Where does coherence in organisations actually live — in structures, or in people?
by Helen Achterberg-Pentz
Pattern spotter, team coherence guide and strategic resourcing partner - restoring coherence in leadership teams
Pattern spotter, team coherence guide and strategic resourcing partner - restoring coherence in leadership teams
This article explores a rarely named leadership fault line: the moment when teams begin compensating for what organisational design cannot hold. Drawing a clear distinction between structural coherence and team coherence, we examine why even well-designed systems falter under sustained uncertainty — and where coherence must be restored for teams to function without exhaustion.
This is not an argument against organisational design or team development practices, but an invitation to look beneath them — at the human system that quietly carries the load when structure falls short.
This is not an argument against organisational design or team development practices, but an invitation to look beneath them — at the human system that quietly carries the load when structure falls short.
For the past few years, “organisational coherence” has begun to appear in leadership conversations.
Usually, it shows up in familiar places:
And yet… many organisations that look coherent on paper still feel strangely brittle in practice.
Projects stall.
Leadership effort is intense.
Exhausted teams compensating for things no one can quite name.
Trust thins or becomes brittle, even while intentions remain good.
Something is missing.
Not structurally.
Humanly.
Usually, it shows up in familiar places:
- Strategy alignment
- Operating models
- Governance clarity
- Culture and values integration
And yet… many organisations that look coherent on paper still feel strangely brittle in practice.
Projects stall.
Leadership effort is intense.
Exhausted teams compensating for things no one can quite name.
Trust thins or becomes brittle, even while intentions remain good.
Something is missing.
Not structurally.
Humanly.
The category error we keep making
Most coherence work today treats organisations as if coherence were something you design.
As if:
This is a category error.
Because coherence does not originate in structures.
It emerges through people, under pressure, in motion, in relationship.
As if:
- The right structure,
- The right incentives,
- The right processes,
This is a category error.
Because coherence does not originate in structures.
It emerges through people, under pressure, in motion, in relationship.
Organisations don’t 'become coherent'.
They are experienced as coherent — or not — by the teams that live inside them.
And that experience determines everything that follows.
Because when teams begin compensating for what the system can't hold, it's because the organisation's design is inadequate. And - under some circumstances - no amount of feedback hygiene, norms and relationship-building can regulate that systems-level fault.
Because when teams begin compensating for what the system can't hold, it's because the organisation's design is inadequate. And - under some circumstances - no amount of feedback hygiene, norms and relationship-building can regulate that systems-level fault.
Teams are where coherence Is tested — and where It breaks
Every organisation already knows whether it is coherent.
It knows because its teams are telling the truth — quietly.
You see it when:
These are not culture problems.
They’re not engagement problems.
They’re not resilience failures.
They are signals of incoherence being absorbed by human nervous systems.
Teams compensate for what structures cannot hold.
But over time, they pay for it with energy, trust, and clarity.
It knows because its teams are telling the truth — quietly.
You see it when:
- One team becomes the emotional shock absorber for the whole system
- “Reliable” leaders slowly become chronic bottlenecks
- Alignment meetings increase while real traction decreases
- Decision latency grows, even as urgency rises
- Impact plateaus despite intensified leadership effort
These are not culture problems.
They’re not engagement problems.
They’re not resilience failures.
They are signals of incoherence being absorbed by human nervous systems.
Teams compensate for what structures cannot hold.
But over time, they pay for it with energy, trust, and clarity.
The missing layer: human-system coherence
This is where most organisational coherence conversations stop short. They address:
But they seldom address:
The coherence of human systems lives in:
These are not soft factors. They are operating conditions.
When they are misaligned, no amount of structural elegance can compensate.
- What the system intends,
- What the system declares,
- What the system optimises for.
But they seldom address:
- What the system asks people to carry;
- How meaning, responsibility, and uncertainty actually move through, and show up, in teams;
- Where coordination breaks down (long before performance does).
The coherence of human systems lives in:
- Attention,
- Rhythm,
- Trust under pressure,
- Load distribution,
- The felt sense of direction while moving.
These are not soft factors. They are operating conditions.
When they are misaligned, no amount of structural elegance can compensate.
Why this matters for leaders now
Leadership is becoming harder — not because leaders are weaker, but because systems have become more fluid, ambiguous and interdependent.
In incoherent systems:
Eventually, leadership itself becomes the compensatory mechanism.
That is not sustainable.
But it's also not a personal failing.
It is a coherence problem.
In incoherent systems:
- Authority becomes performative
- Control increases while trust thins
- Leaders over-function to stabilise what structure cannot
- Exhaustion masquerades as commitment
Eventually, leadership itself becomes the compensatory mechanism.
That is not sustainable.
But it's also not a personal failing.
It is a coherence problem.
A different way of seeing
There is a quieter, more precise way forward.
One that does not begin with redesigning the organisation... but with listening to the teams inside it.
One that does not begin with redesigning the organisation... but with listening to the teams inside it.
Teams are not just execution units. They are also sensing organs.
They reveal:
Working at this level does not replace organisational design. It makes it possible.
- Where structure is unclear
- Where strategy is unholdable
- Where governance collapses into people
- Where coherence is leaking — long before outcomes collapse
Working at this level does not replace organisational design. It makes it possible.
A note on the emerging conversation
A growing number of thinkers are beginning to speak about coherence at organisational scale — often from systems theory, complexity science, or operating model perspectives.
This work is valuable.
It moves the conversation beyond culture slogans and mechanical change.
Where my work differs — and where it quietly complements theirs — is here: I work at the seam where organisational systems meet human systems.
Not redesigning the whole.
Not optimising the parts.
But helping leaders see how coherence (or incoherence) is lived, day by day, by the teams carrying the system forward.
Because until coherence is restored where work actually happens, no architecture can hold.
This work is valuable.
It moves the conversation beyond culture slogans and mechanical change.
Where my work differs — and where it quietly complements theirs — is here: I work at the seam where organisational systems meet human systems.
Not redesigning the whole.
Not optimising the parts.
But helping leaders see how coherence (or incoherence) is lived, day by day, by the teams carrying the system forward.
Because until coherence is restored where work actually happens, no architecture can hold.
Organisational coherence is not a structure you impose.
It is a condition you enable
And it always begins closer to the human heart of the system than most models are willing to look.
|
AUTHOR BIO: Helen Achterberg-Pentz is the founder of Solfeggio, a consulting practice specializing in team coherence, and author of the Architecture of Coherence, which informs The Coherence Practice™ — a process designed to build the capacity to sense, diagnose and repair fractures in direction, timing, and trust. She draws on systems thinking, neuroscience, and organizational architecture to help leadership teams build sustainable high performance.
Reach out to Helen on LinkedIn. |
|