Team structures are built on the assumption that everyone will work in the same place simultaneously. The org chart reflects which people to whom one reports. They naturally live in close physical proximity to those who will facilitate their work. Communication emerges daily, as people walk in and out of rooms, collaborating on what needs to get done. There isn't a need to make a conscious choice to engage with others; one simply walks down the hall to go ask. All of this is reasonable when everyone is in the same space at the same time.
However, all of this assumes team members are operating in close proximity to each other at all times, which is not the case for flexible work arrangements. Team members working in different physical spaces or at different times do not have these assumptions work based on proximity. The org chart may reflect a similar arrangement, however, the flow of work and where communication occurs necessitates intentional design for effective functioning.
Communication Pathways
People in non-flexible arrangements communicate all the time—overhearing conversations about problems or solutions; chatting while grabbing coffee in the kitchen; taking the opportunity to stop by someone else's desk when they're busy with five minutes to spare. This ambient communication keeps everyone in the loop without formal effort.
When this physical proximity is removed, however, it all but dissolves. Flexible teams require intentional pathways of communication—not bureaucratic red tape systems through which approval must be sought from all levels—but clearly defined pathways through which information travels, with an understanding of who needs to know what updates, where questions should go and how those questions will make it back into the flow of decision-making.
Professional practices increasingly use solutions like virtual front desk support for dentists and similar arrangements that build these communication structures into the service itself - clear protocols for how information moves between remote team members and in-office staff, reducing coordination burden on practice leadership.
Role Definition
In typical environments of a non-flexible arrangement, there are oftentimes blurred lines of responsibility. One may not know specifically who does what until they engage with the wrong person or overhear a colleague answer a particular question. There may not be an explicit role of responsibility—which may be easier for someone without a rigid job description to assume—but rather natural ebb and flow of responsibilities person by proximity.
For a flexible team, however, it is critical that roles are defined more than for their non-flexible counterparts. It's not that rigid job descriptions are crafted to eliminate people's agency, but that there is definable ownership over functions such that people know who will answer questions about certain types of work, who will make specific decisions and where to go for particular needs. Otherwise coordination overload occurs for distributed teams because people spend too much time figuring out who does what before ever getting started on tasks.
Distribution of Decision Authority
Non-flexible arrangements empower teams to make decisions together throughout meetings or by catching someone in the hallway. If an approval needed to get made, the boss was right down the hall. If someone had a thought or needed clarification, team members could readily ask each other.
Flexible arrangements require more intentional distribution of decision authority. Waiting for unanimous time and access wastes time; if the team knows that an individual decision can be made, they need clear parameters within which they can operate and logic about when certain consultations may need input from specific people or broader approval.
This does not mean giving carte blanche to everyone nor creating rigid hierarchies of approval; it means delineating the scope of decision-making such that team members know what they can decide on their own, when they need to ask someone else and when they need explicit approval. This eliminates conflict and avoidance of overstepping boundaries.
Handoffs
When people work together in collaborative spaces, they can better ensure handoffs. They can walk up to one another when they've completed their portion of the project, ask their question quickly and then turn it over with verbal cues. They can collaborate nearby so that they avoid extraneous travel time to effectively manage dependencies.
For a flexible team, however, systematic handoffs need better effort. When one person's implementation depends upon another's completion, that dependency needs visibility because otherwise information stalls while people await things they didn't know were still unfinished at best or rush ahead without realizing they should be waiting at worst.
Good structures include transparency of status monitoring, defined points for handoffs and notification systems alerting those involved when others are ready to pick up their pieces. This may sound overly formal but once implemented naturally over time reduces burdens by eliminating information commonly available as a result of physical proximity and transforms it into intentional mechanisms.
Synchronous vs Asynchronous Work
Non-flexible arrangements assume all work should be synchronous—that is, everyone is present and available—and it's easier for teams to default that way without question or complication. Flexible arrangements bring a balance of asynchronous work time that calls for more thought about what works best.
While some work is clearly enhanced when people are there together to brainstorm and work out complicated thoughts or have relationship-driven discussions that require emotional nuances, other work runs more efficiently on its own without needing anyone else's input for proper focus.
A successful flexible team takes time into consideration. Asynchronous opportunities require scheduled time attempts through collaboration windows—but successful functioning protects this focused time for individuals who might otherwise have different expectations believing they should be readily available at all times.
Structure Should Enable Instead of Burden
The point of intentional structure is not bureaucratic red tape bogging people down; instead, it's designed systems that allow operational effectiveness without physical presence of all team members at once.
Good structures feel less heavy than static operations because without clarity and anticipated coordination overhead bogging down flexible arrangements preemptively, it assumes ambiguity ruins the entire experience.
But teams who achieve this find flexible arrangements work seamlessly even better than traditional offerings because the intentional design regarding roles, communication components, decision-making and coordination eliminates ambiguity in favor of clarity regarding work flow; therefore, people spend less time determining how things work and can actually get work done
Teams who establish structure as a means to support flexibility instead of red tape overhead find well-designed team structures render flexible arrangements practical instead of chaotic or confusing.
