I think that having an architecture matching your organization is not that much of a bad idea. If the organization consists of multiple independent teams with different managers, deadlines and priorities, what would be easier? An architecture with separate, isolated services that communicate over some established APIs and can be updated, tested and deployed independently, or a monolith where just to release a new version you have to get all the teams to agree on it?
IMHO you should still take it the other way round.
What Conway wrote: You can use the development of the software as one tool to learn about the social interactions in the organization.
Only doing microservices and then saying: Hey look, this matches our organization is offering very little overall.
So what if the different managers, their deadlines and priorities is the cause of many more problems not only the wrong decision to do micro-services (exemplary)?
No, but the idea that you should do that because you have a big team is bogus. There are good reasons to break some applications up into services, and this is the least compelling one.