Alternatives to Reorganization
The thing to remember with structural solutions is that they always create organizational silos. Whether drawn around functions, products or geographies, etc., a structure by its very nature creates groups and barriers. If you are trying to eliminate a workflow or performance issue by changing the organization’s structure, all you are likely to do is move the issue to another part of the organization. Addressing workflow, process or information flow issues with a reorganization is like squeezing a balloon; you squeeze one end and the problem just moves somewhere else. If the problem you are trying to address is smoothing out process and bridging silos, a reorganization just moves the problem, it does not solve it.
Company A
Here’s an example. Company A has a training group that serves all departments. As the company grows, the Training Director wants to improve customer focus by embedding small training groups in key departments. Over time a disconnect grows between the parent training group and the smaller embedded training groups. The director eventually moves on to another role.
A new Training Director comes on board and sees a mess. She decides it’s time to reorganize and move everyone back into one centralized training group. This allows the director to mitigate the communication and workflow issues within the training group, but it (re) creates barriers to the customers in the various departments.
It’s the classic centralization/decentralization dilemma played out over the years. Before wielding the reorganization hammer to solve this problem, the current director can make changes in two other areas without creating significant disruption to the business. The director can look into clarifying the training teams’ work processes and she can look into how people are connecting.
Processes and organizational boundaries
To get things accomplished today, many work processes cross organizational boundaries. And when work crosses a boundary, a handoff is typcially needed so the work can move forward. If requirements are not clear, that handoff can easily become a weak point in the process of getting things done. Confusion on roles and responsibilities is a common complaint and where it exists, it can grind collaboration and productivity to a stand-still.
“Who is involved in the hand-off? What are the data requirements? What are the quality requirements? What is considered good enough and what work will get rejected during the handoff? Who is the decision maker?”
When faced with work flow issues or clunky handoffs, don’t try to solve the problem by reorganizing staff. The reorganization process is not intended to solve work flow issues and clarify data and quality requirements. And it probably will add temporary confusion regarding decision makers and who is involved in handoffs. Instead, focus on process.
Start with the basics; create a simple and straightforward high-level map. Write out the key process steps and the people involved in each step. It gets really interesting when you take that map out to the area where the work gets done and walk it through with the people doing the work. Make sure to check for understanding and ensure those involved are crystal clear on their role(s) and activities in the process. Ask the basic questions:
- Is this the process you follow?
- Who gives you material and information?
- Who is your customer or who do you give your work to?
- What is considered good and what will get work rejected?
- Who do you escalate to if there is a problem?
You may be surprised how often there is misunderstanding on the process, and on people’s roles and actions within the process.
Keep in mind that this does not have to be a science project. Keep it simple! Find the misunderstandings and clarify them. Clarifying the process, roles and responsibilities will go a very long way in reducing friction in workflow and increasing productivity.
Connecting the people
Clarifying the process, and roles and responsibilities within it, is a major component to improving organizational performance. Shoring up people connections is a second major component.
Kates and Galbraith, in their book Designing Your Organization, refer to these as lateral connections. They call out four types; networks, teams, integrative roles (think point of contact / account owner) and matrix. These are listed in order of ease of implementation, with networks being easiest and a matrix being most difficult.
When considering people connections, go simple first. Rather than jump to the most difficult way to connect people, start with the simplest; a network.
Perhaps the people involved in the process just need to know one another and need to communicate occasionally. It is a common complaint that people don’t know the others involved in getting the work done, especially in processes that stretch geographic boundaries.
If more collaboration is called for, consider building that network into a team. Teams are more formal than networks, with defined roles, a common objective and established rules of conduct. Teams are a simple, popular and excellent bridging mechanism. Creating the right teams does not require a reorganization, everyone still reports to the same boss, they still work in the same group, but now they have a place (a team) where they are included and that has a common goal to accomplish a certain task.
The creation of integrative roles such as account managers is helpful if further connection and coordination is needed. If the work requires a significant amount of oversight and management, creating a role where a person manages that process across functions and handoffs may be required.
It is pretty common to hear people say, “we work in a matrixed organization.” A true matrix organization is difficult to establish and maintain. It requires a highly collaborative culture, especially at the management level. In a matrix organization, two managers are accountable for a common role. Together they set direction, objectives and goals for shared resources. At times they will need to set aside functional targets and goals and consider outcomes for the larger organization, and that can be much more difficult than it sounds.
Application to Company A
Let’s apply process and lateral connection solutions to Company A’s Training group. In its current decentralized form, there are sub teams embedded in different departments. They connect through an informal network that meets occasionally but there is little to no coordination of objectives, priorities or workflow. The director could reorganize and centralize the group. Instead, she decides to investigate the work process that the training teams are using. She learns that staff are operating under different assumptions. She also learns that they do not know their peers in the process and have different answers when asked who the decision maker on certain issues is. She tasks her management with getting staff clear on the process, roles and responsibilities.
Next our director looks at how her teams are integrating and what level of connection is appropriate to meet the needs of the company. She decides that the informal network is not working, and she needs her teams to be more tightly connected. She creates a Learning Council to increase the communication between the parent and sub teams and provide oversight of the training projects and workflow. The council is made up of leads from each team. Together they make decisions and manage the training workflow (which is now clarified and standardized) through all the teams and use an escalation process to raise appropriate issues to the director’s level.
Looking back, the Training Director realizes this was a lot of work, but operations are smoother, and customers are satisfied. She also realizes that focusing on process and lateral connections allows her organization to be more flexible; she can adjust the process and people connections quickly to meet changing demands on her organization.
Choose your tools wisely
The reorganization tool can get overused. Process and People Connections are powerful alternatives and they are not complicated to implement.
Focus on your process for getting work done, especially as work crosses structural boundaries. Ensure those involved in handoffs are super clear on their roles and responsibilities. Consider your people connections. Are the right people connected and in the right ways? Do you need an informal network to connect those involved in the process, or is more required such as establishing a team or special oversight role?
These mechanisms are easy to establish and can increase collaboration and productivity very quickly. Consider these organizational tools before pulling out the reorganization hammer!
You made it! This is the final installment in a 4-part series on reorganizations. The first article, Is A Reorganization Your Right Solution? provides success rate data and discusses what is behind the decision to reorganize. The second, You’ve Made the Decision to Reorganize, Now What? covers key roles and process steps involved in a reorganization. The third, Whoops — Don’t do that Again! Best Practices for your next Reorganization reviews best practices when conducting a reorganization. Each article is short and intended to provide you with information you can bring into your current thinking on your organization’s design and development.
