Some roles exist not because they create value, but because the system around them is broken.

This case is about one such role: a person whose full-time job had quietly become assigning tasks to other people.

Not managing.
Not deciding.
Just continuously redistributing work so things wouldn’t fall apart.

The situation: a human buffer in the system

At first glance, this role seemed essential.

Whenever:

  • priorities changed,

  • new work arrived,

  • someone was unavailable,

this person stepped in to reassign tasks and keep things moving.

The organization relied on them heavily — but that reliance was a warning sign.

They weren’t adding value.
They were absorbing structural chaos.

The hidden cost of “coordination roles”

Coordination-heavy roles often emerge when:

  • ownership is unclear,

  • priorities shift frequently,

  • workflows are informal,

  • and systems don’t reflect reality.

The cost is not just salary.

It includes:

  • delays caused by dependency on one person,

  • reduced autonomy across teams,

  • constant interruptions,

  • and a fragile system that breaks when that person is absent.

The real problem wasn’t workload — it was structure

The initial assumption was that this person was overloaded.

In reality:

  • tasks arrived without clear ownership,

  • priorities weren’t explicit,

  • and completion criteria were vague.

Someone had to constantly interpret, decide, and redirect.

The organization didn’t have a task management problem.
It had a workflow design problem.

Step one: making ownership explicit

The first change was structural, not technical.

For each recurring activity, ownership was clarified:

  • who initiates the task,

  • who executes it,

  • who decides priority,

  • and what “done” means.

This immediately reduced ambiguity — and the need for manual reassignment.

Step two: redesigning the flow of work

Next, workflows were redesigned so that:

  • tasks flowed directly to the right people,

  • priorities were visible at the source,

  • exceptions were handled explicitly,

  • and escalation paths were clear.

Instead of reacting to chaos, the system began preventing it.

Step three: supporting the new workflow with tools

Only after the workflow was clear did tools come into play.

Tools were used to:

  • visualize priorities,

  • reduce interruptions,

  • and make progress visible.

They supported the process — they didn’t define it.

The outcome: a role made unnecessary

The most significant result was also the simplest:

That person was no longer needed to assign tasks.

Instead of coordination:

  • teams self-organized within clear boundaries,

  • priorities were understood upfront,

  • and work progressed with fewer interruptions.

The person previously trapped in task assignment was able to:

  • shift focus to higher-value work,

  • support improvement initiatives,

  • and contribute strategically.

Why this matters

Many organizations treat coordination overhead as inevitable.

It isn’t.

When people spend their days:

  • forwarding work,

  • resolving ambiguity,

  • or compensating for missing rules,

the system is asking humans to do what structure should do.

A common pattern in growing organizations

This situation appears frequently in growing companies:

  • one person becomes indispensable,

  • work “flows” through them,

  • and everyone feels relieved they’re there.

But dependence is not resilience.

Clarity is.