Most Workday Problems Start in the Org Chart
When something breaks in Workday, blame usually lands on:
- Security roles
- Business process steps
- “Workday being complicated”
But in many tenants, those symptoms trace back to a deeper source: the Supervisory Organization model.
Supervisory Orgs define who reports to whom, how staffing is structured, and how many downstream behaviours—approvals, security, reporting—play out.
If the org design is messy, everything built on top of it has to work harder.
One of the most common—and least discussed—design mistakes is how managers are assigned Supervisory Orgs.
The Misconception: “Multiple Orgs per Manager Is Normal”
A pattern shows up repeatedly:
“This manager has multiple areas, so let’s give them multiple Supervisory Orgs.”
It sounds logical. On paper, it seems to reflect reality: they lead multiple teams, cost centres, or functions, so each gets its own Supervisory Org.
In practice, overusing this approach creates chaos:
- The same manager appears as the superior in several Supervisory Orgs by default.
- Business processes must handle multiple org contexts for the same person.
- Security and reporting become harder to reason about.
Multiple Supervisory Orgs per manager should be the exception, not the standard pattern.
When Multiple Supervisory Orgs Make Sense
There are legitimate, defensible reasons to give a single manager more than one Supervisory Org. For example:
- Different staffing models under the same leader, such as one area using position management and another using job management.
- Workers spread across countries or companies where legal or regulatory routing needs distinct org structures.
- Sensitive teams that require isolated security, such as investigations, HR, or special projects.
- Temporary legacy structures during a merger, acquisition, or phased reorganisation.
In these cases, the complexity buys you something concrete: compliance, clear separation, or a safer transition path.
Outside of scenarios like these, duplicating Supervisory Orgs for the same manager tends to create more problems than it solves.
How Extra Supervisory Orgs Increase Complexity Everywhere
Each additional Supervisory Org under the same manager doesn’t just add one more box on the org chart. It adds:
- More business process variations
Steps, conditions, and routing logic often need to be adjusted per org. That multiplies design and testing effort. - More approval routing surprises
Approvals based on org can behave differently across orgs that share a manager, leading to “Why did this transaction route differently this time?” questions. - More org-based security overhead
Security groups tied to orgs have to be maintained for each extra Supervisory Org, and granting or revoking access becomes more error-prone. - More rework during restructures
When teams move, you must adjust multiple orgs, security mappings, and business processes instead of a single structure. - More confusion in spans of control and headcount
Managers may appear to have overlapping teams in different orgs, making reporting and analytics harder to interpret.
This complexity compounds quickly as your organisation grows. A few “extra” Supervisory Orgs now can become dozens of additional touchpoints to manage later.
A Better Default: One Manager, One Supervisory Org
Top Workday consulting practices often follow a simple rule of thumb:
One manager → one primary Supervisory Org.
This default keeps the core structure clean:
- The manager’s team is clearly represented in one place.
- Approval routing and business processes can be designed around a single “home” org.
- Span-of-control reporting and headcount views are easier to interpret and maintain.
When complexity exists in reality—and it always will—Workday has other tools to handle it without multiplying Supervisory Orgs.
Use the Right Tools for Complexity Instead
Instead of creating extra Supervisory Orgs for every nuance, lean on other Workday components designed for those needs:
- Matrix Organizations
Use these for dotted-line reporting, project teams, or cross-functional responsibilities. They let you model secondary relationships without changing the primary Supervisory Org. - Custom Organizations
Group workers by function, programs, segments, or other attributes that cut across the hierarchy. This is ideal for analytics and eligibility without changing reporting lines. - Position attributes
Location, cost center, company, and similar attributes can drive eligibility, security, and reporting without needing separate Supervisory Orgs for every combination. - Org Studio (and similar tools)
Use Workday’s reorganisation tools to plan and execute structural changes in a controlled way, instead of layering new orgs on top of old ones indefinitely.
These tools handle real-world complexity while keeping the Supervisory Org model as simple and clean as possible.
The Real Payoff of a Clean Supervisory Org Model
A streamlined Supervisory Org design does more than produce a pretty org chart. It has tangible operational benefits:
- Fewer HR defects
Transactions follow predictable routing and encounter fewer confusing exceptions. - Faster approvals
Approval chains are easier to design and maintain when they don’t depend on a patchwork of overlapping Supervisory Orgs. - More stable security
Role assignments and org-based access are simpler to manage and test. - Scalable growth
As the organisation grows, adding new teams or leaders doesn’t require untangling a complex web of orgs.
If your tenant feels noisy too many approval surprises, too many “cannot see worker” issues, too many custom variations your Supervisory Org design is one of the first places to investigate.
The magic is rarely in adding more structure. It’s in removing the structures you never needed in the first place.
