Research has consistently shown that reorganizations rarely deliver the results business leaders expect. Changing the reporting lines doesn’t address many root causes of performance gaps. As many clients shared with me on numerous occasions, they felt a reorganization was necessary to better align teams and improve efficiency.
A reorganization is a structural change, moving teams and changing their reporting lines. Performance gaps could be attributable to a variety of problems. Here are five issues that a reorganization would not address.
- Poor accountability
Signs of poor accountability show up as finger-pointing, low initiative to take on more, and work stalled because individuals wait for explicit permission before taking action. A few high performers end up taking on most of the work while others contribute minimal effort.
Unclear accountability cannot be solved with a reorganization. Leaders need to be specific and explicit about who owns what, ensuring that each employee has a clear understanding of what he is held accountable for.
In addition to clear communication, leadership support would facilitate smooth transition for those who take on new accountability.
- Information silos
When an individual or a team is unwilling to share knowledge or information, they see others as rivals. Friction arises, hampering collaboration and productivity.
Another negative effect is work duplication. Two different teams could spend weeks solving the same problem without knowing the other is working on it too. They could have been partners to share ideas and come up with a better solution.
A reorganization might help to get work groups closer but it might not change the behavioral issue.
- Broken processes
A reorganization exercise seldom devotes sufficient attention to redesigning processes. The same broken processes, handoffs and approval chains move with the reporting lines. When there is no clarification on how work would change under the new structure, work would be done the same old way.
Since processes establish the approach to how work gets done, persistent performance gaps are mostly attributable to broken processes. Hence, it is more effective to fix broken processes directly.
- Work overload
It is common to hear from employees about overwhelming overload. And attempts to ameliorate the issue are often adhoc and short-term. Willing employees continue to do more work off the side of their desk, leading to burnout and distraction. Performance and morale suffer.
An effective approach needs to start from the top. Review business goals, get specific, and overcome the fear of missing out. By being realistic about what the true priorities, teams would be able to achieve better results.
The presumption of a reorganization is restructuring work teams to get work done faster and better. In fact, it doesn’t address the work overload issue.
- Lack of leadership alignment
Conflicting messages and priorities create confusion. When executives aren’t clear and specific in communicating the business goals, middle managers tend to interpret the goals in the context of functional mandate. This leads to competing priorities.
Misaligned resource allocations make it challenging for the employees to devote adequate time to do a good job. It becomes frustrating when jobs compete for time that is scarce.
Leadership misalignment is best addressed with well defined initiatives that are causally linked, communicated and shared with middle managers and all employees. The approach facilitates a common understanding on what to focus on, enabling clear cascading of priorities. A reorganization doesn’t dive into the level of details that is needed for leadership alignment.
These five areas can be effectively dealt with tackling the root cause. Employees feel they get the support they need to help them perform better. A reorganization would not be well received but would create uncertainty and anxiety instead.
If you find this useful, share it with your colleagues. Sign up to have monthly tips sent to your inbox.