Right Sizing Is About Fit, Not Size

Right sizing is not about being bigger or smaller. It is about being appropriate.

More specifically, it is about fit to the work being produced, not the org chart.

Done well, right sizing:

• aligns work with capability and readiness

• identifies emerging leaders and critical skills

• allows roles to evolve without overwhelming people

• gives leaders visibility into where systems, not individuals, are under strain

  
  

Done poorly, it feels like workplace musical chairs. The music stops and someone who once fixed the printer is now also responsible for desktop support.

That example lands because it is familiar. But the humour points to a real structural issue. Informal fixes quietly become permanent expectations. A temporary gap turns into “who usually handles this,” and before long, a role has changed without conversation, consent, or redesign. What looked efficient in the moment becomes embedded risk.

Familiarity is often a signal.

When Stretch Becomes Strain

Strong performers often want to stretch. They are adaptable, curious, and capable of navigating change without becoming chronic complainers or doomsday commentators.

But stretch is not always about ambition or growth. Very often, it is about masking system failure.

High performers step in because:

• the work still needs to get done

• clients or colleagues would otherwise feel the impact

• they take pride in professionalism and reliability

  
  

In healthy organizations, this behaviour should prompt better questions, not quiet reliance.

The problem arises when stretch is not named, resourced, or revisited. This is where competence creep appears.

Responsibilities expand without explicit discussion, recognition, or adjustment to role design. What initially looks like flexibility becomes normalized. Over time, the organization quietly relies on a small group of capable people to absorb complexity, friction, and gaps the system has not addressed.

This is not a failure of resilience or attitude. It is a failure of architecture.

When leaders do not regularly examine how work is getting done, capacity becomes invisible. Until it breaks.

The Leadership Pause That Matters

Leaders face real constraints. Markets shift. Budgets tighten. Right sizing may be necessary.

Responsible leadership, however, requires a pause before work is redistributed or expectations are quietly raised.

Four checks matter here.

A values check Have we committed to responsibility with our people? If we say we value sustainability, trust, and respect, how does that show up when pressure increases?

A business reality check Is this pressure temporary, or structural? Are we bridging a short-term gap, or quietly redesigning the organization without naming it?

A capacity and equity check Who is stretching, who is steady, and who is already carrying too much? Who is absorbing invisible work because they are capable, conscientious, or reluctant to be seen as difficult?

Before burnout appears, overload often looks like:

• people staying silent in meetings and simply executing

• fewer questions, not more

• work getting done, but only by a small subset of the team

• delays showing up in handoffs rather than individual performance

  
  

Leaders should also notice:

• email volume increasing without corresponding decisions

• decisions bottlenecking around one or two people

• roles becoming harder to explain clearly to new hires

  
  

A strategy check Do our profitability goals align with the culture we say we are building? Or are we funding short-term gains by drawing down long-term trust and capability?

When these questions are skipped, people notice. They may stay but disengage. Or they may leave. Either way, culture absorbs the impact.

Profitability that consistently relies on unacknowledged overload is not efficiency.It is deferred cost, often paid later through turnover, lost institutional knowledge, and erosion of leadership credibility.

Signals Leaders Should Not Ignore

Right sizing problems rarely announce themselves loudly. They show up quietly and consistently.

Leaders should pay attention when:

• work is getting done, but only by a few people

• errors increase after reorganizations, not before

• high performers stop offering ideas and focus solely on delivery

• informal workarounds become essential to meeting deadlines

No one said they were confused.They simply stopped contributing.

Making Capacity Visible Again

Right sizing works when leaders treat capacity as something to be designed, not assumed.

A helpful way to think about this is a simple capacity inventory. Not a tool or a framework, but a way of asking better questions:

• What work is genuinely new?

• What work has quietly expanded?

• What work exists only because systems are compensating for gaps?

This is where an important distinction matters.

Redistribution moves work to whoever can absorb it. Redesign changes roles, expectations, sequencing, or ownership.

Redistribution relies on endurance. Redesign relies on leadership.

Consider a law office that chooses not to backfill a departing support role. From leadership’s perspective, files continue to move and clients remain served. The decision appears prudent.

Inside the system, however, the work has not disappeared. Lawyers absorb administrative cleanup after hours. One assistant becomes the informal escalation point for every exception. Another stays late to preserve quality and avoid client impact.

Support staff experience the shift differently than leaders. Job boundaries blur. Requests increase. There is hesitation to speak up, not because people lack insight, but because capacity concerns are often misread as complaints rather than facts.

Leaders create safety by naming reality first.

Instead of waiting for someone to raise a hand, they say:“We know roles have shifted. We want to understand what has changed in practice, not just what is still getting done.”

They ask for observable information, not emotional justification:

• What tasks take longer than they used to?

• What work is happening outside role scope?

• What decisions or approvals slow delivery?

Most importantly, they separate capacity data from performance judgment. Surfacing strain is treated as leadership input, not personal weakness.

Organizations that right size well do this consistently. They:

• make evolving responsibilities explicit

• revisit role design as work changes

• recognize stretch as contribution, not free labour

• build succession and redundancy into critical roles

• correct system strain instead of rewarding individual endurance

When this happens, right sizing becomes a stabilizing force rather than a morale risk. It supports clarity. It protects trust. It aligns performance with sustainability.

The goal is not a workplace where one person rides three unicycles at once. It is a workplace where roles, expectations, profitability, and values fit. Just right.