Few organizations can remain static in today’s business environment.
So for leaders, there is a need to periodically examine (or re-examine) the design of their organizations, to make sure that one has the right structure in place, given the current goals and priorities.
When you have concluded there might be a need for a reorganization – how do you proceed?
Even though a reorganization may be needed, it is a challenging task for every leader, and few get the chance to do it very often – so it’s not easy to learn systematically over time, either.
In the video below, I describe three key tips to help you avoid the most common mistakes – and increase the chances that you will succeed.
For a more detailed discussion of this and a proposed methodology – see the third chapter of my book.
Picture: Lady Justice (Photo credit: Photopin.com)
Last year, I was kindly invited to attend a workshop in London held by Greg Kessler and my friend Win Dhat, from Kates Kessler Consulting. The purpose of the workshop was to review key organization design principles and methods.
During the lunch break, I was seated next to another participant who worked for The Crown Prosecutor (similar to the Attorney’s office or State Prosecutor in the U.S.)
Since I have never been the subject of prosecution (so far…), I had to admit I knew little about the institution.
So I asked him what its purpose was.
He gave an interesting answer: “Well, basically, our job is to help avoid that too many people are arrested, or that too few are arrested”.
In other words, if the Crown Prosecutor decides to prosecute 100% of the people that the Police arrests, that would be an indication that too few are arrested. On the other hand, if a low percentage of those arrested are prosecuted, it means the police arrests too many people, for example, without reasonable suspicion or with poor evidence.
I then asked him whether they had always been a separate institution. He responded that, in fact, they had recently celebrated 25 years as a unified institution in Britain. Historically, prosecution was the responsibility of the police itself.
So what we have here is an example of an institution that carries out a function that has been separated or “decoupled” from another institution.
The reason is of course that people, over time, realized that there’s a potential role conflict here: It is not ideal having the same people investigating and prosecuting a case.
The need to separate incompatible functions is well accepted in law and political science. All western democracies are today based on separation of powers (with different responsibilities allocated to the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government).
We know that it matters a great deal.
There’s a strong link between the design of governmental institutions and key variables used to measure progress and prosperity across countries, such as economic growth, security, and quality of life. Look at the countries on the bottom of the lists, and you will usually find countries with dysfunctional institutions and a lack of separation of powers.
Now these examples are at the institutional level, but you can find similar examples within business firms.
There are many units within business firms that perform work that was traditionally done by line managers in the organization (think about Health, Safety and Environment, or Internal audit, or Procurement) but that today – for good reasons – are carried out by separate units.
Interestingly, the need for separation of incompatible roles seems to be recognized in all cultures:
- They say “don’t let the fox guard the hen house” in Britain.
- They say “don’t let the thief guard the keys” in India.
- They say “don’t let the dingo take care of the kids” in Australia.
- We say “don’t let the ram guard the bag of oatmeal” here in Norway.
The problem is that it is largely ignored in books on organization design. Most organization design books focus on how to achieve better integration and coordination.
More generally, there are more than 8,000 books listed on amazon.com with “collaboration” in the title, and another 4,600 with the word “integration” (I am here only counting business and management related books). There are very few books on “how to separate roles and sub-units”.
But if we want to design an effective organization, we need to pay equal attention to both.
If Francis of Assisi was a manager, his prayer would be: Help me integrate what I can, and separate what I should, and have the wisdom to know the difference.
During Fall 2013, I conducted interviews with 23 senior executives in 16 international firms, together with colleagues from Deloitte Consulting.
The purpose of the interviews was to understand how the firms had organized their international operations.
I will summarize the official results in a brief report, which I can include a link to a bit later.
But let me tell you about something that won’t be in the report – namely, my own, personal observations from the interviews.
I thought this might be relevant because people often make assumptions about how executives think about organization design.
I have found that some of the assumptions are wrong – or at the very least, they don’t seem to apply to this group of people.
But before I go on, let me first say that it was a great privilege to have these conversations. The participants seemed genuinely interested and willingly shared their views and experiences, and described both opportunities and challenges.
Here are three observations I made:
Organization design is considered a key strategic issue.
Some people claim that “formal structure doesn’t matter anymore” and that leaders are preoccupied with other things.
But from what I could tell, executives spend quite a bit of time considering organization design issues.
As an example, with the EVP in a bank, we discussed alternative ways of allocating responsibility between branches abroad and the headquarters. He remarked:
“I discuss these kinds of issues with people internally in the bank, and even with people in other banks, at least once every month.”
All of the participants were able to explain the relationship between their strategy and their organization very well.
Some also described adjustments to their overall organizational model that had been made recently.
In a couple of cases they described what a possible next step could in the development of the organizational model.
The CFO in one firm stated:
“Leaders in every firm should, from time to time, ask themselves whether they are organized in the right manner, particularly when the external conditions are changing.”
By the way, the fact that leaders are interested in structure does NOT imply that they think narrowly about organizational issues. On the contrary, they think broadly.
As one example, all of them (even the CFOs!) touched on important cultural factors that had to be taken into account when considering how to organize the firm internationally.
Senior executives are not “trigger happy”.
Some employees and consultants claim that executives enjoy re-organizing firms, just for the sake of it, or to show that they are action-oriented.
I can’t speak for all executives in the world, but there was little proof of such an attitude among the 23 people I met.
If anything, they rather seemed too reluctant than too eager to introduce organizational changes.
Here’s a quote from one participant, a CEO:
“The board kept asking me when I would make the decision about a new organizational structure, but I held it off. When we finally did make the decision, earlier this year, we were surprised by how quickly it was accepted and implemented. But after all, we had been discussing an alternative model for five years, so everybody knew that we were considering making this change”.
This is not to say that there aren’t cases of bad decisions and poor implementation processes.
I was told of a couple of reorganizations that had created a lot of frustration and achieved very little.
It’s not difficult to do this thing wrong, to put it that way.
But in general, my overall impression is that most senior executives are quite careful and fairly averse to risk.
So most of the time, they wait until there is a real need – and until they have a good plan –before they execute.
Nonetheless, most senior executives are quite intuitive decision makers.
From the conversations we had, I got the sense that executives develop new organizational models in a fairly intuitive manner.
New designs gradually take shape in their minds as they consider strategies, feedback from customers, and internal challenges.
As I mentioned, some of the firms had recently re-designed the organization. From what I could tell, there had been a real dialogue between stakeholders leading up to the decision in these cases.
At the same time, my impression was that there had been a somewhat limited exploration of options: Typically, only one solution alternative had been discussed, as far as I could ascertain.
Nor do I recall any participants mentioning the use of facts-based analysis of markets, work processes, or other relevant factors as an input to the decision process.
So if my interpretation is correct, this may be an improvement point.
During the last few years, many firms have become more systematic in terms of change management, and some even have a standard process for managing the transition to a new structure, once the decision has been made.
The next step may be to consider how we can improve the actual design and decision process.
I am not talking about removing the prerogative of the leader to make the final decision. But these are complex issues. A systematic and data driven approach will help leaders become more effective – by increasing the odds of making the right decision.
Everybody is talking about integration and collaboration and participation these days.
Down with the silos of yesterday. Away with the walls that prevent ideas and information from flowing through. Let’s all work together. Collaborate. Be like one.
It’s good in theory.
The hard truth is that there will always be a division of labor in an organization . If there aren’t any silos (or departments or units), everybody will interact with everybody.
Now think about that possibility for a moment.
Do you really want to receive a meeting invitation every time ANY unit in your organization decides to discuss an issue?
Do really want to coordinate with EVERY other unit before you respond to a request from a customer?
Do you really want to involve EVERYBODY ELSE in your project?
I assume you answered “no” to the above questions. So, on closer inspection, we do not want to be connected to everybody.
It would be impossible, even if we wanted to. Ten people can be connected to each other in 90 different ways (n (n-1))=10×9). For one thousand people, it’s nearly one million (1000 x 999).
That’s a lot of Outlook invitations to respond to.
Yet some large firms design their organizations as if this mathematical axiom didn’t exist.
Which is one reason why our inboxes are overflowing and most of us spend 70% or more of our time in meetings.
Now before I go on, let me stress that I am not saying that the intent is always wrong.
The key strategic rationale is often to achieve some sort of synergy, or develop and sell “solutions” (combinations of products and services from multiple units). For some firms in some industries, this makes perfect sense.
But some firms also experience that customers simply don’t want solutions, but rather specialized offerings.
We also seem to forget that collaboration is costly. It takes time to set up and participate in meetings and to negotiate with people from other units who pursue different goals.
I would suggest an alternative approach.
The first is to confirm that there in fact is a potential for achieving synergy of some sort.
But assume that we confirm this.
Then I think the idea of a starting with a well defined mandate and setting up a managed team is a better alternative (something Andrew Campbell proposed in this interview I did with him).
It’s basically about creating a reporting structure to support coordination around a specific initiative, instead of issuing general calls for more collaboration.
(I would add one thing: Such efforts should be resourced. Since it takes time and money to collaborate, the money has to come from somewhere.)
In some firms that suffer from fragmentation or a lack of resource sharing, the real problem is not that people are unwilling to “collaborate” but that the current systems or incentives make it nearly impossible to combine or share resources.
In such cases, the solution is to remove these barriers. Only senior executives have the authority to do that, so they need to take the lead.
Finally, one may need to consider a re-design of the formal boundaries between units. A “light” solution would be to add an integrator role or managed team to coordinate across two or more units, but with a strong and frequent need for coordination, one may need to formally integrate the units (or parts of them).
It’s not a realistic goal to remove silos. But, like in the image above, we should connect the silos to each other, and install some windows, so people can see what’s going on outside and communicate with each other.
When we are planning a reorganization, we know that the stakes are pretty high.
The changes we are planning may well be overdue. Implementing them will create a more effective organization, and over time, lead to gradually improving operational and financial performance.
But the reorganization will also create uncertainty among employees. Some will question the need for change. Some will resist moving to a new role (or be unable to). Those who are not selected for key positions may leave the firm. People may even threaten to sue you.
So when designing a new organization, there is a natural tendency not to share information too early about things that may create uncertainty: “Let’s wait until we have everything worked out before we go public with this”.
There are certainly some types of information that we should keep to ourselves.
We may not want to share every speculative idea we come up with about future options for the organization. And we should of course be careful about sensitive or confidential information. One example may be our assessment of individual candidates for positions in the new organization.
But keeping the process as such secret may undermine the purpose of the reorganization.
As I have discussed before, you need valid information about how the organization works in order to make the right decision about a future organizational model. You also need early involvement in order to start building support for the change.
I once discussed this challenge with Gil Steil. He is a leading expert on large group methods. I challenged him a bit, and asked whether it’s realistic to involve a broader group of people even when unpopular decisions need to be made.
Here’s what he had to say:
The fear of discussing uncomfortable issues prevents some leaders from working with a large group. But a part of my practice has been handling these things with representatives of all the key stakeholder groups in the room – with the clients that summon the courage to confront hard issues openly.
The people having coffee in the cafeteria in the morning somehow know months ahead of time when a downsizing is a possibility or when benefits might be cut.
So it’s a great relief to everyone when these feared issues are actually openly discussed – and involving people with lots of different perspectives can produce better ways of proceeding than what the leaders think up on their own.
Also, a well-designed meeting keeps the leadership in control of the discussion. When the discussion is underground (in the cafeteria) the leaders don’t even know what’s being discussed.
Think about that next time you close the door and lower the curtain to work out the new org. chart.