measuring and keeping a handle on in their organization?
[00:14:51] Josh Epperson: I think about a few categories. *Three big buckets, Fit To Purpose, Fit To Deliver, and then Results Optimization Fit.*
*Fit for purpose* is CEO, you gotta be connected to your context and your customers. And so whatever mission and purpose you have it's gotta be directly tied to the trends in your market and what customers indicate they want and need or don't know they want and they need, but they will.
Then *fit to deliver*. I'm thinking about: do you have the right people? Doing the right work? In the right structure? To ensure it and the right environment or culture to support it?
So whether you're getting a good result or a poor result on the far right, you can always go back upstream and somewhere there's gonna be a disconnect in your fit for purpose or your fit to deliver. And so when you design an organization, you want metrics, good metrics for both of those things. Hey the trends and customer needs, wants, desires are aligned with your top priorities and by your, I mean your collective priorities.
So senior leadership team, when I ask you what are your top three priorities, and everybody says something different. There's not good alignment. So I would say don't even start designing. Start there. Start in your fit for purpose to say, "Hey, we need to get clear on our top 3, 4, 5 priorities". Focus there so that we can organize our assets to deliver that. And if it's, if you've got good fit for purpose, then okay, let's look at our, let's look at our levers. Let's look at our transformation levers in our system.
Like right people, right work, right roles and structure in a culture or operating environment that supports it. Then let's dig in. What are the metrics that help us understand really discreet signals that are contextual for us to either reinforce, "yeah, see that's why we got what we got", or "no. We, don't have that, and that's why we're getting a negative result and we can design for them". So then we can do a design lever on a fit to deliver.
[00:17:08] Tim Brewer: That's cool that grounds that. About three or four weeks ago I was chatting to an executive in the Midwest. She. Her title is the Chief People and Technology Officer, and it was the first time I had seen those two come together and I was like, oh, wow. That's really interesting. I had tons of questions on her background, how she ended up there. I get to San Francisco and got a call from a CEO that I chat to quite often he's " Tim, I'm just having all this trouble, like mobilizing my team to engage AI". We talk through, he knows that 'cause their identity. So there's a bunch of, I'm gonna come back on that one. Like the human side of being under threat from technology. We were having a chat, "we've got a, a people person. But they don't really care about this stuff and our operator doesn't really focus on it".
What shifts are you seeing in organizations that are really doing the best around augmenting and supporting their humans with AI? How are you seeing them change the way they're thinking about the leadership team from a traditional model? Where you've got, Hey, these are the the pieces we'll see in a leadership team. Are you seeing a shift agentic AI, hitting real time now into a lot of big orgs? Are you seeing that change the way executive leadership teams or leadership teams are structuring and thinking about fit for purpose?
[00:18:28] Josh Epperson: I think if if I'm honest, there's a little bit of fear for certain people around dabbling in AI, and I have had conversations with past colleagues where I'm like, I am completely rethinking how I do org design and how large language models and machine learning and new metrics and data can support good design. What I've seen that's best to overcome that fear, is just to encourage daily use of it. Make it really personal, don't even try to put it into the work realm. One of the most powerful experiences I had with AI had nothing to do with work, it was a moment that cemented it for me, where I was like, I cannot use this, I can't not use this at work. And I had I keep a journal on my phone in my notes section, and I downloaded into a text file, my journal. And then I uploaded that text file into Cedric and I said, tell me about this person and it blew my mind. It was so good. And then I got it.
What, you know, What followed was was like a 30 minute back and forth with Cedric and and the last few questions I was like, give me, can you give me a three-year plan for this person to optimize who I am and who you see me becoming. And all I can say is that it freaking hit it out of the park. So much so that I started crying. I was like, what in the world? Who, what is this machine doing?
And it was at that moment where it was through my lived experience and the personal kind of connection to it that I was like, I can't, not use this at work. I can't not use this in org design. I don't know how, but I have to. And so that was a real turning point for me. So the big thing with senior teams that are struggling with it is, experiment and play with it, make it okay to do stupid stuff on it. And you may have to set up parameters and firewalls so that it stays within all your security clearances and guidelines and stuff. But do it and just go dabble with it and play with it because it is crazy good and crazy powerful.
[00:20:53] Tim Brewer: I wonder with your background, and I dunno if you see that, humans, a lot of us attach a lot of who we are from our work and we work, work changes that can be hard. And, we joke all the time about " oh, just have a conversation about someone's job title and see how emotive that can become" when it is really not even substantial to the day-to-day work that they do.
How do you think about tackling that when you're having to have those conversations that can verge on impacting someone's, who they are. I'm gonna say, I just gotta use common language for that. And what would you say to that mid-market leader going, oh hey, I have to have all these hard conversations already about, where you might be in the org that are threatening someone's personal identity or at least impacting what they perceive to be their personal identity. What's the tool or like simple thing that a leader can walk away with that, that you use when you are having those conversations?
[00:21:50] Josh Epperson: Interestingly, it's, it's a phrase that I use often with org design when I'm setting up with a team, which is, behaviors get really wonky when we start making changes to people's jobs. That's a real thing for design teams. When the light bulb goes on where an individual is " oh my gosh, where if we reorganize that work. And we put part of that work over here we move the other part of that work over here. I don't have a job".
And one of the things I always say at the beginning of org design projects and it's not cliche, it's actually real. *You have to be willing to work yourself out of a job. *You have to be able to design yourself out of a job.
And I think that's true with aI and our work. So as a consultant, prior to my experience at Amazon, when I was a consultant for 16 and a half years, a lot of my identity and my value was getting in the room with these senior leadership team and creating that aha moment. Of " oh my gosh, we should not centralize our R&D function, but we should embed it in lines of business because the work is so unique and different that it requires unique and different R&D muscle, by product line, not at a center", and to be able to lead a team and have that moment where it pops and then, it's oh, look at what I unlocked.
With AI we don't need me that way anymore. At least not all the team. And if I'm honest, that's hard because, that's how I know to be seen as valuable. And so part of what I have to do is let go of being seen the way, being viewed the way that I've always had or even understanding value. The way that I always had.
And and just be confident in the sense that what I know is that if I get, if I can get the right signal to the team quicker, I'm gonna use my thinking and my experience and my subject matter expertise on top of that, not instead of it and so that's gonna help me run faster. It's partly how I'm wired and not everybody's wired this way, Tim, but I see it as a great opportunity, not a threat, and it is, you know, it is challenging as you're getting your identity reframed. So that's real too. But I see it as an opportunity, not threat.
[00:24:23] Amy Springer: Josh, i'm interested to know, have you seen a shift in momentum from the leaders within your organization? Historically there's the people that, as Tim mentioned at the start, some people naturally have an instinct for good org design and they will have been seeking you out and saying, "Hey, can you help me think about my org?" Have, because of the way LLMs are interrupting work now, are you seeing a shift? Is there more momentum from more leaders seeking assistance?
[00:24:52] Josh Epperson: I think most leaders that I work with and that I've worked with in my career, they just want the answer and the easy button. " Just tell me how it works. Just make it work for me". And so I think that's why we're why we are inclined or tempted to take less than systemic metrics because we want to have, some degree of certainty.
"We want a number, like just gimme the number, just tell me what the span of control has to be."
And I always look back at it. I'm like,
"you just tell me what the work is, just tell me what the work is." And it's
" I don't know what the work is."
And I'm like,
"yeah, that's what we're gonna talk about is what's the work". And they're like,
"yeah, but that's gonna take time". And I'm like,
"you're darn right. It's gonna take time. But if we don't, it's gonna, it's gonna haunt us, indefinitely".
And I can't, I have had that, I didn't plan on playing that one though, but I've had that conversation happens so many times. And so I *always go back to what's the work*.
[00:26:08] Amy Springer: So people aren't naturally asking the questions.
[00:26:12] Josh Epperson: No.
[00:26:13] Amy Springer: Just, we now have that imperative that everyone needs to be asking that question.
[00:26:17] Josh Epperson: Absolutely. And that's what I'm always looking for is like what? There's usually one or two things that a leader is like "yeah, that's the thing. That's the thing". And it's always overly myopic.
But when it comes to org design, if they double click or index on the jobs to be done or the work as a starting place, I get really interested and I'm like, I want you on the design team. Because there's a get it factor, that good org design is something more than a number, a ratio, fill in the blank, that it's a little bit messier and it works back from the jobs to be done and how they relate to the strategy. So I get really interested in getting those people close.
[00:27:14] Tim Brewer: Practically how I see that play out, Josh, is people just want to go straight for an org chart. They're like yeah. Okay. That's great. We'll just, can we just move? What's that new structure gonna look like? I'm like, you're just in the first discussion about what you do, and they just want to go straight to the end.
One of the things you shared a great article actually on LinkedIn recently that I wanted to ask about. Which was this concept that's been talked about over the last year where org design often seen differently to workforce planning are coming closer and closer together.
How do you see, for those who don't know what workforce planning, maybe talk to us about how you see workforce planning as different today from org design. And how do you see the two, either through your own experiences or through the experiences of your peers. How are you seeing those coming close together and what should the mid-market learn about that, and think about that in the coming months and years?
[00:28:08] Josh Epperson: In terms of workforce planning, I am really thinking about the kind of the all up talent mix. So within an, org you have lots of departments, teams. Or within an enterprise, you have lots of business units and functions. And workforce planning is really a lot about optimizing the talent mix to do what you said you need to do, both currently and then projected future. Looking around corners, what we need. And it's been challenging to do that in our current kind of environment, because there's so much that we still don't know about AI. And so workforce planning can be really tricky with regards to understanding talent mix for roles and jobs that are like, currently being designed.
If they're super novel and brand new. So I think about workforce planning from an all up kinda talent mix. Kind of system look, whereas *organization design is really how do we think about the work? How do we organize the work to deliver a set of priorities and then inform or serve as an input to the talent mix or the workforce plan that we need to do that well. That's kinda how I think about it from from left to right is that org design. And I break it down, Tim, I break it down from strategic design or operating model design, which is really nailing your purpose and direction and your strategic priorities.*
*Organizing your assets to deliver those priorities, in terms of how you think about grouping it and linking it*. So anytime we group work, it creates boundaries in our organization and often value is brought to life across the boundaries of those organizations. So we first group it to drive strategic significance, and then we look at the boundaries that those groupings create, and we look at how do we link that work to ensure that value gets created when it crosses over those boundaries.
And that's all, strategic, operating model design, how I think about it. And then it's one body of work and then hierarchy and structure shows up in operationalizing that or operational design where we look at the jobs to be done, the reporting relationships, the other mechanisms within those teams, team charters, decision rights, taking decision rights all the way to the ground, looking at process mapping and that sort of thing.
[00:30:53] Tim Brewer: And you're seeing those two, the work around org design, operating model, and structure and where work is done coming closer and closer to that holistic view of looking at your entire mix of workforce and in a workforce planning sense.
[00:31:09] Josh Epperson: Yeah, and I think you're right that leaders often start on the operational design and the org chart. And it's for good reasons, it's what they're most familiar with. And it's just sticky. Like I can look at it, I can hold it, it's on a piece of paper, it's in a PowerPoint slide. I can move people around, so I can manipulate it. But in terms of the steps of all org design, it's 1/32nd of the entire body of work of good org design. And it's literally at the furthest end of that equation. Yeah.
[00:31:44] Tim Brewer: Just thinking about this in terms of organizations that do org design. I think there's, my observation is a very small fraction that I'd consider like proactive in their org design. Whether they see org design as serious, maybe they're just, they're org design geeks, they just naturally geek out on that.
For everyone that's not, looking at this going. " Yeah. I know this is an important thing. We'll deal with it when it's on fire. Like when it's a serious problem. We're completely missing the mark. We got like major dysfunction". In your history at work, how have you helped leaders that don't see proactive org design as important? How do you talk them through what they're seeing in their organization and the problems they're seeing as an org design problem that needs to be proactively invested into.
[00:32:33] Josh Epperson: If you wanna pay more and you want it to take longer and you want it to be more painful a process, just wait till your organization is dysfunctional to do org design. Like *the best time to do org design is when the house is not on fire*. Because and for, a couple reasons. One is, and I'll take it all the way down to behaviors. Ultimately, when we design an organization, and we get all the way down to individual behaviors and expectations around individual behaviors.
And when you do org design, that's like massive turnaround when the house is on fire. Part of what makes it really challenging, and you have to do this anyway, but you have to re-engineer behavior, on a personal level and re-engineering behavior in the best of scenarios is challenging. When it's re-engineering bad behavior to good behavior, it's even more challenging. And so if you wanna wait till the house is on fire, you're in a lot of pain, there's a lot of dysfunction. You will have to literally break the bad behavior.
*You could get the right design and never bring it to life because you can't reshape bad behavior.* And you can make design choices to encourage behavior, but again, that's different. Shaping equal types of behavior, reshaping those is easier than like reshaping bad behavior to good behavior. So it takes a lot more work. *Turnarounds are a lot more work than doing growth based design, opportunistic design*.
[00:34:27] Tim Brewer: Like you, I am constantly thinking about how to help, and I think one of the implications of AI and robotics, however you frame that up, is that it's gonna lead to a lot of change and it's gonna create a pretty big shift across a lot of industries in terms of people who have adopted it early and who are taking off in terms of the efficiency gains that they're able to bring to their organization. And I think what will quickly happen is people will realize th e optionality they had just to keep doing things the way they've always done it is gonna be removed from them 'cause they'll have a competitor that's can do things a lot cheaper or a lot faster, or an order of magnitude better, 10 times better, a hundred times better for the same customers. And it's gonna create some really interesting competitive pressures in coming years.
And so me, Amy, and the team we're always thinking about how do we help people move from a reactive approach to a proactive approach? So I appreciate you answering the question.
In some ways, org design as we've talked about today, is gonna need to change, the way org design is done. But I also think it's going to heavily change the way organizations are structured by force of market, by shift of strategy outside of people's control. So it won't be an internal decision. It'll be coming from the outside. So we think about that often and think about how do we help people make that jump to getting in front of the wave rather than being dumped by it.
[00:35:55] Josh Epperson: and just that triggers one last thought and then, I can be done, but it's, I think when you mentioned rethinking org design, one of the things that I'm encouraging leaders a lot, and I'm actually trying to bring into my own practice of org design, is that org design isn't a panacea. It doesn't have to always be the solution, like a reorganization, which happens a lot, right? " Oh, let's just restructure", but as we get better metrics and discreet signals to work back from, we can actually do less invasive "design" type solutions. So for instance, we could just re-architect jobs to be done to improve a workflow, or we could just double click into building what we value in our culture that we're not seeing. And those as individual signals don't require org design.
*Org design becomes really interesting when we see a lot of signals in the system popping at the same time.* To really work back from and use design levers to solution, but it's, it, can be invasive and it's big often. And so if we can make discrete changes in our design and our operating model to improve outcomes, that's what I'm first and foremost for.
[00:37:23] Tim Brewer: Josh, it's been such a pleasure having you on.
[00:37:26] Josh Epperson: Hey, thanks for having me. Really appreciate it. You guys are great.
[00:37:29] Tim Brewer: that's it for another org design podcast, Josh Epperson. Thank you so much for joining us, Amy, as well. Thanks so much for doing such a great job leading the podcast. We'll see you all next time.
[00:37:42] Josh Epperson: Take care.
Functionly empowers organizations to navigate the complexities of organizational design by offering tools that facilitate continuous monitoring of organizational health and metrics.By aligning your organizational structure with strategic goals and ensuring a fit for purpose, Functionly helps you optimize resource allocation and enhance decision-making processes. The platform enables leaders to visualize their organizational framework, making it easier to identify areas for improvement and implement changes without the disruptive processes of traditional reorganization. This proactive approach fosters a culture of adaptability, allowing businesses to respond effectively to evolving market demands and technological advancements.