When organizations struggle, they often reach for what feels most actionable.

They reorganize.
They redraw reporting lines.
They clarify roles.
They create new processes, frameworks, or meeting structures.

Sometimes, they do all of this at once.

Structure feels reassuring. It’s visible. It’s decisive. It suggests progress. And structure matters a great deal. Many problems at work are, in fact, structural. But structure is often asked to do work it cannot do on its own.

When Structure Is Used to Avoid Relationship Repair

One of the most common patterns I see is organizations trying to solve relational problems with structural fixes alone: A team is stuck in conflict, so roles are reshuffled. Trust has eroded, so a new process is introduced. Communication feels strained, so a new decision-making framework is rolled out.

These changes may be necessary. They may even help. But when they are used instead of addressing what has happened between people, conflict doesn’t disappear. It simply shifts.

Tension gets displaced into new roles.
Resentment finds a new channel.
Old dynamics resurface under a different org chart.

The structure changes, but the relationships carry underlying dynamics forward.

When Relationship Is Asked to Do Structural Work

The opposite pattern is just as common, and often harder to name.

In some organizations, goodwill is doing the heavy lifting. People rely on trust, flexibility, and personal relationships to compensate for unclear roles, vague authority, or inconsistent decision-making.

This can work for a while. Especially in mission-driven or values-aligned spaces, people care deeply and want things to succeed: They fill gaps, smooth edges, translate for one another. Eventually, though, this becomes exhausting.

When structure is weak, relationship gets overused. People absorb stress that belongs to the system. Conflict becomes personal because there is nowhere else for it to land.

No amount of goodwill can replace clear roles, shared agreements, and reliable processes.

The False Choice Organizations Often Make

Many organizations operate as if they must choose between structure and relationship. They worry that clarity will feel cold, or fear that relational work will feel inefficient. They assume one must come at the expense of the other. In reality, structure and relationship are complementary. Each does different work. Structure provides containment, while relationships provide resilience.

Structure answers questions like:
Who decides?
Who owns what?
What happens next?

Relationship answers different questions:
Can I trust you?
Will we repair when something goes wrong?
Do I belong here?

When either is missing, the other gets strained.

What Healthy Organizations Do Differently

Organizations that function well tend to hold both structure and relationship with intention. They use structure to reduce unnecessary friction, not to avoid difficult conversations. They invest in relationship so that inevitable tensions can be addressed rather than ignored. They recognize that clarity is a form of care, and that repair is part of the work.

This does not make conflict disappear. It makes conflict workable.

When roles are clear, people argue about the work instead of the person. When relationships are tended, people can tolerate disagreement without retreating. When both are present, organizations recover faster from missteps.

A Practical Reframe for Leaders

If you are facing persistent tension, a useful question is not, “Is this a people problem or a systems problem?” A better question is, “What is each being asked to carry right now?”

If relationship is carrying confusion, add structure.
If structure is carrying unresolved harm, tend the relationship.
If both feel strained, address them together rather than sequentially.

This is slower than a reorg and more grounded than a trust fall. It is also far more effective.

Holding Both

Structure cannot substitute for relationship. Relationship cannot substitute for structure. Healthy organizations learn to notice when one is being asked to do the work of the other and to respond with care rather than urgency.

When structure and relationship are aligned, work feels steadier. Decisions land more cleanly. Conflict becomes less personal and less frightening. And people can spend more of their energy on the work itself, rather than on navigating around what is missing. That alignment is not accidental. It is built, tended, and revisited over time.

Which, in the end, is the work.