Skip to content

Tree · reads person

Org chart

Reporting / membership hierarchy.

Nesting, shown as nesting.

Two levels today. The tree is worth having before there are four.
Camille MarchandTomas RéalAïcha BenaliJonas Weiss

Camille MarchandFounder

What it does

Behaviours, not fields. Choosing between two modules is choosing between these.

The shape carries the information. One person with nine direct reports says something no table of the same names would.

Reporting lines are explicit, which is what a new starter needs in their first week.

Works for mapping a customer organisation as well as your own, before selling into it.

A vacancy is a node, so a gap in the structure is visible rather than implied.

How it works

  1. 1

    People are placed by naming who they report to.

  2. 2

    The tree derives its shape from those relationships rather than from an ordering somebody set.

  3. 3

    A vacancy is a node, so a gap in the structure is visible rather than implied.

  4. 4

    It works for mapping a customer organisation as well as your own.

Best for

Categories, org charts, anything with real hierarchy.

Not the right choice for

Flat data given artificial parents.

What a row holds

Every field, and what the agent listens for to fill it — which is the difference between a page you type into and one that fills itself.

FieldTypeFilled from
PersonrequiredtextWho, matched against Team members or Contacts where they exist.
RolerequiredtextTheir position, which is what the structure is actually about.
Reports torequiredtextTheir manager, or nothing for the root. This is the whole content.

What it does not do

A module chosen for something it cannot do costs more than one that was never offered.

  • One manager per person, so a matrix organisation cannot be drawn honestly.
  • No dotted lines, no cross-functional relationships.
  • Deep or wide trees render poorly past about three levels.
  • It records structure, not authority — who signs off on what is a different question.

Before it works

What you have to provide, if anything.

  • Nothing, but agree who reports to whom before writing it down. That conversation is usually the point.
  • Pair with Team members, which holds what each person actually does.

In practice

A company that had grown from three people to eleven without anyone drawing it.

Who does Jonas actually report to?
What was said to the agent

What the agent built

A two-level tree with four names and the reporting lines that people had assumed but never stated.

What changed

Two people believed they managed the same role. It took ten minutes to find and would have taken a resignation to surface otherwise.

This module renders as a table rather than its own shape

A tree flattened into a list keeps every person and loses the nesting, which is the content — one manager with nine direct reports reads identically to nine people reporting to nine managers. Drawing it properly needs recursive layout with connectors, which no dataset view has. The reporting lines are still recorded and still correct; only the shape is lost.

Questions

What data does the Org chart page use?

It reads person records the agent has collected. Reporting / membership hierarchy. Nothing has to be imported first — the page appears once there is something to show.

Do I have to build or configure it?

No. You describe what you need in a sentence and the agent chooses the view and fills it. Custom pages exist for the cases no built-in view covers, and those are reviewed before they go live.

When is a tree the wrong choice?

Flat data given artificial parents. It is best for: categories, org charts, anything with real hierarchy.

Does it stay up to date?

Yes. The page is a view over the data rather than a copy of it, so anything the agent learns afterwards shows up without a rebuild or a re-import.

Ask for it in a sentence

You do not configure this page. You tell your agent what you need and it builds it from what it has already collected.

Build your agent free

Agents

More

👤
Profile
FAQ